Quoting Andrya6: This has nothing to do with this diavlog (I won't be able to listen until after work today) BUT I owe you, Mickey, a huge apology. Earlier this year, I put some major snark on you about your pursuit of the John Edwards rumor. I went so far as to insinuate that you were motivated by pro-Republican bias. Obviously, you were right- and more than that, you were protecting the Dems from a lethal unidentified risk. If Edwards had been the VP nominee (unlikely but possible) Republican oppo research would have found out about this (Edwards does't seem to have been careful at all).

Hmmm... If that was the intention, wouldn't it have been more sensible, discreet and effective to send the information to the Democratic Party leadership directly and privately? The public display hints at having the general public as an audience and not the Democratic party.

People only pray for relief when there is some hope that their prayers can be acted upon. I assumed that our Mickeylessness was unavoidable, and simply waited.

Not to worry. The polls are way off. Cell phones are not polled. You are missing the state polls as well. Obama will win and win comfortably.

I'm glad to be part of this community. It has been great watching smart debate. I hope I can add some thoughts without making an ass of myself. That said did Robert Wright say?: "Republicans are these masterful inverters of reality"?(23:45 ish) Wow! I'm not the biggest Republican out there, but isn't the crisis in Georgia real? McCain response wasn't perfect, but wasn't it a real response? I believe Obama responded with the typical left response of lets all get along. I disagree A LOT with republicans, but to me the always seem to have a real response. That's why I can't vote for a Democrat. The world is not kindergarten. Even if you are wrong I would rather have an adult response. Thanks for the chance to add my opinion

Mickey Kaus believes is free trade and open markets. He doesn't believe in sacrificing economic growth for economic equality. So when he talks about how immigration hurts some workers I question his motives. I don't think Mickey is a racist, but he wants politicians to legitimize a movement which holds that immigrants are taking our jobs and skrewing up our country. The anti-immigration movement seeks to use for political advantage the fear of other cultures and communities that has been a part of human culture from the beginning. I support free trade but as bad as protectionism is I can understand it as the service of narrow special interests which has always been a part of our politics. The anti-immigration movement is worse than protectionism because it attempts to be a broad based movement against people I know who just want to work here and make a better life for themselves.

Mr. Kaus showed his ignorance in calling the Obama's respective community work as "bs jobs". Mrs. Obama, for one, did some solid work with an effective organization in "Public Allies" and by all knowing accounts she took her work at the University of Chicago very seriously and has been effective. It would be one thing for Mr. Kaus to have some first hand knowledge of the successes and failures of these organizations, departments, centers, etc. that the Obamas have done work with and then make a criticism based on that. But it's pretty clear that he made a value judgement without any real knowledge of this particular topic.

Doesn't "bemuse" pretty much mean what Mickey says it doesn't mean?

Googled "define:bemused," got: Definitions of bemused on the Web: means "bewildered" or "lost in thought": George was bemused by the unexpected ending to the movie.
http://www.alphadictionary.com/artic...sed_words.html deeply absorbed in thought; "as distant and bemused as a professor listening to the prattling of his freshman class"; "lost in thought"; "a ...
baffled: perplexed by many conflicting situations or statements; filled with bewilderment; "obviously bemused by his questions"; "bewildered and confused"; "a cloudy and confounded philosopher"; "just a mixed-up kid"; "she felt lost on the first day of school"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn deeply thoughtful; preoccupied; perplexed and bewildered
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bemused

I for one missed Mickey. He and Bob have a chemistry that was lacking in the replacements.

Wright emphatically assures Kaus and viewers that Sen. Biden is not stupid here but makes sure Prof. Althouse and viewers are aware that, well, we just can't be SURE about Justice Thomas here. Now, no standard is given of course, and in the 'vlog with Prof. Althouse Wright asserts the truism that "we all make intellectual judgements about people," so I wonder: given that Wright is convinced that Obama is smarter than Thomas and that Obama is smarter than Biden, who does Wright think is smarter, Thomas or Biden?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16pjS4OYtbo

Had I known Mickey was taking the month off to work on his Pulitzer, I would have never made those snarky comments about his work ethic. I hope the committee will recognize his achievements during the past month, I stand corrected, and it will never happen again.

Quoting tottoritodd: I disagree A LOT with republicans, but to me the always seem to have a real response. That's why I can't vote for a Democrat. The world is not kindergarten. Even if you are wrong I would rather have an adult response.

Thanks for the chance to add my opinion

Your opinion is very welcome, but always subject to rebuttal. You talk about a real response. What do you mean? Is that a response that is not fake? Something that you could interpret as well defined, with a clear direction, and perhaps that you would expect, because of the degree of certainty that it implies, that would be followed by appropriate action? For example, an action such as starting a war, I gather. And you also say that you prefer this kind of response, which you call adult, even if it's wrong. Does that make sense to you? You talk about kindergarten responses (all people getting along), versus adult responses (the main characteristic being that of "strong stance"?, even if wrong). Why don't you consider continuing your reasoning along the lines of psychological development. It is known that children see the world as black and white. Within this view, everything is either this or that, quite

Quoting Ocean: Your opinion is very welcome, but always subject to rebuttal.

You talk about a real response. What do you mean? Is that a response that is not fake? Something that you could interpret as well defined, with a clear direction, and perhaps that you would expect, because of the degree of certainty that it implies, that would be followed by appropriate action? For example, an action such as starting a war, I gather. And you also say that you prefer this kind of response, which you call adult, even if it's wrong. Does that make sense to you?

You talk about kindergarten responses (all people getting along), versus adult responses (the main characteristic being that of "strong stance"?, even if wrong). Why don't you consider continuing your reasoning along the lines of psychological development. It is known that children see the world as black and white. Within this view, everything is either this or that, quite categorical and without ambiguity. This view prompts responses that are strong and well defined, ready for action, although there may not be much analysis or examination of the complexity of the situation or the consequences of various possible actions. They can very easily

Quoting gwlaw99: This sounds exactly like one of those automated responses you can generate on the internet.

Oops... You caught me. Could you elaborate, please?

Quoting Ocean: Hmmm... If that was the intention, wouldn't it have been more sensible, discreet and effective to send the information to the Democratic Party leadership directly and privately?

A couple years ago, a concerned person notified House Republican leaders that Mark Foley was acting inappropriately towards congressional pages. Their response was to ignore it and hope it went away. It didn't, and (surprise!) it became public knowledge right before the 2006 election, helping the Democrats take control of both Houses of Congress. I don't think the Democratic leadership is any smarter. They would have brushed the Edwards story under the rug and hoped nothing came of it (see also Clinton, Bill).

Quoting Thus Spoke Elvis: A couple years ago, a concerned person notified House Republican leaders that Mark Foley was acting inappropriately towards congressional pages. Their response was to ignore it and hope it went away. It didn't, and (surprise!) it became public knowledge right before the 2006 election, helping the Democrats take control of both Houses of Congress.

I don't think the Democratic leadership is any smarter. They would have brushed the Edwards story under the rug and hoped nothing came of it (see also Clinton, Bill).

Two thoughts: 1. In the example you gave, was the concerned person part of the media? 2. In regards to Edwards, was the private route at least tried first? If any of the answers to the above questions is "No", we can't use your example as a reasonable precedent. If both answers are "Yes", we may have a discussion.

Quoting gwlaw99: This sounds exactly like one of those automated responses you can generate on the internet.

You mean the sentences parse, but there's no semantic content? It seems to me that there was a pretty clear argument framed vs. simplistic, Manichean points of view evident in what she said. Yours was a pretty random sort of thing to have said in response.

Mickey goes to the coffee well without satisfaction

No way, no watching, no listening, no more Mickey

... A face made for radio

Hosannah! I think one compromise between what Bob and Mickey want Obama to do is to focus on "defending an America that's stretched too thin." Obama could pay lip service to a fence and securing our borders, but beyond that he could avoid sounding unelectably dovish by picking a popular and relatively inexpensive hawkish program like ballistic missile defense and saying that that has a bigger bang for the buck than a trillion dollar war. Similarly, while I don't know if he can go too soft on standing up to Russia, I'd love to hear him say that we just don't have the troops to get involved in a civil war in, say, Darfur, and point out that we could prevent millions of people in Africa from getting malaria for a fraction of that price . . . more generally, he could sell the "burden sharing" aspects of his multilateralism . . . let the UN pay for it, let Europe pay for it, etc . . .

