i'm in full agreement with the above post; i pop in to bloggingheads.tv every day hoping for a loury/mcwhorter appearance.

Loury seems to assume that things would have been better with his girl Clinton. Who herself was just as much a product of image vs. substance. (her alleged foreign policy "experience" consisted of a variety of trips as first lady).

thoughtful commentary. My current question: How come the identification of Obama as 'mixed race' is so underplayed. With his history and background, it is more accurate as a point in fact. This framing of Obama as "black" seems so....20th century, and limits the discussion to a backward looking context of black-only aspirations. this is a loss to the multi-cultural reality that is America 2008. Perhaps it also plays to 'ground' the perceptual argument, and to tamp down the post-race definition that polled so well in the primaries.

I was thinking the same thing. He is infatuated with Clinton and his anger towards Obama is obvious every diavlog. I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn. Also, Clarence Thomas is a horrible justice. He has not asked a question in over two years, who is an ideologue.

And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

Quoting miceelf: And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

I'm happy to have Obama be himself, miceelf.

I agree one minute - disagree the next. I see both sides - I see neither side. No matter - these two are the best. Bloggingheads. ever.

"The candidacy is so freighted..." Unlike Hillary's ? Glenn. Get fucking real.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: I I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn.

I can't fully fathom where Glenn stands politically. Knowing a little about his history and have read some of his work and listening to him on bhtv leaves me unsure? He is clearly focused on the meaning of politics. Not only does he find Obama's approach to politics suspect, if not bankrupt, he admires McCain's saber rattling (Georgia) and Joe Scarborough's regular guy shtik.
I sense a return to his earlier conservative roots, that he is not owning completely.
I think that he shares with John, but for different reasons, a desire to transcend racial politics. But, he can't be any clearer about his resentment of the "Hyde Parkness" that the Obama's represent to him.
He clearly thinks Mccain is "Presidential" enough. And when prompted by John to denounce the likely result of McCain's ascendancy... Nothing but crickets.
Maybe I do fathom his politics, after all.

Mr. Loury mentioned Andrew Bacevich as a prominent critic of the Global War on Terror. He has a new book out and would be a fantastic "get" for Bloggingheads. He's an impressive guy. Powers That Be, please consider approaching him to do a diavlog. Loury and McWhorter are two of my favorite Bloggingheads, and it is always a pleasure to watch them. McWhorter gives me real hope about a potential Obama presidency, in contrast to many of the other pro-Obama Bloggingheads. In this diavlog, however, Loury's point about the Clarence Thomas remark seems dead on. That seems like the last thing Obama would want to raise. Likewise, the whole "cone of silence" thing seems like the petty response of a campaign surprised by the strength of its opponent. Is it too much of a stretch to compare that to the reaction of the Clinton campaign when Obama emerged as a strong challenger? Maybe it is. A brief word on Star Wars... I don't consider myself to be quite the Stuff White People Like type, but if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up

Loury's reactions remind me of some Jewish friends back in 2000 with Lieberman. I remember them saying stuff like, "Who needs the trouble?", "Leave us Jews out of it," and "This is going to hurt us in the end." And I totally understand it. But Obama has too much going for him.

Fantastic. Great to be back in the wonderful world of high quality Bloggingheads discussion. I should've counted to ten yesterday and waited for my BhTV universe to be restored to its proper equilibrium once the pros came back. I take back what I said yesterday--you don't need people from both sides of the spectrum necessarily, just really smart, curious, engaged, thoughtful people. That's it. Smart people equals great discussions, and John and Glenn are at the top of the list. Its such a pleasure to listen to discourse like this--the ideas are the ones that really matter, and the use of language is word perfect. Thanks guys. I don't have literally all day to type out a response to the various arguments and points made, so a general lauding will have to do Alright, can't resist a couple things though First, that maybe John was a little harsh on Herbert--of course the guy is and knows he's smart, way smarter than the average person. Maybe on some level John has something, but I can't imagine Herbert or other African-Americans that are that smart actually thinking they're worse than others. I guess John is saying on some deep-seated psychological

Obama's fitness for the Presidency = Clarence Thomas' fitness for the Supreme Court. No, Glenn. I don't think so. If that made any sense at all, he'd already be toast and you'd be able to vote for your girl in November and wouldn't be harboring this bullshit bitterness toward Barack.

Apparently Glenn's subscription to the Atlantic has run out, or he'd be embarrassed by his persistent Clintonphilia. The funny thing about so much of this discourse is that it's predicated on the notion that Hillary was the smart pol and Obama was an idealistic naif. This turned out to be total bullshit - Hillary couldn't manage a goddam presidential political campaign, i.e. couldn't handle those 3am phone calls in the course of her quest, but Glenn still thinks she was the solution to whatever problems Democrats face. And I have to say that the discussion of Bob Herbert was unbelievably arrogant and guttersniping on the part of both of these guys.

On the "evil" thing - Obama was in a religious forum and he answered the question precisely as any Niebuhrian Christian would answer it in that context. Even Rick Warren, who's a lightweight theologically, "got it." McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons. But for "smart guys", both McWhorter and Loury are showing a certain cluelessness here.

These two are one of the best pairings on BHTV. Well, yes, one might indeed be pessimistic about Obama's chances. (I've been so for over a year now.) What's nice here is to get an airing of the realism underlying the pessimism, one which is not simply stuck in the themes unique to the Primary battle. (Nice to see McWhorter being so out-front about it.) (BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it. The Primary's over, and, no, that's not where Glenn is coming from here, so why slander him with that? Weren't you listening? He's just a realist who like many of us, refused to swig the kool-aid.) In spite of my pessimism about Obama, I hope he chooses Biden as VP (my original Primary preference who could have taken McCain to the cleaners, no problem), gets off his arrogance-and-artifice hobby-horse, and learns how to shoot real bullets. Otherwise, he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up. Thanks to both. Looking forward to the promised post-convention DV by these two. EW

I am far more over the primary than Loury appears to be. While it's impossible to know the heart of another, he stated he was supporting Clinton earlier numerous times, and his disproportionate bitterness must be coming from SOMEWHERE. I repeat. He's holding Obama to a standard he would not have had for any other politician, and certainly one that Clinton would never live up to. On one hand, he's upset that Obama didn't expositate on the deeper meanings underlying what we mean when we say evil, on the other hand, he admires John McCain's "straight talk" one line answers that contain nothing of substance whatsoever. I'm not a big fan of either of these guys, but Loury was always more sympathetic to me, even during the primaries. But this is getting old. The only way Obama matches Clarence Thomas is if one assumes everything that Clinton (and now McCain) said about him was true. Given that even she didn't believe half of what she was saying, Loury may be the only one who believes that.

if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up the Jar Jar Binks thing, as well as the other broad ethnic stereotyping

At the danger of getting a little off topic, my first reaction would have been irritation that Anakin destroys the enemy virtually by accident (same with Jar Jar on the ground). Second probably would have been that Jar Jar was just annoying. If we talked at length about it then we might get the racial stuff. So I have to agree with what John was saying. You might notice it, but to have it be the first thing you mention when someone asks you is a little much. BTW I'm a sucker for horns in music so I like the link you provided.

Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads. Check this out: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html Amy Suilivan is about as non-hysterical as you can find among pundits who follow these things. But she makes a clear-cut case for exactly the type of subliminal shit Herbert was talking about. This is Advertising 101 and to assume McCain's ad guys aren't deep into this is willfuly ignorant. McCain's team are playing ALL of the cards. Scoff at your peril.

Dear My Friends, Here's some straight talk: First off, McWhorter and Loury are both Muslims. Not Islamofascists, but more like Malcolm X types. Race this, race this. That's all they can talk about. It's divisive as heck, my friends. Un-American. My Friends, we are beyond so-called "race" in these UNITED States of America. My whole cabinet might be black. Or white maybe. Or purple. I'm color blind. (And a little hard of hearing, but no signs of dementia. Clean bill of health from my gerontologist.) I am glad these two did take Bob Herbert to task on my Britney/Paris ad. The ad had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, much less miscegenation, which, incidentally, I do not think should be illegal. How many times do I have to say that photomontages of B. Hussein Obama with young blonde sluts who are famous for oral sex porn tapes and/or getting photographed with their legs spread without panties are completely unrelated to black men and sex? Now, as for you, my friend Bcruds,

McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons.