Quoting Exeus99: Wright emphatically assures Kaus and viewers that Sen. Biden is not stupid here but of course makes sure Prof. Althouse and viewers are aware that, well, we just can't be SURE about Justice Thomas here.

Now, no standard is given of course, and in the 'vlog with Prof. Althouse Wright asserts the truism that "we all make intellectual judgements about people," so I wonder: given that Wright is convinced that Obama is smarter that Thomas and that Obama is smarter than Biden, who does Wright think is smarter, Thomas or Biden?

Wouldn't everyone say Thomas? As much as I wish that intelligence were everything in politics, it obviously isn't. Ain't. That dog don't hunt?

Quoting JerseyBoy: Doesn't "bemuse" pretty much mean what Mickey says it doesn't mean?

Perhaps Mickey was confused by the fact that "amused" and "confused" rhyme. Bemused is more like a cross between "bewildered" and "confused", rather than "bewildered" and "amused". See here.

Does Bob agree with Mickey about the teacher's unions? This may have already happened, but I'm interested in hearing somebody disagree with Mickey's views on education reform.

Since you won't have the privilege of hearing it, Bob made mention of your assessment of Michelle Obama's speech. No details... maybe he was hoping to trigger a reaction by Mickey to the very mention of your "Wonderperson" name. Mickey said he is for Obama because it will trigger a Republican backlash against immigration reform in the 2010 elections. Same as it ever was.

Wherein Mickey pleads guilty by reason of he didn't do it.

Just occurred to me that another harmlessly hawkish sound bite for Obama could involve playing the China card . . . "while my opponent wants to keep borrowing money from the Chinese so we can stay in Iraq for 100 years and keep South Ossetia under Georgian control, the Chinese are taking our interest payments and investing in 21st century weapons to challenge us . . .so it's precisely because I do take real threats to America seriously that I think we have to prioritize . . ."

Everybody knew (Mickey said as much), but they were unwilling to do anything. Plus this kind of thing IS journalists' job. what are they for else?

I wanted it to sting a little when Mickey said my home town is small enough to have a nepotism problem (I'll tastefully leave out the Bush clan, the Gores, the Clintons, and just go quietly along with the idea that it's our local problem), but it doesn't move me. From that serious-sounding USN essay linked above, here's the important paragraph where all the silly comes spilling out: An unrepentant terrorist, who bragged of bombing the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon, was a fit associate. Ayers evidently helped Obama gain insider status in Chicago civic life and politics—how much, we can't be sure unless the Richard J. Daley Library opens the CAC archive. But most American politicians would not have chosen to associate with a man with Ayers's past or of Ayers's beliefs. It's something voters might reasonably want to take into account. As someone younger than Obama and a lifelong Chicagoan, I'm going to say that the national outrage over Ayers sounds pretty phony. If you're going to use the word terrorist to describe people who should be sent to the waterboarding park and to describe political attention-whores like the

Preach it Mickey Kaus, send it to Barack, make him watch it. Fantastic lighting, btw.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/139...3:24&out=53:29 It's tasteless. I'm a little bit sorry.

The Ayers connection would not be quite so curious if Obama wasn't so busy running from it. If he feels the radical loser actually had some positive things to add to the conversation, he should bring them out and explain why they matter. Considering their actual relationship, for Obama to describe him in one of the debates as 'just a guy who lives in my neighborhood' sems to be a pathetic dodge. He also made the false claim that Ayers was merely a 'professor of English', when in fact he's been doing his best to turn state schools into indoctrination centers. Anyone ignorant of this is advised to read the excellent article from Sol Stern. an excerpt: "Ayers’s influence on what is taught in the nation’s public schools is likely to grow in the future. Last month, he was elected vice president for curriculum of the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association (AERA), the nation’s largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. Ayers won the election handily, and there is no doubt that his fellow education professors knew whom they were voting for. In the short biographical

Oh, I don't mean to imply that the Edwards/Foley situations were identical. But I think it's naive to suggest that the Democratic party leadership would have handled it responsibly if they had privately been made aware of it earlier -- when is the last time either party's leadership has behaved forthrightly and responsibly in the face of an potential scandal? They always try to cover it up first, or just ignore it and hope it goes away. In fact, isn't that one of the reasons why Mickey was pushing the story? A lot of Democratic party types knew about the rumors, but no one was willing to look into them?

Quoting Wonderment at 3:08: No way, no watching, no listening, no more Mickey

Truly, producing your dingalink under these earlier-stated conditions is a Wonderment.

Quoting tottoritodd: I'm glad to be part of this community. It has been great watching smart debate. I hope I can add some thoughts without making an ass of myself.

That said did Robert Wright say?:

"Republicans are these masterful inverters of reality"?(23:45 ish)

Wow! I'm not the biggest Republican out there, but isn't the crisis in Georgia real? McCain response wasn't perfect, but wasn't it a real response? I believe Obama responded with the typical left response of lets all get along.

I disagree A LOT with republicans, but to me the always seem to have a real response. That's why I can't vote for a Democrat. The world is not kindergarten. Even if you are wrong I would rather have an adult response.

Thanks for the chance to add my opinion

So it's your opinion that trying diplomacy first, and force second is the kindergarten approach, and shooting first is what an adult would do? I think you have presented a perfect example of the inversion of reality that Bob was referring to.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Wouldn't everyone say Thomas?

See, I don't know. Wright implied pretty heavily that he didn't think much of Thomas intellectually in his 'vlog with Althouse. He made a point to highlight the fact that we don't KNOW that Thomas writes his own opinions, and that we don't KNOW that Thomas is qualified to sit on the Court since he hasn't asked many questions--so I'm thinking with Sen. Biden, we do KNOW he hasn't always written some of his speeches, (even parts that were first-person referential), and we KNOW he's said any of the boneheaded things you'd care to choose from the long list of Senator-speak he's spewed over his career--so which way Wright would break, which person he thinks is smarter, isn't clear to me; maybe Wright could tell us.

As someone younger than Obama and a lifelong Chicagoan, I'm going to say that the national outrage over Ayers sounds pretty phony. If you're going to use the word terrorist to describe people who should be sent to the waterboarding park and to describe political attention-whores like the young Ayers, you have destroyed the meaning and validity of the term 'terrorist'.

I would take it a step further. The Republicans want to revisit Vietnam? Bring it on! Bill Ayers was on the right side of the Vietnam conflict. He courageously opposed a stupid, pointless and illegal war of agression in which the USA inflicted mass murder and collective punishment on millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. John McCain participated in the real terrorism inflicted on the Vietnamese people. McCain flew 23 mass-murder missions. The Vietnam War was also deeply destructive of an entire generation of Americans. Over 50,000 died. Many thousands more were permanently disabled. Our psychiatric wards, clinics, veterans hospitals and homeless shelters are full of deeply troubled Vietnam veterans to this day. We were either conscripted to kill-and-die in the Vietnam holocaust or we had family members who were. Or, like Bill

As for the Republicans having a successful convention - that may be entirley out of thier hands. There is a little storm headed for the Gulf of Mexico that is currently tracking for landing in or around New Orleans, on or around gavel thumping time on Monday.
From many accounts the levees can't withstand a cat 3 storm. NO has 700 buses lined up to evacuate people. At 50 people per bus (SRO) that's 35,000 people. There are many more people than that without transportation out. There will be no mass shelters, so what may happen is anyone's guess.

You are both articulate and historically accurate. And now you will be punished for it, mercilessly.

From ThinK Progress - During his radio show today, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh asked former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) how he believed the Republican party would respond if Hurricane Gustav makes landfall in New Orleans during the Republican National Convention. “I think they’ve called in Pat Robertson to pray it off the coast,” Huckabee jokingly responded.
http://thinkprogress.org/
That about says it all.

Um, do you think Wonderment "will be punished" for being articulate, for being historically accurate, or for their judgment? In other words, do you think that it must follow, given Wonderment's historical accuracy, that their promotion of Ayers as an heroic, good example to be emulated and denigration of McCain (and I guess others who served in the armed forces during the Vietnam war) as terrorists who should have been opposed more strongly is the only possible conclusion--that this must necessarily follow? If not, doesn't that mean that there exists some reasons OTHER than Wonderment's historical accuracy and articulateness for which to "punish" Wonderment?

Quoting Exeus99: See, I don't know. Wright implied pretty heavily that he didn't think much of Thomas intellectually in his 'vlog with Althouse. He made a point to highlight the fact that we don't KNOW that Thomas writes his own opinions, and that we don't KNOW that Thomas is qualified to sit on the Court since he hasn't asked many questions--so I'm thinking with Sen. Biden, we do KNOW he hasn't always written some of his speeches, (even parts that were first-person referential), and we KNOW he's said any of the boneheaded things you'd care to choose from the long list of Senator-speak he's spewed over his career--so which way Wright would break, which person he thinks is smarter, isn't clear to me; maybe Wright could tell us.

Why do you think there's a reason to link the two statements? It's a fairly common perception that Thomas isn't quite the sharpest pencil in SCOTUS. Right or wrong, it's nothing new. Thomas' performance on the court, at best, does nothing in particular to allay that suspicion, with his silence from the bench and unremarkable party-line opinions. Biden, on the other hand, is generally reffered to as an obviously bright guy - smarter

What a fantastic comment Wonderment! I'm more sympathetic to Mr. Ayers' than Dr. Money is, but Dr. Money also makes some good points about the phoniness of the Ayers outrage and the silliness about Chicago. If the charge is that people like Ayers and his wife Ms. Dohrn could only be accepted in Chicago, than I just take that as a huge compliment for my home town. I don't doubt Mr. Kaus' take that Bill Ayers is politically damaging to Obama and obviously Obama doesn't either. Still, one cannot help but be offended by the casual way in which Mr. Kaus just blurts out untruths and nonsense. He preempts the obvious correction that he was just factually wrong when he more than once claimed Mr. Ayers' father was a big time lawyer. Then he throws out for no relevant reason, "if someone kills 100,000 people when you're 8 years old...." Later after Mr. Wright points out that actually Mr. Ayers killed zero people, not 100,000 (while the U.S. government killed in the seven figures) he states that Mr. Ayers intended to kill people, of course he has absolutely no evidence of any such thing but it's okay to make up stuff against someone

Quoting AemJeff: It's a fairly common perception that Thomas isn't quite the sharpest pencil in SCOTUS. Right or wrong, it's nothing new.

Quoting AemJeff: Biden, on the other hand, is generally reffered to as an obviously bright guy - smarter than your average Senator, again whether or not it's a true judgment.

AemJeff: I don't think Wright would admit to following this logic, though, that since a person is widely considered by others to be something, one should believe it to be true. Many people think untrue things! As a standard of evidence, "lots of people believe it" is close to as low as you can go--although arguably not quite as low as "there is some possiblity that it could be true." Wright seems to believe that Thomas isn't very bright and that Biden emphatically isn't stupid--but obviously those two categories have a fair amount of overlap. Wright's given reasons for his (strongly implied) belief that Thomas is unqualified included the fact that he doesn't ask many questions from the bench and that we can't know whether he writes his opinions. He doesn't give many reasons for his emphatic assertion that Sen. Biden isn't stupid, and certainly

I think Wonderment will be punished for it because it is something one is not supposed to say. I lost many friends in that war. It was a stupid waste of life. Trying to stop it was honorable. I am a pacifist so I don't believe in the violent tactics that some fell into. But they certainly inflicted far less terror on both Americans and the people of SE Asia than did the war.
And for those who are not pacifist I will ask; what better time to use violent resistance than when your government is ordering you to kill other innocent people?

Quoting ohcomeon: I think Wonderment will be punished for it because it is something one is not supposed to say. I lost many friends in that war. It was a stupid waste of life. Trying to stop it was honorable. I am a pacifist so I don't believe in the violent tactics that some fell into. But they certainly inflicted far less terror on both Americans and the people of SE Asia than did the war.
And for those who are not pacifist I will ask; what better time to use violent resistance than when your government is ordering you to kill other innocent people?

I need some clarification here. Are we talking about justifying violent means of protest, resistance or actual "terrorism"?
This is a very problematic topic and it shouldn't, in my opinion, be addressed so lightly. Common sense should suffice to grasp the implications of justifying acts of violence by a discontent minority. There is a democratic process in this country. If such important issues are not being addressed appropriately within the democratic boundaries, it means the system is not serving its main purpose. It is the failure of the democratic process that needs

Quoting ohcomeon: I think Wonderment will be punished for it because it is something one is not supposed to say. I lost many friends in that war. It was a stupid waste of life. Trying to stop it was honorable. I am a pacifist so I don't believe in the violent tactics that some fell into. But they certainly inflicted far less terror on both Americans and the people of SE Asia than did the war.
And for those who are not pacifist I will ask; what better time to use violent resistance than when your government is ordering you to kill other innocent people?

OK, as a sort of Orwellian socialist I guess I'll point out that the US doesn't really "punish" anyone for thought crimes, so I suspect that Wonderment will be OK . . . and as a fan of evolutionary biology I'll say that my standards for pacifistic behavior from organized primate groups are pretty low . . . Sweden, Costa Rica and Switzerland seem to have it down, and I hope that the US continues to move in that direction over time . . . but ALL the combatants in the Vietnam War showed a profound disrespect for civilian lives, and I'm personally

By the way Mr. Ayers has a blog, maybe we can get him on BH TV to discuss these issues. http://billayers.org/ http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

I'll defend Bill Ayers not because he's perfect or hasn't made mistakes, but because his aims were and are essentially noble and he's humble enough to be engaged with real discussion. I don't defend Obama because he's a politician and he'll throw Mr. Ayers right under that bus with Mr. Wright in a second. I'm sure in some sense he thinks his aims are noble too, but he's too far gone for me.

It's disturbing that Obama is expected to join a redneck mob in lynching Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. Obama must denounce anyone and everyone the right-wing inquisitors suggest might flunk the loyalty test. It's complete BS. It's clear that Obama likes Bill Ayers and holds J. Wright in the highest esteem. Pretending to denounce, reject and shun them is pure political theater of the creepy Orwellian kind. Something out of 1984. I also wonder why Obama is obliged to tell us what a "war hero" McCain is. If Obama's excuse is that he was only 8 when Ayers was plotting to bomb buildings, he was only 3 or 4 when McCain was bombing people. Why does Obama have to celebrate McCain's participation

I don't know how old you are but that "democratic process" was not so democratic back then. Where I lived black people still weren't allowed to swim in the public pool. Those being drafted to fight could not vote. I had friends who were dead before they could legally vote.

By punish I didn''t mean the government will come and take Wonderment away. But I will point out that many people have been "detained" for speech since 9/11. Elderly librarians have been arrested for wearing t shirts with political slogans. And in 1968, plenty of people were dragged away in handcuffs at peaceful demonstrations. I had friends who were arrested for wearing shirts critical of Vice President Agnew when he was invited to speak at their college graduation ceremony. I guess you can't say they were really punished unless you count one night in jail in Oklahoma and many dollars spent on lawyers.

So suppose Obama calls McCain a war criminal and Bill Ayers a hero in his acceptance speech . . . is it wrong to predict that he'll certainly lose the election if so? If so, how will that statement about a war that began over 40 years ago have helped needy people today? Similarly, imagine that contemporary Vietnam is a democracy (of course it's not) and that a generally dovish and progressive candidate is deciding whether or not to call his country's torturing of McCain et al. a "crime against humanity." How do you think it would help people today were the candidate to do that?

Quoting Wonderment: Heroes don't drop bombs.

Can heroes build bombs? Can heroes use violence at all? And just so I'm clear, on the official hero list, we've got John Kerry--MLK--William Ayers, yeah?