I don't know what "hubristic" means in Mexican or whatever, but I am no moron. I didn't talk to Pastor Rick in complicated phraseologies and

Quoting brucds: Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads.

Check this out:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html

Amy Suilivan is about as non-hysterical as you can find among pundits who follow these things. But she makes a clear-cut case for exactly the type of subliminal shit Herbert was talking about. This is Advertising 101 and to assume McCain's ad guys aren't deep into this is willfuly ignorant. McCain's team are playing ALL of the cards. Scoff at your peril.

Glenn and John didn't even make a case against the subliminal implications of the imagery 101. What they expressed was their hang-ups about the implications of the complaint by a black man, and the further assosciation made by whites. They are more than smart enough to understand it, they just choose not to examine it and contend with it.
It will not be read by all people the same way. And no single interpretation is definitive. But to deny the possibility of effect of the subtext is willful ignorance for such esteemed observers.

For my good friend East West: Since I've sworn off the Kool-Aid, I've come to the realization tht I want more of those Progressive Democratic campaigns run by hyper-competent professional lobbyists for paragons of decency like Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. Also, we need more highly visible surrogates like Lanny Davis, who supported Joe Lieberman AFTER he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. I feel so much better now that I'm aligned with the serious progressives.

What a fantastic diavlog!!! Can´t wait for the sequel....

Five minutes in... Gosh, I don't think I've seen Glenn so happy in a long time. He seems positively ecstatic that Obama's prospects appear to be dwindling. I used to have a lot of respect for Glenn. Now he giggles with delight at the horrible fate that will befall the nation and the world when McCain -- who Glenn has been helping into the White House -- wins the election. I used to like Glenn. Hopefully Glenn shows some appropriate concern for the impending McCain administration in the remaining 50 minutes of this diavlog. Maybe after Glenn's efforts to destroy America's best chance to pull out of this 8 year nose dive succeeds, he will feel some remorse for his role in making it happen. Or maybe he'll just be more delighted.

Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads.

Check this out:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html

First off, let's get a little context. Here's the clip Glenn is talking about. I was watching Morning Joe when it came on too. Bob Herbert goes much farther than just the white women, black man claim and asserts that the tower is a phallic symbol and that it is the Tower of Pisa and the Washington Monument when it's actually the Victory Column that Obama gave a speech at in Berlin. And that made him look ridiculous. By the way, why did you link to an article about a different McCain ad? I assume that you are arguing that if he did it in one ad, he did it in this one, but you don't really make that clear. Besides couldn't the "crying wolf" argument be made here? It might be better to ignore the ad about which a rather tenuous argument could be made and focus on the one which a better argument could be made.

The more I consider the context of polling, the demonstrated competence of the respective campaigns, the ingrained qualities of the candidates and the competing ground games being put into place, the more I'm convinced that John McCain has an rendevous with Destiny come November. He's going to be the Greatest Spokesman Ever for Viagra.

I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch. What I do know that it's unlikely any image in these ads is accidental. Sullivan's article makes what I consider a compelling case that the people doing McCain's ads are tapping deep in the gutter of gross pathologies that afflict various and sundry of the GOP base. "We are operating on many levels here."

Quoting brucds: I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch.

What I do know that it's unlikely any image in these ads is accidental. Sullivan's article makes what I consider a compelling case that the people doing McCain's ads are tapping deep in the gutter of gross pathologies that afflict various and sundry of the GOP base. "We are operating on many levels here."

Personally, I found Herbert's case reasonable. There's no way to prove what was in the mind of the scummy Republicans who made it, but as you say, these are Republicans we're talking about; they would be perfectly happy to inject subliminal racism into the campaign. Racism is the lifeblood of the Republican Party. I have to admit, it's painful to watch Glenn Loury doing the work of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and George Wallace, doing whatever he can to smash our hopes of keeping McCain out of the White House, and three more Scalias

I think John is way too optimistic. Mark my words: within a few election after Obama's (nearly certain) loss, the Great Mentioner will put into play another African-American candidate--let's call him Cory Booker for the sake of discussion--who in addition to being charismatic and inspirational, has a record not as a community "organizer," but as a community leader, but with none the brie-and-chardonnay Marxism. The Democratic party, being what it is, will say a) been there, done that, it didn't work, so let's not try again; b) it's another group's turn, and we have this terrific Hispanic lesbian from a swing state. Not pessimistic yet? I have more...

Quoting Eastwest: These two are one of the best pairings on BHTV.

Well, yes, one might indeed be pessimistic about Obama's chances. (I've been so for over a year now.)

What's nice here is to get an airing of the realism underlying the pessimism, one which is not simply stuck in the themes unique to the Primary battle. (Nice to see McWhorter being so out-front about it.)

(BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it. The Primary's over, and, no, that's not where Glenn is coming from here, so why slander him with that? Weren't you listening? He's just a realist who like many of us, refused to swig the kool-aid.)

In spite of my pessimism about Obama, I hope he chooses Biden as VP (my original Primary preference who could have taken McCain to the cleaners, no problem), gets off his arrogance-and-artifice hobby-horse, and learns how to shoot real bullets. Otherwise, he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up.

Thanks to both. Looking forward to the promised post-convention

Quoting graz: Glenn and John didn't even make a case against the subliminal implications of the imagery 101. What they expressed was their hang-ups about the implications of the complaint by a black man, and the further assosciation made by whites. They are more than smart enough to understand it, they just choose not to examine it and contend with it.
It will not be read by all people the same way. And no single interpretation is definitive. But to deny the possibility of effect of the subtext is willful ignorance for such esteemed observers.

I've often wondered what the true motivations of Glenn were. Even he doesn't seem willing to go there most of the time even with some real prodding. He'd rather tear down Obama's motives and actions than look into his own psyche. I also read the NY Times profile and I was struck by his own lack of awareness on his change in politics. But we do know he'd rather enjoys fluffing the Clinton's.

He's going to be the Greatest Spokesman Ever for Viagra.

More like Advil. Watch his facial expression when he tries to raise his arms.

Quoting TwinSwords: Personally, I found Herbert's case reasonable. There's no way to prove what was in the mind of the scummy Republicans who made it, but as you say, these are Republicans we're talking about; they would be perfectly happy to inject subliminal racism into the campaign. Racism is the lifeblood of the Republican Party.

The biggest problem with Herbert's argument was that the towers were not cut ins of the leaning tower. They were in fact the Victory Tower, which stood or shall we say, was erected behind Obama during his Berlin speech. There was no subliminal message with the towers.

Racism is the lifeblood of the Republican Party.

Twinswords: I suggest you watch Clarence Page's C-SPAN interview Bruce Bartlett about his new book. It's never too late to fill some of the gaps in your education. http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?P...&PlayMedia=Yes

Quoting Xelgaex: asserts that the tower is [...] the Tower of Pisa and the Washington Monument

It's true he mixed it up with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but it's not true he said it was the Washington Monument. Why are you claiming he did?

Quoting TwinSwords: Personally, I found Herbert's case reasonable. There's no way to prove what was in the mind of the scummy Republicans who made it, but as you say, these are Republicans we're talking about; they would be perfectly happy to inject subliminal racism into the campaign. Racism is the lifeblood of the Republican Party.

I thought Herbert made a reasonable case too. Instead of dismissing his argument as mere quackery I wish Glenn and John had answered Herbert's question: what were these phallic symbols doing in the ad? If John thinks this was a coincidence I suggest he psycho-analyze himself.

Quoting Namazu: Twinswords: I suggest you watch Clarence Page's C-SPAN interview Bruce Bartlett about his new book. It's never too late to fill some of the gaps in your education.

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?P...&PlayMedia=Yes

Oh, how interesting. Thank you for the link. Tell me, does Clarance Page bring Holy Water to wash away the Republicans' 40 years of racial politics? Or does he wave a wand to make it magically disappear? However he does it, it's quite a feat! I wish my side had some liberal magicians who could make us immune to the gutter politics of hate praticed by your side. I'm not exactly sure how one black Republican can absolve the Republican Party of what it has been doing methodically for four decades, but this just reveals my underlying refusal to recognize the Republican power to rewrite history.