Quoting ohcomeon: I don't know how old you are but that "democratic process" was not so democratic back then. Where I lived black people still weren't allowed to swim in the public pool. Those being drafted to fight could not vote. I had friends who were dead before they could legally vote.

What you say is that the democratic process wasn't effective to address serious problems that affected large numbers of people. In my opinion, the democratic process wasn't effective then and isn't effective now.
My point is that if you want to effect change, you can't wait until a disastrous situation like the above arises, only to find out that it's too late for the democratic process to address it. Most people in the US don't have civic responsibility. They don't even vote. It appears that a significant number of those who vote, do that based on the charm or lack of charm of the candidate. When the apathy is so great, the interest in political participation is so low, and the political mindedness of the population is so absent, there is no real democratic process. Politics are driven by a willing few, and brainwashed

Quoting Wonderment:
It's complete BS.

It's clear that Obama . . . holds J. Wright in the highest esteem.

I don't think we know this . . . based on your sig file, you seem to kind of dig the Bible, and in that you're united with the vast majority of Americans. I, on the other hand, tend to agree with Sam Harris about the Bible, and in theory I'd love to see Obama give a speech denouncing religion and calling Wright at best an insightful charlatan . . . while he's at it, he could say that your sig file quotes a sentence of kindness torn from a tome of cruelty . . . but I don't get my way here because it's a democracy, and I kind of feel that's for the best . . .

Quoting ohcomeon: what better time to use violent resistance

This seems...a little vague, even for a euphemism...but I have to say I'm really getting a feel for where some of the posters have been coming from all along. It's good to know!

If only someone had supervised Cheney...

Quoting Wonderment: It's clear that Obama likes Bill Ayers and holds J. Wright in the highest esteem

Good to know, good to know.

So suppose Obama calls McCain a war criminal and Bill Ayers a hero in his acceptance speech . . . is it wrong to predict that he'll certainly lose the election if so? If so, how will that statement about a war that began over 40 years ago have helped needy people today?

Yes, of course he would lose. And it would help no one. I'm not saying Obama should name Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers to his cabinet. I'm just suggesting there may be some strategy that doesn't require the complete betrayal of friendship (throwing under the bus). I don't blame Obama. He's doing what it takes to win. Rev. Wright understood that, and I'm sure Ayers does as well. It's gutter politics, however, and the gutter is FOX News, MickeyKausland and Republican attack dogs. We see it every election. Inevitable, I suppose. But it's somewhat more hideous when used against Obama because of the racial undertones. He and Michelle have to prove their "patriotism," piety and cultural creds (Michelle memorized all the episodes of the Brady Bunch) beyond what would be expected of Joe Whitebread Biden or John White War Hero McCain.

....based on your sig file, you seem to kind of dig the Bible,...

Only as literature. I'm an atheist.

Fans of Mickey Kaus now have their own group on Facebook. Anyone can join; just search for "Fans of Mickey Kaus." I'm not aware of any other Blogginghead with his or her own Facebook fan page. That is all. Lily

I'm not aware of any other Blogginghead with his or her own Facebook fan page.

I have one. It has 17 members already. God Bless (Not God Damn) America
War is Peace John P.S. I'll be announcing my VP tomorrow. Bloggingheads readers will be the first to know. Expect my text message at 3 a.m. (I took a nap, so don't worry that I'll doze off and forget)

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/139...1:13&out=51:22 Mine is really tasteless. Sorry.

Mr. Yglesias and Ms. McArdle have facebook fan clubs. http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

Bob goes a bit too far with some of his other reality inversion arguments. I take his point about the Republican's skill at spinning the "elitism" argument. But it doesn't rise to the level of reality inversion unless you can prove that McCain is the elitist and Obama is not. In their current roles, Obama and McCain are both elites. They may or may not harbor elitist views; that's harder to judge. We know they both have been educated at some of the most elite schools. Furthermore, it seems to me that elitism is not directly connected to how much money is in the bank.

Quoting gwlaw99: This sounds exactly like one of those automated responses you can generate on the internet.

You sound like someone who saw something more than two sentences long and couldn't be bothered to read it. I thought Ocean's distinction between adult/child reaction as it applies to Obama's measured response vs. McCain's empty bellicosity was spot on.

Quoting EliasCepeda: It would be one thing for Mr. Kaus to have some first hand knowledge of the successes and failures of these organizations, departments, centers, etc. that the Obamas have done work with and then make a criticism based on that. But it's pretty clear that he made a value judgement without any real knowledge of this particular topic.

B-b-but he reads Hot Air and Gateway Pundit every day.

Quoting del: Obama could pay lip service to a fence and securing our borders, but beyond that he could avoid sounding unelectably dovish by picking a popular and relatively inexpensive hawkish program like ballistic missile defense and saying that that has a bigger bang for the buck than a trillion dollar war.

That would cost him my support. I suspect I'm not the only one on the left that would react this way.

DoctorMoney: Very well said. It's a pity the average voter isn't smart enough to understand that, though. They have devolved from being swayed by sound bites to being swayed by single words. Wonderment: Same goes to you.

Quoting bjkeefe: That would cost him my support. I suspect I'm not the only one on the left that would react this way.

for reals? i'm kind of steamed about the bombing pakistan thing (which would presumably kill lots of innocent people) but fences and missile shields strike me as relatively unobjectionable . . . would you go nader? i think i did that back in 2000 but i really think he's as senile as mccain now . .

meh, i actually think at least US FOREIGN policy would have been better if leaders had slavishly governed by polls for the last 40 years . . . that's not a tough threshold to exceed, in my opinion, and every military conflict has its own opinion dynamics, but, for starters, we would have sent most of our foreign aid money to Africa rather than to Israel and to Middle East dictators . . .

Quoting del: for reals? i'm kind of steamed about the bombing pakistan thing (which would presumably kill lots of innocent people) but fences and missile shields strike me as relatively unobjectionable . . . would you go nader? i think i did that back in 2000 but i really think he's as senile as mccain now . .

I'm not sure that Obama has ever advocated general bombing of Pakistan. The only thing I've ever heard him say that could be construed as hawkish that involved Pakistan was his statement that he'd go after bin Laden in Pakistan if we knew where he was and the Pakistanis wouldn't act. If there's anything else, I'm unaware of it, but I am sure it's at least a reasonable point of view that even if I didn't agree with it, I could see how it could be debated. By contrast, a missile shield is a fantasy, it always has been, and it always will be. I could not respect the judgment of any politician who supported it. Its mission and definition of success at achieving milestones have been downgraded countless times since it was first proposed as a way

On missile defense, as a good lefty I'd always assumed it wouldn't work but as an international relations scholar I've had to sit through enough boring presentations on it at this point that I'm willing to concede that it probably kinda works now and that in any case the definition of "works" keeps shifting to higher standards . . . i.e., "will it deter a truck bomb in NYC . . .well, no." On the fence, anything more than lip service does kind of bother me, and I'm not saying it'll work either, but I try keep some perspective on it . . . As for pissing off people we should worry about (if anyone), even kinda sorta bombing Pakistan is higher on my list than annoying Russia or Mexico . . . I agree that what he actually said was debatable, but IIRC it was right after Clinton attacked him for (quite reasonably) being willing to talk to Iran, so it came off as the epitome of stupid hawkishness and I think he should have picked a different battle

for reals? i'm kind of steamed about the bombing pakistan thing (which would presumably kill lots of innocent people) but fences and missile shields strike me as relatively unobjectionable . . . would you go nader? i think i did that back in 2000 but i really think he's as senile as mccain now . .

The Wall is a hot-button issue in the Latino community and throughout Latin America. Obama would lose a lot of Latino support and squander political capital by playing to anti-immigrant voters. It may be a temptation because I suspect anti-immigrant voters represent the same demographic of non-college-educated white males that supported Hillary in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and throughout the South. As for the missile shield, don't forget that Obama has tremendous political capital as the anti-Iraq war candidate. That's what won the nomination for him, and he's already started to alienate those voters by the Pakistan remark and his insistence on escalating the war in Afghanistan. I wouldn't push it by pandering more to the Pentagon. Having said that, there's no way Obama could lose me. The idea of John McCain winning the presidency is

I agree that in the long term Latino voters are going to be a really important voting bloc, but having looked at the voter registration statistics a bit I don't think there are enough registered Latino voters in key states for it to matter as much as many assume in this particular election . . . again, in the future it'll definitely matter more, but I don't know if Obama has the luxury of looking ahead by actually getting to the left of McCain on this issue . . . that said, I wouldn't go so far as to say he actually needs to get to the right of McCain on it either . . .