Perhaps John and Glenn can appear just once and not talk about race. Is that possible? Growing up I can count on one hand the number of times I heard my parents discuss race. However, they did not have PH.D.'s, nor attend church, and made their living in sales. John

Quoting grits-n-gravy: If John thinks this was a coincidence I suggest he psycho-analyze himself.

Read some of the earlier comments. Maybe you need to psycho-analyze yourself. ;-)

It's true he mixed it up with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but it's not true he said it was the Washington Monument. Why are you claiming he did?

It's in the clip I linked to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkOADdNSr-o (Maybe I should have left it as an address in my original comment instead of making it a hyper-link using "Here's") Listen from 1:48 to 2:00 into it. It didn't come up in the diavlog, but it was in the Morning Joe show that they were talking about. For a little bit when I read your comment, I was afraid that I was just remembering it from the morning I watched it, and it wasn't in the clip. So I had to listen to it again. I think the reason that I mentioned it when John and Glenn didn't is because when I was watching Morning Joe, I remember thinking that you could mistake the column for the Tower of Pisa. (There is a shot where the camera is tilted so the column looks to be leaning.) But I didn't see anything in there that looked like the Washington Monument. So it stuck in my mind. I also remembered it because I had heard the argument

Quoting TwinSwords: Five minutes in...

Gosh, I don't think I've seen Glenn so happy in a long time. He seems positively ecstatic that Obama's prospects appear to be dwindling.

I used to have a lot of respect for Glenn. Now he giggles with delight at the horrible fate that will befall the nation and the world when McCain -- who Glenn has been helping into the White House -- wins the election.

I'd be interested to hear if you felt the same way after watching the whole thing. I started watching this diavlog with your advance notice in mind. I can see why you'd have that reaction, but I didn't share it completely. I saw Glenn as getting the knife in a little bit in the beginning -- "I hate to say I tooooooooold you so" -- but I didn't see that as a persistent theme. I found most of his thoughts well-founded. I did think he occasionally gave made claims that seemed based on cherry-picked evidence, and at other times, placed too much weight on small moments. I also think, as others have said (miceelf particularly well) and as I have said before, that Glenn holds Obama to a higher standard than he does other candidates -- there

Quoting Namazu: ... we have this terrific Hispanic lesbian from a swing state.

You Bill Richardson dead-enders are worse than the PUMA people.

Quoting Eastwest: (BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it.

I think you need to clear your browser's cache. You seem to be reading old forum pages. Apart from reacting to Glenn's comments in this diavlog, no one has said boo about HRC in weeks, if not months. You know who needs to "get over it?" You and Glenn. The more we learn about her campaign and observe how her top aides are behaving now, the more obvious it is what a bullet we dodged.

Great post overall, miceelf. In particular:

Quoting miceelf: On one hand, he's [Glenn's] upset that Obama didn't expositate on the deeper meanings underlying what we mean when we say evil, on the other hand, he admires John McCain's "straight talk" one line answers that contain nothing of substance whatsoever.

I'd call that a major ZING!

Quoting ohcomeon: I agree one minute - disagree the next. I see both sides - I see neither side. No matter - these two are the best. Bloggingheads. ever.

Stop stealing my thoughts!

Mr. Mayhem: Thanks for this recommendation:

Mr. Loury mentioned Andrew Bacevich as a prominent critic of the Global War on Terror. He has a new book out and would be a fantastic "get" for Bloggingheads. He's an impressive guy. Powers That Be, please consider approaching him to do a diavlog.

And this:

... check out Black Landlord ...

I can heartily second the second. I was delighted to find out that I didn't have a SWPL-type reaction to Jar Jar. Who knew anyone would bother to read anything into that character? I found him the most annoying thing ever to disgrace a movie screen, and quickly devoted my Jedi powers to wiping all memories of him from my mind.

Instead of dismissing his argument as mere quackery I wish Glenn and John had answered Herbert's question: what were these phallic symbols doing in the ad?

I have one question for you, my Friend Grits: What is wrong with a good red-blooded, Grade A, American phallus? Nothing wrong with mine, thank you very much! (Unlike presidential loser Bob Dole who made Viagra commercials, heh-heh.) This whole anti-man, chop-down-the-totem pole stuff started back in the 60s. While I was busy flying napalm missions against the Cong, the degenerate hippies and draft dodgers back home were burning their bras, spitting on our soldiers, smoking LSD and complaining about the male chauvinist patriarchy. That's a buncha bull, Grits. Trust me, the Founding Fathers had phalluses. Take a gander at the Washington Monument, if you doubt me. That's one big phallus! God Bless America, Grits. There's nothing wrong with a country that can still get it up and hunt Obama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

Quoting Namazu: Not pessimistic yet? I have more...

More of that? Might wanna put an ad up on craigslist if you really need to make room.

Quoting brucds: I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch.

What I do know that it's unlikely any image in these ads is accidental. Sullivan's article makes what I consider a compelling case that the people doing McCain's ads are tapping deep in the gutter of gross pathologies that afflict various and sundry of the GOP base. "We are operating on many levels here."

I agree that Sullivan's article makes a compelling case. The ad is obviously saying he thinking he is the Messiah. And if you are a Christian and don't think that he is the Second Coming, then maybe he's someone else who many believe will someday make the claim. I was raised Christian so the Antichrist connection was one of the first things I thought when I first saw the ad. I couldn't believe no one on TV seemed to be saying it. It seemed kinda obvious to me that the McCain campaign was trying to

I'm not exactly sure how one black Republican can absolve the Republican Party

I don't think Clarence Page is a Republican; I know I'm not. You seem strangely attached to fact-free analysis.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: Read some of the earlier comments. Maybe you need to psycho-analyze yourself. ;-)

I read your comment and it seems to me you misunderstood Herbert's premise. It's not whether the towers were cut-ins or not but rather their juxtaposition to two blond, white women.

Quoting TwinSwords: It's true he mixed it up with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but it's not true he said it was the Washington Monument. Why are you claiming he did?

Here is a link to the video in which he claims there are shots of the Washington monument and the leaning tower. In point of fact it is the victory tower the location of the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTIIPblBcYM

Well said Brendan. I'd add that the media also seems to be forgetting the fact that they, in part, help frame the conversation that Americans have over the race. While I admit that Obama is undoubtedly more interesting to talk about than McCain, this endless focus on every way in which Obama is less than perfect, and this continual magnification of his anticipated plight and why the voters are "rejecting" him (even when he still leads in polls, albeit by a slim margin) smells awfully familiar to what happened in previous elections. The media repeats the "Americans won't elect this guy" enough times until it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy. There's obviously alot more that goes into the result of an election, but I'm still somewhat dismayed that people like Bob Wright and Glenn (people who I admire for their ability to see the bigger picture) don't seem to recognize that they are contributing to a possible phenomenon (potential over-amplified focus on Obama's shortcomings) that may ultimately sabotage the hopes of many of their deepest concerns by helping McCain get elected. As someone who has a firm

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I fear that we are going to find ourselves in the midst of an abysmal McCain administration, and everyone will wake up from this Democratic canabilistic orgy, hungover and asking themselves "what have we done?" The endless litanies of Obama-bashing are going to look from that perspective like the Maureen Dowd obsessions of Gore in 2000. Worstly, when McCain starts showing the real "straight talk" people will wonder (like with Bush) "why didn't anybody ask any questions about THIS guy?"

Can we please get some critical discussion of McCain at some point?!!

Indeed. I think Mickey has gotten to Bob.

Perhaps the question they should really be asking, if your scenario comes about, is why do the Democrats always let the left wing of their party choose their candidates with this ridicules proportional voting schemes and caucus system that favors the activists?

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps the question they should really be asking, if your scenario comes about, is why do the Democrats always let the left wing of their party choose their candidates with this ridicules proportional voting schemes and caucus system that favors the activists?

As far as the left wing of the Democratic party is concerned, Obama was more centrist than Kucinich, Gavel, Dodd, and Edwards. And even Clinton, if you cared most about health care. And really, given the way the wingnuts own the Republican Party, you've got no place to stand in talking about "activists."

Quoting bjkeefe: I think you need to clear your browser's cache. You seem to be reading old forum pages. Apart from reacting to Glenn's comments in this diavlog, no one has said boo about HRC in weeks, if not months.

Actually, since the current diavlog is what I was commenting upon, those responses are precisely what I was referring to (6 of first 15 posts devoted to the big sneer at HRC who hasn't been particularly relevant since early June). Why waste the time? What you guys are failing to notice is that Loury was doing a critique of how Obama is campaigning against McCain and seeking the votes of those not already in his own camp. But, no, folks have to keep whining about history when the issue is Obama's stupid approach to how to win the General. Anything but deal with the issues with which you are confronted. Obama's campaigning like an ego-maniac amateur and condescending egghead and so he's just screwing himself when he didn't need to go about it that way at all. Aside from the starry-eyed members of his base, he is still perceived as artificial and insincere by the

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Well said Brendan. I'd add that the media also seems to be forgetting the fact that they, in part, help frame the conversation that Americans have over the race. While I admit that Obama is undoubtedly more interesting to talk about than McCain, this endless focus on every way in which Obama is less than perfect, and this continual magnification of his anticipated plight and why the voters are "rejecting" him (even when he still leads in polls, albeit by a slim margin) smells awfully familiar to what happened in previous elections. The media repeats the "Americans won't elect this guy" enough times until it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy. There's obviously alot more that goes into the result of an election, but I'm still somewhat dismayed that people like Bob Wright and Glenn (people who I admire for their ability to see the bigger picture) don't seem to recognize that they are contributing to a possible phenomenon (potential over-amplified focus on Obama's shortcomings) that may ultimately sabotage the hopes of many of their deepest concerns by helping McCain get elected. As someone who has a firm

Quoting bjkeefe: As far as the left wing of the Democratic party is concerned, Obama was more centrist than Kucinich, Gavel, Dodd, and Edwards. And even Clinton, if you cared most about health care.

And really, given the way the wingnuts own the Republican Party, you've got no place to stand in talking about "activists."

Edward left by convince only, Kucinich, Gavel odd balls without a prayer, Dodd who I thought might be a good candidate so you can bet he didn't stand a chance in the primaries, your one example of Clinton with health care is not representative of her how she is/was perceived. I guess that you can say the Senator McCain behind McCain-Fingold, McCain-Kennedy and his immigration stand are issues where he was pandering to the "wingnuts" and that why he is the presumptive nominee.

Glenn, my father passed away before I was mature enough to have a real conversation about politics with him. Hearing you describe your debates with your son about Obama put a wistful smile on my face. Thanks.

[quote=TwinSwords;87975] (Referring to the Eastwest post) One of the challenges the Democrats face, one of the reasons it's hard for us to win presidential elections, is because people like you and Glenn want us to lose. [EW: This is Fox News style jive.] Every bit of energy you and he invest in this campaign is intended to weaken the candidate. You might as well be a Republican. You're the functional equivalent of a wingnut. Perhaps worse, as attacks on two flanks are more difficult to contend with than attacks on just one. Nothing seems to lift your and Glenn's spirits or bolster your self-regard as much as bad news for Democrats. Heck, even when there is no bad news for Obama -- he's been leading all summer [EW: "Screwing up all summer" is more like it.] , albeit by a slowly declining margin -- you crow about how he's losing. It's people like you who are going to doom this country to three more Scalia's on the Supreme Court and an irreversibly entrenched Republican fascism. For the life of me I don't understand why that makes men like you and Glenn so gosh darned happy. Here's the deal: It's not

pisc:

... odd balls without a prayer ...

Which sort of undercuts your claim that the far left controls the Democratic Party, doesn't it? As for why McCain got the nomination this year, even you will have to admit that there are four reasons: the other wingnuts favorites knocked each other out, McCain pandered shamelessly to the religious right (including making up heart-warming stories, apparently), he sucked up to Bush starting years ago, and a few PR moments to build the "Maverick" image aside, he's always been far to the right himself.

EW: You can't even keep your bile flowing in the same direction. One the one hand, according to you, this board is a "miniscule [sic] puddle" "read almost solely by perhaps a hundred little minnows" who "assume they're [sic] chatter is somehow consequential even though, of course, it's not, not, not." On the other, you get wildly bent out of shape when three (3) people say something unflattering about Clinton in response to the diavlog. As you say: "Again, get over it. We're talking about now." And yet you still have that stupid line in your sig. Make up your mind.

John and Glenn are great.
I do disagree with John on the question of Obama's remark about opposition to "people who look like me." I think it was laziness on Obama's part. I think he was on autopilot and just rambled into some rhetoric from a previous time in his campaign when the remark could not be affixed to a specific opponent. But now we all know that his opponent is John McCain and Obama's remark left the McCain campaign with BOTH the obligation and the opportunity to take a swipe at Obama. McCain had the obligation to clear his name because, regardless of Obama's intent, the effect of the remark was as an accusation of McCain. Additionally, this is the hardest hardball game in American politics (running for president) and Obama dished out a perfect meatball pitch right down the middle of the plate. If McCain had done the equivalent for Obama, the Obama campaign would have clobbered it too, as they surely tried to exploit those sorts of things in the campaign against Hillary and Bill. The "people who look like me" remark was Obama's goof, because he

BJ: We'll just have to agree to disagree. So you go back to the cheerleading squad and I'll keep calling them the way I see them. BTW, your characterization of "wildly bent out of shape" is way off the mark. I only happened to mention parenthetically how the thread was starting right out refusing to acknowledge or deal with Loury's numerous valid points, preferring instead to "shoot the messenger" and engage in Clinton-Pique-Syndrome. (McWhorter & Loury both point this out as unjustified and old, old, old.) And then I countered TS's rant about what a sin it is for people like Loury, myself, and countless others to criticize what has indeed been unskillful campaigning. I think what's becoming increasingly obvious is that the Obamaphiles are starting to suffer acute humiliation and embarrassment for having exercised such ridiculously poor judgement and so, rather than accept responsibility for being so foolishly naive, they get "wildly bent out of shape" and rush to the ramparts to shoot reality's ever-more-numerous massed troops laying siege to their goofy dream. They should have just had the sense to go for Biden a year ago and they wouldn't have this problem

Dear My Friend East West, Here's some straight talk:

he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up.

You are 101 per cent right about B. Hussein Obama. Completely juiceless dead meat con artist. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for your support. I am reaching across the aisle to shake your hand. You are a great pundit and patriot. God Bless America,
John

EW: We'll just have to agree to disagree. So I'll continue to support my candidate and you go back to carping from your little hovel of bitterness.

Quoting John M: Dear My Friend East West,

You are a great pundit and patriot.

God Bless America,
John

JM, Really, you are too kind. (Who is this guy, anyway? He's weirder and a good deal more suspect than that Thomson fellow from some months back. I think maybe they're the same, using multiple identities.) No, I'm not a pundit. I just have little tolerance for political idolatry and so am prone to comment accordingly. And, no, I'm not a "patriot," either (in any conventional sense of the term), as, although I might well be willing to die in attempting (nonviolently) to protect somebody from my country, I would surely never be willing to kill anyone for my country. Fall-back position: Biden-Obama 2008. (My ticket-order is intentional, hoping against hope that Obama will, out of an uncharacteristic flush of humility and realism, allow the rest of his campaign and subsequent administration(s) to be strongly informed by the counsel of a wiser VP candidate.) EW

Quoting bjkeefe: EW:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

So I'll continue to support my candidate and you go back to carping from your little hovel of bitterness.

Well, frankly, few things would make me more happy than if Obama would please quit giving us real Democrats so damn many excuses for carping. I'd be happy to praise his finesse if he'd ever get around to displaying any. And, no, I'm not bitter. I'm just so stunned that Obama, sitting pretty ever since early June for what should really be a fairly easy cruise to the White House, loads up both six-shooters and, so unnecessarily, just keeps drilling himself in the foot all summer. And I just shudder to think what kinds of IEDs that jack-ass ex-preacher of his is going to set out for Obama with his October book release. (Yep, good ol Rev. Wright is going to get his revenge for being left in the ditch [where he belongs, I dare say].) And, BJ: "hovel of bitterness"? Come on, man. Rise above it. Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little

McWhorter & Loury are great. We could use a lot more of their perspective in this campaign. This kind of clearheadedness is all too rare in the '08 election season.