Quoting del: On missile defense, as a good lefty I'd always assumed it wouldn't work but as an international relations scholar I've had to sit through enough boring presentations on it at this point that I'm willing to concede that it probably kinda works now ...

If you have anything to link to I'd be willing to look at it, but I suspect you were sitting through little besides sales pitches in those presentations. I used to work in DoD-related R&D, and believe me, I know how those "briefings" work.

... and that in any case the definition of "works" keeps shifting to higher standards . . . i.e., "will it deter a truck bomb in NYC . . .well, no."

That's not a "higher standard." It's just plain common sense. The point is: why keep spending billions on a Rube Goldberg system that even if it ever could be made to work, is so easily made obsolete by other, vastly cheaper methods of attack? Calling this a "higher standard" is Kool Aid talk.

On the fence, anything more than lip service does kind of bother me, and I'm not saying it'll work either, but I try keep some perspective on it . . .

Sorry, but that's just squishiness. When

Hi BJ, On missile defense, I don't think that the technical presentations which will dominate if you search Google Scholar are going to get us anywhere (not least of all as my specialty is international public opinion) nor would it prove anything for me to cherry-pick a couple of poli sci articles on it, but I do think one sort of fair way to assess it is to Google "Ballistic Missile Defense Japan," which should give a sense of how it's at least "taken seriously" in a genuinely pacific country. On the fence, I think the fact that elites are pretty united in not wanting it has a considerable effect on media coverage as to how much it's going to cost and so forth . . . I remember being pretty surprised at how cheap the projections were when I assigned some Congressional hearings on it a couple of years ago, but if there were a national referendum on it I'd certainly vote against it (and lose). On Pakistan, yeah, I don't really want to debate it either . . . if Obama's never really pissed you off on any issue I'd be kind

Quoting del: On the fence, I think the fact that elites are pretty united in not wanting it ...

Let me just stop you there. Who are these "elites?" Physicists, engineers, statisticians, other military hardware specialists? People who are the best trained to evaluate these things? Because a big reason I've long been against Star Wars is precisely because this sort of elite has convinced me of the folly of the dream. If by "elites" you just mean people who eat arugula, however, I think we don't need to talk about this anymore. I'll just add that I've taken a quick look at the Google results for "Ballistic Missile Defense Japan." Nothing jumps out at me except a sense that (a) you're trying to get me to do research to make your case for you, and (b) yeah, people in other countries can be sold the same bill of goods as people in this country. I don't mean to disrespect your field, but trying to make the case for a giant weapons system based on the perceptions of average people just doesn't do it for me. A majority of the public can be sold pretty much anything, especially when

All right Brendan . . . I get that you love experts and that you hate the US public . . . I don't care if you hate the public but as an arugula-eating professor with an Ivy League PhD let me suggest to you that your trust in elites of all stripes is seriously misplaced . . . as for "having you do my research for me," populist that I am I am indeed beginning to feel that this particular conversation is below me . . . Sweet Dreams,
Del

Quoting del: All right Brendan . . . I get that you love experts and that you hate the US public . . .

Yeah. That's the only possible explanation.

I'm really learning a lot about heroism from BH! I was waiting for bjkeefe or some other commenter to take Wright to task for calling Sen. Kennedy's actions heroic here, given their assertion in this thread regarding Sen. McCain

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think his behavior was "heroic," in any case -- to say so cheapens the term. He was a survivor, nothing more. If you want to call him a hero, then call everyone being held in Gitmo a hero, too.

Knowing that bjkeefe and posters who agree with bjkeefe pride themselves on their intellectual honesty and consistency, I was eagerly anticipating their response. It came in a form I wasn't expecting: in this thread, Wonderment boldly states that William Ayers is a hero, and he's praised and seconded by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, ohcomeon (I think) and, drumroll...bjkeefe.

Quoting Exeus99: I'm really learning a lot about heroism from BH! I was waiting for bjkeefe or some other commenter to take Wright to task for calling Sen. Kennedy's actions heroic here, given their assertion in this thread regarding Sen. McCain
Knowing that bjkeefe and posters who agree with bjkeefe pride themselves on their intellectual honesty and consistency, I was eagerly anticipating their response.

It came in a form I wasn't expecting: in this thread, Wonderment boldly states that William Ayers is a hero, and he's praised and seconded by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, ohcomeon (I think) and, drumroll...bjkeefe.

Ex: I listened to your clip. I know you own an irony detector, did you forget to use it when you first heard that clip?

Aem: I got that Wright was giving Kaus a hard time for finding Sen. Kennedy's speech moving for the wrong reasons, but I don't think he was being sarcastic when he called Kennedy's performance heroic--it's possible he used the term ironically in whole, but I don't get the impression that he meant to be understood to be denying Kennedy's heroism. In short, I agree that Wright's tone was ironic, but I don't think he was being ironic in calling Kennedy's action heroic. (I recognize that this is a problem with these kids today, what with their hip ironic and post-ironic speech--you can't ever be sure what they really mean--they might not even be sure!)

Quoting Exeus99: Aem: I got that Wright was giving Kaus a hard time for finding Sen. Kennedy's speech moving for the wrong reasons, but I don't think he was being sarcastic when he called Kennedy's performance heroic--it's possible he used the term ironically in whole, but I don't get the impression that he meant to be understood to be denying Kennedy's heroism. In short, I agree that Wright's tone was ironic, but I don't think he was being ironic in calling Kennedy's action heroic.

(I recognize that this is a problem with these kids today, what with their hip ironic and post-ironic speech--you can't ever be sure what they really mean--they might not even be sure!)

That's too subtle for me to critique. I generally hear a joke when adjectives are used like that, by people whom I expect to understand the meaning of what they say.

Quoting AemJeff: That's too subtle for me to critique.

Thanks? Thanks! I dunno, maybe Wright wouldn't agree, now, that Kennedy's actions were heroic. I wonder if the other commenters would agree; but even apart from whether those commenters are being consistent, I was surprised to learn who/what they DID find heroic--so it's still a learnin' experience.

Oh look, Obama's tied his all-time spread over McCain! Polls are bulls#!t. All the hangwringing is because of polls. A tiny spread the other way and all the blather goes out the window. So all the carping about Obama is even more wrong now: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/139...2:57&out=23:49 Get out of the defensive crouch guys! The stadium rally is a great idea because instead of speaking to 19,000 party insiders, Obama is speaking to 19,000 party insiders + 60,000 voters in a key swing state. Those big rallies turn spectators into volunteers and donors. They're a huge part of Obama's ground game. Bob and Mickey are in classic villager mode here, thinking the only thing that matters is what's on the TV and how the villagers talk about it.

To listen to these commenters discuss things like Vietnam through the gross lens of moral relativism makes me wish they would have been citizens of Vietnam or Cambodia after the war ended. Maybe, if they survived, they would recognize tyranny and oppression for what it is-- the absolutist will of a few. To label America's intervention as unjust is to deny the horrors of communism and succomb to the vulgarity of centralized rule where the dignity of man is decided by the few without challenge. For a thoughtful article on whether America actions in the Vietnam War were just read this
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/op...shawcross.html

Quoting bjkeefe: Yeah. That's the only possible explanation.

Well, sorry to be an a-hole (and to hypocritically invoke expertise!) . . . looks like your genuinely conservative antagonists are back on the scene now so I'll leave you guys to it! Viva discourse! (Oh, to the person who said polls are bs I'd retort that they're only kind of bs!)

Quoting Exeus99: I'm really learning a lot about heroism from BH! I was waiting for bjkeefe or some other commenter to take Wright to task for calling Sen. Kennedy's actions heroic here, given their assertion in this thread regarding Sen. McCain
Knowing that bjkeefe and posters who agree with bjkeefe pride themselves on their intellectual honesty and consistency, I was eagerly anticipating their response.