Quoting Eastwest: Well, frankly, few things would make me more happy than if Obama would please quit giving us real Democrats so damn many excuses for carping. I'd be happy to praise his finesse if he'd ever get around to displaying any.

And, no, I'm not bitter. I'm just so stunned that Obama, sitting pretty ever since early June for what should really be a fairly easy cruise to the White House, loads up both six-shooters and, so unnecessarily, just keeps drilling himself in the foot all summer.

Real Democrats? Seriously? As someone who's never been 'the real' anything in a political process, I just gotta say that dealing with folks like you is a necessary evil. When we've got a two party system, no one gets to call themselves authentic, though plenty try anyway. Christ, I feel like our whole lives are spent dealing with the fools who think of themselves as the Real Americans or the Real Progressives or the Real Patriots. And the only thing those groups consistently have in common is their desperate need for validation.

Quoting John M: Dear My Friend East West,

Here's some straight talk:

You are 101 per cent right about B. Hussein Obama. Completely juiceless dead meat con artist. I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for your support. I am reaching across the aisle to shake your hand. You are a great pundit and patriot.

God Bless America,
John

Good try, my friend John M. The intellectual crowd is tough. You may need to change your tactic or perish... It's the Internets after all! Love your enemy.
Ocean

Quoting Eastwest:
And, BJ: "hovel of bitterness"? Come on, man. Rise above it. Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little guy.

EW

This from the person who said: "what's becoming increasingly obvious is that the Obamaphiles are starting to suffer acute humiliation and embarrassment for having exercised such ridiculously poor judgement and so, rather than accept responsibility for being so foolishly naive, they get "wildly bent out of shape" and rush to the ramparts to shoot reality's ever-more-numerous massed troops laying siege to their goofy dream." Hovel of bitterness requires a good deal less psychoanalysis than does that bit of babble. But back and forth aside- Loury (and it seems you) are holding Obama to an impossible standard. As I noted, he simultaneously criticized Obama for not being nuanced enough (!!!!) about evil while praising McCain for his snappy and empty one-liners. It would be great if Loury (and you) were pleased with anything Obama did. But I just don't see how it can happen. If the only way he can please you is to step down, then

Obama should watch this diavlog.

Quoting John M: I have one question for you, my Friend Grits: What is wrong with a good red-blooded, Grade A, American phallus?

Nothing wrong with mine, thank you very much! (Unlike presidential loser Bob Dole who made Viagra commercials, heh-heh.)

This whole anti-man, chop-down-the-totem pole stuff started back in the 60s. While I was busy flying napalm missions against the Cong, the degenerate hippies and draft dodgers back home were burning their bras, spitting on our soldiers, smoking LSD and complaining about the male chauvinist patriarchy. That's a buncha bull, Grits.

Trust me, the Founding Fathers had phalluses. Take a gander at the Washington Monument, if you doubt me. That's one big phallus!

God Bless America, Grits. There's nothing wrong with a country that can still get it up and hunt Obama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

I wonder how many of those draft dodgers who were morally opposed to the war were primarily afraid to serve and their moral opposition to the war was a ruse? I know of a few who were of this ilk and they had no opposition to become car carrying capitalists in this (in their prior opinion) immoral country. John

EW:

Just because somebody doesn't approve of your horse in the big race doesn't mean you have to go all goofy with these unjustified imputations. Maybe chill a little guy. Take a break from the keyboard and go to the beach, perhaps? You Obama disciples really do seem to take yourselves so seriously here.

I feel the same way about you. You're locked into your own narrative and have no compunction about replaying it at every drop of a hat. You never do anything but caricature those of us who prefer to push back against the rightwing smear machine, the perennial Democratic dithering, and a media that would rather obsess over minor shortcomings than address the giant failings of John McCain. You are unable to grasp the idea that anyone could simply prefer one candidate over another and might wish to speak up on his behalf and in his defense. Instead, because things aren't perfectly to your liking, you insist on pompously pronouncing your dissatisfactions with the candidate who is closer to sharing what you claim are your views, rather than acknowledging just how much worse

Quoting bkjazfan: I wonder how many of those draft dodgers who were morally opposed to the war were primarily afraid to serve and their moral opposition to the war was a ruse? I know of a few who were of this ilk and they had no opposition to become car carrying capitalists in this (in their prior opinion) immoral country.

John

You might ask the same question of those draftees who served against their moral reservations. Were they cowards for not opposing the draft and taking whatever consequences that may befall such persons?

Quoting brucds: I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch. "

I really don't appreciate your calling Britney & Paris "sluts." They are not sluts --- yes, they have sexy personas, but that does not make them "sluts." Furthermore, I find calling young women who enjoy sex to be demeaning & sexist. Why are female pop stars ridiculed and derided as "sluts," yet young male pop stars are not? It is time that the sexual double standard end!! It is perfectly normal for young people to enjoy sex. People are no longer marrying at 18, so it's obvious that there is more pre-marital sex, but that does not make us "slutty."

Quoting laurelnyc: I really don't appreciate your calling Britney & Paris "sluts." They are not sluts --- yes, they have sexy personas, but that does not make them "sluts." Furthermore, I find calling young women who enjoy sex to be demeaning & sexist. Why are female pop stars ridiculed and derided as "sluts," yet young male pop stars are not? It is time that the sexual double standard end!! It is perfectly normal for young people to enjoy sex. People are no longer marrying at 18, so it's obvious that there is more pre-marital sex, but that does not make us "slutty."

Laurel, as much as I may want to agree with you, I must say this has nothing to do with young people having sex. I don't know if these two women are sluts or not, frankly I don't care. I don't like the use of the word slut, since it has a somewhat ambiguous meaning. But if I had to use the word applied to someone, I would easily pick Britney and Paris. The word "slut" doesn't demean them, they demean themselves. They are brainless vulgar exhibitionists who have absolutely nothing to say that would inspire any respect. They represent the saddest stereotype of the empty headed Barbie

I'm also a big fan of John and Glenn. However, I find it hard to believe that John can be so easily swept off his feet by a politician. So my question is: John, can you clarify exactly how and through what kind of policies would an Obama presidency be "transformative"? During the podcast you briefly mentioned the New Deal as an example, but I'm sure you know that there are critics on both sides and for some the New Deal was seen as disastrous policy, in practice.

Dear My Georgian Friend Bk,

I wonder how many of those draft dodgers who were morally opposed to the war were primarily afraid to serve and their moral opposition to the war was a ruse?

I wonder too! That is why Sen. Lieberman and I are introducing cross-the-aisle bipartisan straight-talk legislation to disenfranchise these traitors and send them back to the Canucks. If you're scared to fight, why should you be allowed to vote, or even live here? Obama is a yellow-belly. He claims he was too young to serve in Nam. But do the math. B. Hussein Obama was fourteen years old the year the Vietnam War ended. That's plenty old enough for Junior ROTC. Of course, there was no JROTC program at the Madrassah in Syria that he attended. But that because his mother, an atheist commie, and his Al Qaeda step-dad chose to live in Damascus. They're both dead now, but Cheney assures me he's keeping them on the No Fly list, just in case. God Bless America,
John

Quoting Eastwest: TS:

I can appreciate why it rankles that Dem cats don't herd very well and continue to call out jive and artifice when it's obvious.

You're right. Dem cats don't herd very well. It's as Brendan said recently:

Quoting Brendan: It's funny how the wingnuts like to talk about the left as some monolithic body of thought, when it's patently obvious that for the past thirty years at least, when it comes to winning elections, [the circular firing squade has] been our biggest failing.

Note: "the circular firing squad" is my own paraphrase for Brendan's pronoun "this." EW: It's not that other people don't share your moral purity. It's just that some people feel the frying pan is better than the fire. I'll take three more Clinton-like Supreme Court nominees and one more Clinton-style war over three more Scalia's and three wars of McCain's choosing. I see a big difference there, even if Obama is the empty ditz you say he is.

Quoting EastWest: But let's get real: Maybe a few thousand votes (max) would get influenced by Loury's having to laugh to keep from crying in his observations of Obama's pomposity, artifice, and amateurishness. Maybe a dozen (max) would ever be influenced by my

I really don't appreciate your calling Britney & Paris "sluts." They are not sluts.

Thank you, Laurel! Only the liberal pro-porn anti-family, anti-life culture would portray two wholesome American gals like Paris and Britney as "s-word." Ms. Spears and Ms. Hilton are fine Americans. The Hiltons are contributors to my campaign, and Britney has assured me that no one in her family going back 8 generations has ever voted for anyone, much less a Democrat. Our red-blooded American troops overseas ADORE Britney and Paris, and a member of our glorious Armed Forces would never admire a slut (pardon my French) or besmirch our uniform by even thinking dirty thoughts about a white girl. Here's some straight talk: The point of that ad was to show that Obama is too old to be president. He doesn't get the younger generation. The kids today like to drink lots of American beer, buy stuff at the mall on 30 different Visa cards, and pierce their private parts with flag pins. B. Hussein Obama is out of touch. I may be chronologically older but I'm way cooler. Have you heard me imitate the Beach Boys? Ba-ba-bomb Iran. That's not old, it's retro, baby. God Bless America, Laurel.
Thank you for your

Quoting Xelgaex: It's in the clip I linked to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkOADdNSr-o (Maybe I should have left it as an address in my original comment instead of making it a hyper-link using "Here's") Listen from 1:48 to 2:00 into it. It didn't come up in the diavlog, but it was in the Morning Joe show that they were talking about. For a little bit when I read your comment, I was afraid that I was just remembering it from the morning I watched it, and it wasn't in the clip. So I had to listen to it again.

I think the reason that I mentioned it when John and Glenn didn't is because when I was watching Morning Joe, I remember thinking that you could mistake the column for the Tower of Pisa. (There is a shot where the camera is tilted so the column looks to be leaning.) But I didn't see anything in there that looked like the Washington Monument. So it stuck in my mind.

Okay, my mistake. I should have rewatched it before posting, but I had one foot out the door and didn't have time. In any event, thank you for saving me the trouble of re-watching the entire thing now by providing the

Quoting radmul: Here is a link to the video in which he claims there are shots of the Washington monument and the leaning tower. In point of fact it is the victory tower the location of the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTIIPblBcYM

Thanks for the link. My mistake. Still, I think it's a stupid mix-up that has nothing to do with larger — and largely correct — point that Herbert was attempting to make. Remember, this is Pig Man Scarborough's show. Articulate liberals don't get seats on his set. You understand why Alan Colmes was chosen to be the House Liberal on Fox News: Because he's weak and ineffective. That's the kind of liberal that conservatives have been putting on television for decades. This is about the level of challenge that conservatives can stand:

Quoting Namazu: I don't think Clarence Page is a Republican.

Oh, oof, stupid mistake on my part RE Page. The problem is that when I realized you were making excuses for (or, denying, really) the last 40 years of Republican racism, I kind of tuned out the rest of your post. But yes, I know Bartlett, and I heard all about his preposterous "it's the Democrats who are the real racists" thesis when it was still a Wall Street Journal op-ed. And despite your suggestions to the contrary, I'm well aware that the Democratic Party was the party of white supremacists before Republicans stole that franchise from them in the 1960s -- long before many of the people who are reading this were even born. If you want to condemn the Democratic Party's historical racism, I'll be the first to join you. But those days are long past, as you are most certainly aware. During the 1960's the Democrats became the party of civil rights and racial inclusiveness, and this was the political calculation that shifted the solid Democratic south to the solid Republican south. It's what lead to the steady migration of racists from the D party to the R party. Of course, this

Quoting TwinSwords: But yes, I know Bartlett, and I heard all about his preposterous "it's the Democrats who are the real racists" thesis when it was still a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Don't forget his bhtv appearance:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9394
The comments are interesting too.

Quoting John M: If you're scared to fight, why should you be allowed to vote, or even live here?
God Bless America,
John

Did I hear you clearly today on the campaign trail, when you agreed with the town hall participant who called for a new military draft?

Dear My Friend Graz,

Did I hear you clearly today on the campaign trail, when you agreed with the town hall participant who called for a new military draft?

That was quite some time ago, Paisano My Friend Graz, so I can't quite remember what I said. But I'll give you some STRAIGHT TALK about where I'll be heading on Day One as Commander-in-Chief. I've got a date with Obama bin Laden, Graz. I'll be bringing him back, dead or alive from the Gates of Hell!!!
God Bless America,
John

Quoting John M: Our red-blooded American troops overseas ADORE Britney and Paris, and a member of our glorious Armed Forces would never admire a slut (pardon my French) or besmirch our uniform by even thinking dirty thoughts about a white girl.

That explains why sexual assaults against women in the military is an epidemic. Rather than 'thinking dirty thoughts' those red-blooded american patriots are about doing dirty actions. Sexual assaults in the military

Quoting olmeta: Cancel all the other Obama / race in America commentators scheduled for upcoming diavlogs. These guys are in another league.

They are my absolute favorites -- I love the way they listen to and respond to one another.

Quoting Unit: I'm also a big fan of John and Glenn. However, I find it hard to believe that John can be so easily swept off his feet by a politician. So my question is: John, can you clarify exactly how and through what kind of policies would an Obama presidency be "transformative"? During the podcast you briefly mentioned the New Deal as an example, but I'm sure you know that there are critics on both sides and for some the New Deal was seen as disastrous policy, in practice.

I'd recommend watching the past diavlogs between John and Glenn. Minor reason: John has stated that life is too short for him to read comments, so you're unlikely to get a direct answer. Major reason: His views have been an interesting evolution to watch, and he's answered your question in a number of ways over the course of those conversations.

Well, as I said, I've followed all of their conversations. This last one seemed a bit over-board with romanticizing the influence of the presidency. But maybe it's just me...

Unit:

Well, as I said, I've followed all of their conversations.

Didn't see where you said that. But okay.

This last one seemed a bit over-board with romanticizing the influence of the presidency. But maybe it's just me...

No way to settle that. For the record, I happen to agree with John that the president can serve as an incredibly powerful and affective symbol.

Quote taken from John around 19:30. "Yes, Barack Obama is not as qualified as a great many people and he would be kind of a gamble...." Did anyone else react to this comment? I have watched many of the John/Glenn diavlogs, and am aware that the above comment sprung from Obama's Clarence Thomas comment, but I had a hard time with this off the cuff remark by John. Kerry didn't do it. Was he more qualified?
Gore didn't do it. Was he more qualified?
Bush did it TWICE....was/is he more qualified? John said he likes to get into people's heads. I'd like to get inside John's and ask, so you agree with the Clinton/McCain supporters that Obama isn't qualified....why are you supporting him? Because you have no choice? Or do you really believe he is the better candidate?

John's little stump speech at 25:15 would make a nice ad for someone with no command or executive experience running for mayor (or better, city councilman) of a small town. That he is presenting it as a resume for President of the United States really shows the difference between the hopity hopity change change crew looking for a powerful symbol instead of a leader, and those of us seeking a bit more. I'm still curious though as to Glenn's thinking Hillary Clinton had much more experience in being a leader. If anything all she did was prove less savvy regarding commandeering the caucuses. John: Regarding B Herbert's logic: it's not just sloppy, it's also incredibly slow. It took him 16 years to realize that the Clinton's were dishonest, shameless and buyable. But as bad as Herbert's logic can be, it's still a bit of a push to psychoanalyze his supposed self-hatred ('not as good as white people'), which appears to be what you're doing. That was a cringe-inducing moment. Glenn: Leaning Tower of 'Pisa', not pizza.

Quoting TwinSwords: I see a big difference there, even if Obama is the empty ditz you say he is.

I'm quite sure you would be bashing him no matter what he did. I think you know it, too.