It came in a form I wasn't expecting: in this thread, Wonderment boldly states that William Ayers is a hero, and he's praised and seconded by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, ohcomeon (I think) and, drumroll...bjkeefe.

FWIW, Bob's use of the term didn't register when I first listened to the diavlog. This'll astound you, but I am not quite as obsessed as you with looking for gotchas to serve up against bjkeefe. Also FWIW: upon reviewing the clip you provided, I'm with AemJeff -- I hear Bob as being ironic with his use of the term. To expand, I hear him saying, "While that wasn't nothing of Teddy Kennedy to do, who here besides me thinks the word hero has been cheapened lately?" Third FWIW: I wasn't so much agreeing with Wonderment's labeling of Ayers as a hero, specifically, as I was agreeing with his larger points. But I'll

To listen to these commenters discuss things like Vietnam through the gross lens of moral relativism makes me wish they would have been citizens of Vietnam or Cambodia after the war ended. Maybe, if they survived, they would recognize tyranny and oppression for what it is-- the absolutist will of a few. To label America's intervention as unjust is to deny the horrors of communism and succomb to the vulgarity of centralized rule where the dignity of man is decided by the few without challenge.

You don't have to be an admirer of communism to oppose the Vietnam War. By your reasoning we should have had the Mongolia War, the Cuba War, the Poland War, the Hungarian War and a few dozen others -- forcing all our children to go on adolescent suicide missions and to drop Napalm on millions of civilians everywhere. I'm sure you supported the Iraq War and the impending(?) Iran War. Wherever there is tyranny, the US must engage in mass murder to "fix" it? Indeed, that was the demonic logic of the Vietnam War: destroy the village in order to save it (from communism). If you

Let's keep in mind that as much as we might be fans of Bob and Mickey(?), they recorded this on Tuesday. Therefore the value of their collective assessment of the convention as a failure is suspect from the start.
Had they waited two more days they could have discussed the impact of the thematic speeches on the economy and defense. The relative merits of say, John Kerry's forceful speech that tarred "candidate" McCain would be more interesting than Mickey's birds-eye perspective from his hotel room.
Mickey also called the Republican convention a bust beforehand - that must be that knee-jerk contrarianism at play.
Bob is no less guilty of sticking to his MSM meme (ugh) that Obama is tethered to McCain's left flank.
If you say it enough times, maybe somebody will believe it.

Third FWIW: I wasn't so much agreeing with Wonderment's labeling of Ayers as a hero, specifically, as I was agreeing with his larger points. But I'll give you one Gotcha Point there, since I should have taken the time to say so without having to be prompted.

Also, worth mentioning is that I and other posters have included caveats regarding our appraisal of Ayers in which we reject his use of violence. The violence was not the heroic part. It was the rest of his life devoted to peace and social justice. Notice the KEY difference: We are saying that Bill Ayers is a peace hero in spite of a brief period in which he engaged in (zero-victim) violence which we deplore and reject. McCain backers are saying McCain is a hero BECAUSE of the mass murder he inflicted in his twenty-something missions of death and destruction.

Quoting del: Well, sorry to be an a-hole (and to hypocritically invoke expertise!) . . .

Thanks.

looks like your genuinely conservative antagonists are back on the scene now so I'll leave you guys to it! Viva discourse!

That's a hell of a sign-off, del. You appear to be making fun of the same behavior you displayed toward the end of this conversation.

Quoting Wonderment: Also, worth mentioning is that I and other posters have included caveats regarding our appraisal of Ayers in which we reject his use of violence.

The violence was not the heroic part. It was the rest of his life devoted to peace and social justice.

Notice the KEY difference: We are saying that Bill Ayers is a peace hero in spite of a brief period in which he engaged in (zero-victim) violence which we deplore and reject. McCain backers are saying McCain is a hero BECAUSE of the mass murder he inflicted in his twenty-something missions of death and destruction.

That's a good clarification, Wonderment, and again, I agree with your sense of the man. I just wouldn't call him a hero. I'd give him props for trying to do more than the average person, of course, but I'm stingy with the h-word.

Quoting claymisher: Oh look, Obama's tied his all-time spread over McCain!

I'd give 10:1 that if Bob and Mickey has that graphic in front of them while doing the diavlog, Mickey would start off by parroting the GOP line about Obama getting an "unexpectedly low" bounce, and Bob would be wringing his hands that since Obama hasn't already gotten the "expected 15%" that McCain's minions dictated to their MSM stenographers, the election is surely lost. He would then spend the next twenty minutes re-listing every flaw in Obama he has ever imagined.

The stadium rally is a great idea because instead of speaking to 19,000 party insiders, Obama is speaking to 19,000 party insiders + 60,000 voters in a key swing state. Those big rallies turn spectators into volunteers and donors. They're a huge part of Obama's ground game. Bob and Mickey are in classic villager mode here, thinking the only thing that matters is what's on the TV and how the villagers talk about it.

Totally. Let the Villagers yap about the "celebrity" thing. This setting is going to rev up 90% of the voters under 40.

Your criticism is valid only because the struggle in Vietnam became less a war of ideology between major powers, and more a struggle of the Vietnamese people for national self determination. Your criticism of US action in Cambodia is, however, not so clearly justified. The communist ideology became a plague against the Cambodian people in ways that were much more horrible than anything the US ever did in trying to resist it.

Quoting JIM3CH: Your criticism is valid only because the struggle in Vietnam became less a war of ideology between major powers, and more a struggle of the Vietnamese people for national self determination. Your criticism of US action in Cambodia is, however, not so clearly justified. The communist ideology became a plague against the Cambodian people in ways that were much more horrible than anything the US ever did in trying to resist it.

Hate to be the one to break this to ya, but we never went to war with Cambodia, the secret bombing was an attempt to protect our flank in Vietnam, a strategy the politicians running the war didn't get until it was too late, but one that is taught at the 101 level in any military school.
The direct result of mass bombing of the countryside was the unfettered rise of the Khmer Rouge, which led to arguably the worst genocide in human history.

Also instructive is how the then Decider-in-chief concluded that the mass murder should proceed.

Not all of the members of the administration agreed that an invasion of Cambodia was either militarily or politically expedient. Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird and Secretary Rogers were both opposed to any such operation... Both were castigated by Henry Kissinger for their "bureaucratic foot-dragging....As a result, Laird was bypassed by the Joint Chiefs...

On the evening of 25 April Nixon dined with his friend Bebe Rebozo and Kissinger. Afterward, they screened one of Nixon's favorite movies, Patton, a biographical portrayal of controversial General George S. Patton, Jr., which he had seen five times previously. Kissinger later commented that "When he was pressed to the wall, his [Nixon's] romantic streak surfaced and he would see himself as a beleaguered military commander in the tradition of Patton."

The following evening, Nixon decided that "We would go for broke" and gave his authorization for the incursion.....

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks.

That's a hell of a sign-off, del. You appear to be making fun of the same behavior you displayed toward the end of this conversation.

Only a little : ) I really do believe in the discourse stuff but I'm swamped with work and, believe it or not, I've been spending even more time procrastinating on an unrelated board! Suffice it to say you'd call me a right-wing maniac if I told you the subject : )

The Khmer Rouge were a scourge in Cambodia before any action taken by the US. And though you can argue what the effect of the bombing was with regard to the spread of their influence throughout Cambodian society, the abrupt withdrawal of the US from Cambodia, largely influenced by the peace movement, is what led to the killing fields.

Quoting del: Only a little : )

I really do believe in the discourse stuff but I'm swamped with work and, believe it or not, I've been spending even more time procrastinating on an unrelated board!

Okay. I did have a little of that sense.

Suffice it to say you'd call me a right-wing maniac if I told you the subject : )

Try me.