Hmmm. I of course do agree that McCain would be a complete disaster. I don't think anybody has any basis for knowing what Obama would be. Clarification: No, I don't think Obama is what you call "an empty ditz." Au contraire: He's a very cunning operator whose been lusting for power for quite a few years now. Anyone whose read the more recent info on his Chicago history (per the in-depth New Yorker article and the related interviews, as, for instance, with Terry Gross), would understand this. One of my larger beefs with him is precisely what Biden leveled against him early in the Primaries, i.e. that he's adequately smart, just not experienced and wise enough yet. In short he's still politically (and I think, personally) still rather immature. Even with just another four years in the US Senate, he'd have been a lot more convincing. As for your conclusion that I'd be bashing him, no matter what, that's not true. I don't want McCain and in fact fear McCain. I'd choose BO, even

PS: Also, it would be helpful if Obama could grow a pair of his own. A large sector of older swing voters frankly get a scent of "wuss" off the guy, wonder if he's a eunuch, and are scratching their heads about whether he's the type of fellow who will pick up a club and go hunt heads if that's what actually needs to be done. He's just not very convincing and this could cost him 10% right there. EW

Quoting graz: Don't forget his bhtv appearance:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9394
The comments are interesting too.

Ah, yes, that old gem. Good catch. And you're right: the comments are interesting.

Quoting TwinSwords: It's true he mixed it up with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but it's not true he said it was the Washington Monument. Why are you claiming he did?

Yes, he did mention the Washington Monument. On Morning Joe, he said that both the Leaning Tower of Pisa & the Washington Monument appeared in the beginning and he saw them as some insidious phallic symbol. He looked absolutely ridiculous since everyone knew that the monument was the Berlin Victory Tower and if anyone was to blame for the "phallic" symbolism, it was the Obama campaign for holding his speech in front of it where thousands of cameras would be present to photograph him in front of it. I'm amazed that anyone agrees with Herbert's twisted imagination regarding the "phallic" imagery's "hidden" meaning.

Quoting laurelnyc: Yes, he did mention the Washington Monument. On Morning Joe, he said that both the Leaning Tower of Pisa & the Washington Monument appeared in the beginning and he saw them as some insidious phallic symbol. He looked absolutely ridiculous since everyone knew that the monument was the Berlin Victory Tower and if anyone was to blame for the "phallic" symbolism, it was the Obama campaign for holding his speech in front of it where thousands of cameras would be present to photograph him in front of it. I'm amazed that anyone agrees with Herbert's twisted imagination regarding the "phallic" imagery's "hidden" meaning.

I will agree that his silly (yet meaningless) mistake about the monument was latched onto by wingnuts as an excuse to discredit the rest of his analysis. It was a dumb, but ultimately pointless, mistake. Nevertheless, it's the central focus of the response from people like yourself.

Thank you John Glenn for your insightful conversations!
MathFuzzy

Quoting grits-n-gravy: You might ask the same question of those draftees who served against their moral reservations. Were they cowards for not opposing the draft and taking whatever consequences that may befall such persons?

Do you know some draftees that went against their moral reservations? Probably not. I knew plenty of draftees but none that fit your category. John

Quoting TwinSwords: when I realized you were making excuses for (or, denying, really) the last 40 years of Republican racism

Really, I don't know where you get this stuff. I'm not sure about 40 years, but Reagan's demonization of welfare mothers contained a transparent appeal to racism, and I'm old enough to have voted against him for that very reason. Your thinking will be sharper if you drop the ad hominems and read carefully before you respond.

Quoting Namazu: Really, I don't know where you get this stuff. I'm not sure about 40 years, but Reagan's demonization of welfare mothers contained a transparent appeal to racism, and I'm old enough to have voted against him for that very reason. Your thinking will be sharper if you drop the ad hominems and read carefully before you respond.

Let's go back to your initial post, to which I hastily responded after concluding that your intent was to deny that the Republican Party has a history of pandering to racists. What was your point in that post? To be specific, (1) For what reason were you promoting the Bartlett interview, and (2) What "gaps in my education" were you referring to? Bonus question: Are ad hominems okay when you lob them?

Do you know some draftees that went against their moral reservations? Probably not. I knew plenty of draftees but none that fit your category.

Not only have I known MANY draftees who went against their moral reservations and who later deeply regretted going, but I also have met many enlisted men and women who've gone to Iraq reluctantly, with grave moral doubts, and who have come back to become anti-war activists. It's true that most draftees got sucked into Vietnam before they had a chance to realize what happened to them -- drafted at 18, poorly trained for a few weeks, and dropped in the jungle with a rifle. But many, especially as the war dragged on and resistance to the draft and the inhumanity of the war grew, hated themselves for going. The Vietnam War was built on child abuse of American boys. We were indoctrinated in high school to think it was our duty to be a man and submit to the military, and the draft preyed on immature adolescents who lacked the education and worldly sophistication required to reflect on the propaganda and reject it. College kids, of course, beat

Dear My Friend Grits,

That explains why sexual assaults against women in the military is an epidemic. Rather than 'thinking dirty thoughts' those red-blooded american patriots are about doing dirty actions. Sexual assaults in the military

Here's some straight talk: Boys will be boys. There's always a bad apple in the bunch. Also, homos in the service have deteriorated morals. The poor straight kids feel they have to prove they're not gay nowadays, so they go overboard sometimes. Buy 99.99% of our service men and women are red-blooded heroes. That includes the blacks and the Mexicans too. It's like that so-called Abu Grey thing. One or two bad apples in the bunch and it got spread all over the Internet. The liberal media had a field day. Dont' believe everything you see in the press, my friend. God Bless (not damn!) America,
John

Not sure if anyone has made this point or not, but I agree with John on Obama's Thomas comments. The reason I agree is that the criteria I use for judging a presidential candidate are more broad than what I would use to judge a supreme court nominee. I agree that Obama has all the qualities that John listed, and many of these are qualitative, while the skills we need from a supreme court justice are more narrow. That being the case, it doesn't seem like too much to ask that we have supreme court nominees who have an abundance of the skills or qualities we look for in a Supreme Court Justice. After all, the President has the pick of the litter of the legal community. As for presidential candidates, a more general approach seems warranted, and by this standard Obama is the best one, by my lights. If all other things were equal I would prefer someone with more experience, but all other things are not equal, hence my support for Obama (which started early in the primary process). And because Obama's aiming for the Presidency it seems OK for him to

What were the presidents with a lot of symbolic influence? Reagan, JFK, FDR? In each case I wonder if the romance is more due to the narrative after-the-fact, rather than the real causes of change within the society.

Quoting Unit: What were the presidents with a lot of symbolic influence? Reagan, JFK, FDR? In each case I wonder if the romance is more due to the narrative after-the-fact, rather than the real causes of change within the society.

From my own experience, I can tell you that Reagan had a lot of symbolic impact while still in office. Not on me so much, but I had no choice but to acknowledge how much he did for a lot of other people. I'd say the same about JFK, from close second-hand experience. My parents, grandparents, and others of both generations talked about him glowingly, and in terms of what they felt in response to specific speeches and events. That is, I'm sure some of the retelling was improved by being passed through the filter of reaction to his assassination, but the way they talked about what he meant in these specific ways suggests there was something there during his life, too. Can't say from personal experience about FDR, except for a couple of decades-later stories about the fireside chats from my older relatives, but I've read a fair amount of history about that period, and I'd have

Brendan, it's not a question of right-wing vs. left-wing. Once you strip FDR's rhetoric and focus on the actual policies, especially the economic ones, they are deemed disastrous by modern day standards. And I'm not talking about social security etc.., the heritage we are saddled with today, I'm talking about policies that were supposed to have an immediate effect on the people at the time. What he did, he gave some good speeches, while forcing farmers to slaughter their pigs, burn their crops, etc...roused the masses, while prolonging the recession, etc... JFK was cut short, but take Reagan. He was a good speaker sure, but when you say "I had no choice but to acknowledge how much he did for a lot of other people" I become skeptical. How can one person, even as powerful as the President do much for other people? What about the millions of people that did al lot for each other in the eighties. Why do we feel the urge to concentrate all of the merits and all of the blames on this one person?
You might say that they stir society in various directions. Do they? Or are they just very good at riding

Quoting Unit: Brendan,

it's not a question of right-wing vs. left-wing. Once you strip FDR's rhetoric and focus on the actual policies, ...

We were talking about the president as symbol.

JFK was cut short, but take Reagan. He was a good speaker sure, but when you say "I had no choice but to acknowledge how much he did for a lot of other people" I become skeptical. How can one person, even as powerful as the President do much for other people?

Same answer. And, as I think I said earlier, there's no way to settle this, no way to "prove" one side or the other, so maybe we ought to end it here.

Sure we can stop here. Good to talk to you.

Quoting Unit: Sure we can stop here. Good to talk to you.

Likewise. Don't be a stranger.

Glenn Loury's support for the Clinton 'Fairytale' fairytale is particularly disingenuous, as Clinton's 'Fairytale' argument against Obama's "I'm against dumb wars" argument is, in fact, ad hominem circumstantiae. As a seasoned academic, Glenn Loury would recognize this were he able to distance himself from his obvious affections for Hillary Clinton. Of course, that last sentence was ad hominem, but my argument that Bill Clinton's 'Fairytale' fairytale was ad hominem is not.

Of course, no argument holds greater sway in the american imagination than the ad hominem fallacy. If only the recognition of rhetorical fallacy were part of our primary curriculum.

Quoting SwingStatements: Of course, no argument holds greater sway in the american imagination than the ad hominem fallacy. If only the recognition of rhetorical fallacy were part of our primary curriculum.

Good point. I'd add that it works both ways: this has become the retort of first resort of far too many people these days. No matter how legitimate the criticism, if a person is involved, you're likely to hear it. Classic example: Person A: Global warming is false. Here, read this (link). It proves it.
Person B: That's an op-ed written by someone working for Exxon. Hardly credible.
Person A: AD HOMINEM!!!1!

Finally: Cause for Optimism - Biden EW

Quoting Eastwest: Finally: Cause for Optimism - Biden

EW

Hey, great! We found something to agree upon! More (tempered) enthusiam here.

Get some sleep Brendan. I'm glad you're happy.
So much for the politics of change.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey, great! We found something to agree upon!

More (tempered) enthusiam here.

That little clip illustrates what's so nice about Biden (which I mentioned earlier in the thread): Without raising his blood pressure, and without seeming self-righteously indignant, he can draw forth a rapier wit to castrate baseless criticisms. This is sorely needed in the current situation. If Obama indeed wants to stay above the ugliest aspects of hard-ball politics, he needs somebody like this with immense experience on both international and domestic issues who can use brass knuckles with style. EW

Quoting bkjazfan: Do you know some draftees that went against their moral reservations? Probably not. I knew plenty of draftees but none that fit your category.

John

Do you know plenty of draftees that didn't go because they are cowards? The point was it is no more legitimate to assume the draft dodger is a coward than to assume draftee who serves is not.

I love these diavlogs between McWhorter and Loury - some of the most intelligent and insightful conversation on the internet. I never fail to learn something new from listening to these guys.

how brilliant does obama have to be, to be used as a pawn in another man's game! the one coalition that could stop this eight year farce has been systematically broken. politics as revivalism is a disaster! the united states was stupid enough to elect bush to a second term,against it's self interest! just watch november, you have not seen anything yet! all the great speeches in the world are useless, if you don't win! this country does not even understand race! so now, we are moving beyond it? we are well past 1984 into a brave new world! i am still looking for that stick with the short end!
that old sweet song keeps georgia pipelines on my mind!

John McWhorter talks Obama, antique keyboards (I think that's what they call those things), and the end of racism, on The Colbert Report. Good times. Okay, we've played enough away games (cf.). I now challenge Stephen Colbert to come to our house. ==========
Administrivia: Sorry not to point you right to the CR site and the larger video window, but the supplied URL did not point to the right segment. On the upside, you won't have to sit through a commercial first.

John McWhorter talks Obama, antique keyboards (I think that's what they call those things), and the end of racism, on The Colbert Report.
Good times.

Embarrassing. I thought Colbert made John look like an idiot, which he does with most guests. If I knew John only from that interview, I'd never want to hear another word from him. Also, the audience was laughing in entirely inappropriate places, like when John was trying to make his point that seeing a black family in the White House for a few years would change our racial sensibilities for the good. There was nothing funny about that, but since Colbert had already set up the "socially conservative Obama supporter" as a clown, the laughter continues. I'm sure book agents tell their clients that no matter how skewered you get by Colbert, it's good for sales. Maybe.

Quoting Wonderment: ...Also, the audience was laughing in entirely inappropriate places, like when John was trying to make his point that seeing a black family in the White House for a few years would change our racial sensibilities for the good. There was nothing funny about that, but since Colbert had already set up the "socially conservative Obama supporter" as a clown, the laughter continues...

You expressed the same sense about George Johnson's segment on Colbert. I think that the audience is there to enjoy the irrepressible Colbert treatment. But, any pub is good pub. And I bet that attuned viewers would be sparked to investigate the guest further.
My immediate reaction was that McWhorter "killed." If they (John, George...Paul and Ringo?) aren't ashamed, why should I be?

Quoting Wonderment: Embarrassing. I thought Colbert made John look like an idiot, which he does with most guests. If I knew John only from that interview, I'd never want to hear another word from him.

It's impossible for me to say about the second part, since I already know him and like him from BH.tv and his writing, but I disagree with the first part. It's not often that the guest can get Stephen laughing. Regular watchers of the show count that as a win. Check the cheering at the end. And following what graz said, people who watch The Report know that everything is the opposite of how it's presented -- they're all in on the joke. In particular, I really don't agree with this:

Also, the audience was laughing in entirely inappropriate places, like when John was trying to make his point that seeing a black family in the White House for a few years would change our racial sensibilities for the good.

If you knew nothing about the show, you might say that the laughter was inappropriate, but the audience, I'm certain, took that point to heart.

I'm sure book agents tell their clients that no matter how

You expressed the same sense about George Johnson's segment on Colbert. I think that the audience is there to enjoy the irrepressible Colbert treatment.

Yeah. I guess I'm just opposed in general to serious intellectuals doing comedy shtick to promote their work. I'm sure I'd do it in a heartbeat myself, but it still seems demeaning to me. I'm hopelessly archaic and elitist, I know

i am happy, though in deep shock!! i saw a complete setup! what the hell do i know!
more people moved towards obama than away from him, unbelievable!!! i hope the nation moves ahead!! i was wrong!!!! BOULE is back!!! let the second phase of the movement begin!!

Quoting Uhurusasa: i am happy, though in deep shock!! i saw a complete setup! what the hell do i know!
more people moved towards obama than away from him, unbelievable!!! i hope the nation moves ahead!!

i was wrong!!!!

LOL! You do not have to go through every thread in the forum to find the places where you made the wrong prediction, Uhurusasa. But if this is your way of celebrating ... by all means.

Quoting bjkeefe: LOL!

You do not have to go through every thread in the forum to find the places where you made the wrong prediction, Uhurusasa.

But if this is your way of celebrating ... by all means.

i don't have to do anything, including reading your crap! i'll write what i want, and you can patronize at will

Quoting Uhurusasa: i don't have to do anything, including reading your crap! i'll write what i want, and you can patronize at will

Quite right: you do not have to read what I write. But for the record, I did not mean my reply to be patronizing. I meant to convey a "laugh with," not a "laugh at," tone. Sorry it came off different from the way I intended it.

Yeah, Wonderment, I'd have to whole-heartedly disagree. I think John McWhorter "killed it." That was one of the funniest appearances in a long time on Colbert. I look at Colbert as a place where serious-minded authors get to go and actually have some fun and drop the acadamia-wonk pretense for 5 minutes and show the other side of themselves. And because Colbert already has the satirical setup of the Conservative blowhard, it allows the more liberal-minded guests to slip in a few more high-minded concepts into the interview (often with the help of Colbert.) The audience that watches Colbert and Jon Stewart, tends to be the type who are liberal and who buy books. So I just don't see any down-side from the authors perspective. And it's great because alot of my friends don't have the patience for something like BHTV, but they will watch Colbert. So it's nice to know that several of these great minds who have important things to say (McWhorter, Neil Shubin, George Johnson etc.) are getting a chance to reach a larger audience than BHTV currently reaches. Also i didn't think the audience was laughing inappropriately at