Wait, you hear Wright saying

Quoting bjkeefe: "While that wasn't nothing of Teddy Kennedy to do, who here besides me thinks the word hero has been cheapened lately?"

in this clip? That seems like a stretch. I don't think his point had anything to do with evaluating the use or misuse of the word hero, I agree with AemJeff that he was just giving Kaus a hard time about why Kaus thought Kennedy's speech was inspiring--but unlike AemJeff I think it's fairly likely that Wright does think Kennedy's actions were heroic. Knowing what a stickler you are for expansive uses of the term, I expected a comment and was ever so disappointed, but I'm glad to know it was an unintentional oversight on your part. Also, re:

Quoting bjkeefe: This'll astound you, but I am not quite as obsessed as you with looking for gotchas to serve up against bjkeefe.

This is my obsessed-astounded face.

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay. I did have a little of that sense.

Try me.

Finance : ) But in my defense I've never been invested in the stock market and it's mostly just a bunch of statistical yakkity-yak about alternatives thereto . . .

Quoting Wonderment: Also, worth mentioning is that I and other posters have included caveats regarding our appraisal of Ayers in which we reject his use of violence.

The violence was not the heroic part. It was the rest of his life devoted to peace and social justice.

I guess I need to start making large assumptions that I normally try to avoid when I read some of the posts here. When your post is titled "More praise of Bill Ayers, American War Resister and Hero" I didn't see the * by Hero that led to a footnote saying "hero for the good work he did opposing the War, net all the bad things he said and did," so I didn't assume it was there. When, in your post, you say about Ayers that

Quoting Wonderment: He courageously opposed a stupid, pointless and illegal war of agression in which the USA inflicted mass murder

and then go on to say about war resisters that

Quoting Wonderment: A few advocated violent resistance in the USA. They made mistakes, committed crimes and were prosecuted. They were wrong to advocate violence.

I didn't assume that you meant the courageous opposition of Ayers you were referring to was only

Quoting JIM3CH: The Khmer Rouge were a scourge in Cambodia before any action taken by the US. And though you can argue what the effect of the bombing was with regard to the spread of their influence throughout Cambodian society, the abrupt withdrawal of the US from Cambodia, largely influenced by the peace movement, is what led to the killing fields.

If you are going to promote our military involvement in other countries, you might want to avoid rewriting history, we never went into Cambodia to topple the new regime there, or help the Cambodian people:
"The fighting continued through June. At the end of that month, in accord with a promise by President Nixon that this would be a limited attack for the sole purpose of preventing enemy offensives against South Vietnam, all U.S. ground troops left Cambodia. ARVN units continued to range the base areas, however, and American arms and supplies flowed to the ill-trained and hard-pressed forces of General Lon Nol." The secret "carpet bombing" of rural areas of Cambodia gave the Khmer Rouge a political platform, rallying the rural people in an anti-technological movement targeting those they saw as "elites" or the educated class.
Movement rhetoric that seems hauntingly familiar.

Quoting Exeus99: Wait, you hear Wright saying in this clip? That seems like a stretch. I don't think his point had anything to do with evaluating the use or misuse of the word hero, I agree with AemJeff that he was just giving Kaus a hard time about why Kaus thought Kennedy's speech was inspiring--but unlike AemJeff I think it's fairly likely that Wright does think Kennedy's actions were heroic.

Don't know what else to tell you except that in the end, the perception of tone of voice is subjective, as is the exact connotation of a nebulous word like hero. I can only say that I'd bet if I got to ask Bob, "Do you really think what Teddy did made him a hero?", he'd say, "Weeeelll, not really."

Quoting del: Finance : )

But in my defense I've never been invested in the stock market and it's mostly just a bunch of statistical yakkity-yak about alternatives thereto . . .

I don't know what to make of you, del. I don't know why would think I would have a negative reaction to the field of finance or a blanket dislike of investing in the stock market. I'm not sure if you have some caricatured version of me, or of The Left, or if you're just finding it impossible to be anything but superficial at the moment with all these ridiculous must-be-black-or-white distinctions. Whatever's going on, though, it's pretty tiresome.

Yes, I could have been clearer. I will recap: 1. I admire Ayers insofar as he is a man of peace. I would say the same thing, for example, of Nelson Mandela -- a great peace and social justice hero who (wrongly, in my view) also supported violent resistance for a time. (Obviously, Ayers is not of the same stature as Mandela, but I'm sure you understand my point.) 2. I reject the notion that McCain is a hero. He served proudly and with great conviction in a bombing campaign that inflicted terror on the Vietnamese, and he never repented. I believe the North Vietnamese were right to detain him and charge him with crimes against humanity. Of course, they had no right to throw him in a Guantánamo-like shithole, torture and mistreat him. 3. Ayers is not an "unrepentant terrorist" as he's been portrayed in the right-wing media. He made one comment suggesting that the antiwar movement did not do enough, and that has been interpreted as meaning he thinks more violence was appropriate. That's not what he meant, nor is it what I mean, when I concur that we didn't do enough to stop the Nixons, Johnsons and McCains of the era. 4. McCain is an "unrepentant terrorist"; John

Quoting bjkeefe: Whatever's going on, though, it's pretty tiresome.

Now there's a proposition we can ALL agree to : ) I really am going to go away now Brendan, and I promise not to think any overly-caricatured thoughts about you until I return : )

Wonderment: My sincere thanks for the clarifications--if you don't mind adding one more, in the context of

Quoting Wonderment: 4. McCain is an "unrepentant terrorist"; John Kerry isn't.

leaving aside whether either of them were/are terrorists, what do you think is required for one to be sufficiently penitent?

Quoting Exeus99: Wonderment:

My sincere thanks for the clarifications--if you don't mind adding one more, in the context of leaving aside whether either of them were/are terrorists, what do you think is required for one to be sufficiently penitent?

To stop taking pride in the crimes (sins) one committed. How about that?

.

leaving aside whether either of them were/are terrorists, what do you think is required for one to be sufficiently penitent?

I don't know. I think Kerry set the bar very high when he said, "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the

To stop taking pride in the crimes (sins) one committed.
How about that?

Very well stated.

Quoting Ocean: To stop taking pride in the crimes (sins) one committed.

Well, that seems like a promising place to start, but it doesn't really get the job done. Beyond defining pride in this context, we'd have to be a little clearer about what crime we mean. Wonderment has been pretty clear that the entirety of the U.S. war effort was wrong and/or criminal, so from there "taking pride" in any part of that effort NOT designed to thwart the effort would negate any claims of repentance. If I remember correctly Sen. Kerry was clear that he was proud of his service and proud of his later efforts to end the war. Assuming he's still proud of his service, and that this service included committing acts some view as criminal (at least insofar as they furthered the U.S. war effort), by your definition he's still proud of his crimes, and thus not an unrepentant terrorist, which is counter to Wonderment's statement 4. So something's off there, either the "crime" category is too broad (in applying to all U.S. activities in the war) or your criteria doesn't satisfy the requirements of penitence. Added:
My memory's better than I, ah, remembered, here's a quote

Quoting Exeus99: So something's off there, either the "crime" category is too broad (in applying to all U.S. activities in the war) or your criteria doesn't satisfy the requirements of penitence.

Added:
My memory's better than I, ah, remembered, here's a quote from Sen. Kerry in 2004: "Kerry said he earned his three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star under the process set up by the Navy "and I'm proud of them and I'm proud of my service and I'm proud that I stood up against the war when I came home because it was the right thing to do." (source)

Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea culpa! for allowing myself to be dragged into this discussion. My statement in previous post reflects what would be the most minimal act of repentance, just stop feeling proud of an action that can be considered a sin or wrongdoing, or the more extreme case of a crime.
The next step would be to regret the action ("sin").
The next step would be to take some corrective action if possible, in this case political action against war crimes. This step would be the equivalent of atonement that follows penitence. I can

In the examples given, Kerry seemed to be proud of some aspects of his participation, while he regrets others. Is that hard to understand?

Yes, seems pretty straightforward. Part of the problem with McCain reviving the "war hero" myth is that's there's been no accountability of the criminals at the top. That makes the confabulation about the war all the more outrageous. Accountability is an important element in the truth and reconciliation or healing process. John McCain may have been a minor player in the actual conflict, but he's a major figure in mythologizing the war and in enabling the criminal warlords to evade responsibility. Just today two generals from the Argentinian government of the 1970s were convicted of murder. But here in the USA a criminal like Henry Kissinger is still an esteemed McCain and Bush advisor and honored elder statesman of the Republican Party.

Quoting Wonderment: Accountability is an important element in the truth and reconciliation or healing process.

Just today two generals from the Argentinian government of the 1970s were convicted of murder.

Of course, I agree. As an aside, the article you cite has among other typos, a misspelling of the "guerrilla" group. The correct name is Montaneros. Of note, one of the generals says:
"It was war, the most total of all wars, the revolutionary war," said Menendez, who was Bussi's immediate boss. "They weren't just trying to take a piece of territory from us, it was the soul of our pueblo." When you read this, you may think of an image of combat, a true war. But the reality was very different. I have no intention to defend the "Montaneros" as I don't think it would be relevant, and I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate the events of a neighboring country. However, the situation was not that of a war. There were violent actions that were disruptive, but certainly not a war. When there is no accountability there is a sense of entitlement by the perpetrators. A sense of being above the law. And that precludes any possibility of reconciliation.

I thought I might have been too harsh with STFU. I almost deleted the post. But after seeing the speech, I think every pundit and villager in America ought to spend the weekend reading or listening to all the crap they've put out this week before the speech, realize how full of shit they are, and then just learn to STFU until they can add value. Seriously, all they were talking about on the nets today was the damn stage. Do you think after the speech anybody gave a damn about that?! (This isn't really directed at Bob and Mickey. Bob has a lot of insight outside of the horserace stuff.)

wow, is this the same mickey kaus that i love to listen to? his performance reminded me of bob's when he was in saudi arabia. he was rusty and even got speechless on the john edwards issue. his contribution was more pro-obama than usual. i'm not seeing a lot of angry comments from the usual suspects in this forum re mickey.

Quoting Exeus99: I'm really learning a lot about heroism from BH! I was waiting for bjkeefe or some other commenter to take Wright to task for calling Sen. Kennedy's actions heroic here, given their assertion in this thread regarding Sen. McCain
Knowing that bjkeefe and posters who agree with bjkeefe pride themselves on their intellectual honesty and consistency, I was eagerly anticipating their response.

It came in a form I wasn't expecting: in this thread, Wonderment boldly states that William Ayers is a hero, and he's praised and seconded by Abu Noor Al-Irlandee, ohcomeon (I think) and, drumroll...bjkeefe.

If Kennedy is a hero for doing something while sick and McCain is a hero for being tortured and Michael Phelps is a hero for having a long torso and big feet -- maybe we should give up on the concept. It's all empty marketing anyway. And my bias is that I'm always more aggravated with whichever party is more invested in the concept. Politics shouldn't be about exceptions, it should be about the rule.

Quoting handle: ..., we never went into Cambodia to topple the new regime there, or help the Cambodian people.

You’re right. We never did. That's my point. A round of applause please for the "courageous" and victorious anti-war left of the 1960's.

Quoting JIM3CH: You’re right. We never did. That's my point.

A round of applause please for the "courageous" and victorious anti-war left of the 1960's.

You're stealing bases here, Jim. There's all sorts of assumptions packed into your snark. I also think the scare quotes around "courageous" are a bit unfair in this context. People got the shit beaten out of them back then for holding anti-war views publicly - if some folks found solace in "Kumbaya" among themselves, well, they had a right to feel under siege. Rewriting history such that the anti-war movement is responsible for all the bad stuff that happened in southeast Asia since the fall of Saigon is perverse.

Quoting claymisher: I thought I might have been too harsh with STFU. I almost deleted the post. But after seeing the speech, I think every pundit and villager in America ought to spend the weekend reading or listening to all the crap they've put out this week before the speech, realize how full of shit they are, and then just learn to STFU until they can add value.

Seriously, all they were talking about on the nets today was the damn stage. Do you think after the speech anybody gave a damn about that?!

(This isn't really directed at Bob and Mickey. Bob has a lot of insight outside of the horserace stuff.)

The fax appears to have been sent out from Rove's secret bunker already. I've already seen about nine conservatives saying "standard Democrat boilerplate." Yeah, and no "ic." Lames. They're quaking. More fear here. The second talking point is "too much substance, not enough high-flying rhetoric" from some, "not enough substance" from others. Easy enough to say. Here's the best positive review so far.

You know the real reason Obama's speech failed, though? Because he didn't have a POW story to tell.

And speaking of lame, follow the link in this post, and hear Chuck Todd call it for what it is.

Following the tone at the Corner Blog of the National Review since 8 this evening tells me Obama gave a great speech.

Quoting rgajria: Following the tone at the Corner Blog of the National Review since 8 this evening tells me Obama gave a great speech.

Thanks for the tip. I'll have a look. [Added] ZOMG! They published a dissenting email! [Added] Okay, I quit after about the last 10. It's total kitchen sink time over there. Smells a little bit like panic and a little bit like going through the opposing-team-motions.

Yes, the Corner is a good site for measuring the depth of conservative despairobama. Truly inspiring. The Convention has turned out to be the Republicans worst nightmare. Nothing they hoped for transpired. They seem stunned. I don't underestimate the right wing's ability to regroup, call out all the vicious attack dogs and catch up some, but for now they're in big trouble.

Oh, I forgot. There was one bright note: Jonah Goldberg linking to and celebrating the anti-Obama column of his right-wing crony and anti-immigrant fanatic, Mickey Kaus:

Mickey on the Speech [Jonah Goldberg]
His best line:
"Why the slow, angsty movie-music at the end? I thought someone in the Politburo had died."

Josh sez:

Still Hope

If you're bummed about not getting a ticket to watch the Obama speech at the Invesco Center, you'll be happy to know they're still giving away tickets for John McCain's veep announcement tomorrow at the aptly-named 12,000 seat Nutter Center.

If clicking the quoted link seems like too much work, allow me to show you the money (quote):

While McCain aides have mocked as grandiose Obama's plan to give his acceptance speech before more than 75,000 at the stadium where the Denver Broncos play, McCain's events Saturday and Sunday on his "Road to the Convention" tour are also at stadiums.

Minor league stadiums.

Also, CNN did not make it clear that they were convicted of genocide and that Bussi had already been kicked out of Congress for "crimes against humanity." He was state governor of Tucumán during the military dictatorship. A better report is available in Spanish here: Bussi's statement is priceless:

...aseguró que había luchado contra "bandas de delincuentes subversivos terroristas, que mantenían fuerte presencia en el monte y en ciudades", y que había encabezado un combate contra "el comunismo internacional". Lanzó duras críticas a la fiscalía, a la que acusó de "vedettismo"....

Also worth noting is the fact that Bussi, age 82, will not actually go to prison despite the life sentence. Argentina (unlike the USA) does not, on humanitarian grounds, operate geriatric prisons. Kissinger is 85. Nunca es tarde.

Ok. I’ll back peddle. I thought that the post by DoctorMoney above was a reasonable framing of the Bill Ayers controversy. To somehow use Obama’s affiliation with him as reflective of some kind of lack of patriotism is total nonsense. But to elevate Ayers and others to the level of hero for peace is over the top. Those who advocated peace at any cost, including Ayers, have as much blood on their hands as do those who perpetrated the precipitous exit from Vietnam in 1975. The US could have done better in southeast Asia without the chaotic social upheaval caused by the Ayres of those times. Thank heavens we have much fewer such heros these days, otherwise we might have committed the same ghastly precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

Quoting JIM3CH: I thought that the post by DoctorMoney above was a reasonable framing of the Bill Ayers controversy. To somehow use Obama’s affiliation with him as reflective of some kind of lack of patriotism is total nonsense.

Yeah, I can endorse DoctorMoney's expressed point of view, too.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah, I can endorse DoctorMoney's expressed point of view, too.

w00t!

I guess it seems pretty straightforward, but our terms keep shifting. Here you say

Quoting Wonderment: John McCain may have been a minor player in the actual conflict, but he's a major figure in mythologizing the war and in enabling the criminal warlords to evade responsibility.

which seems to indicate that you don't think McCain is a criminal himself or isn't a terrorist because of his actions, though perhaps he may be one due to his terror-boosterism. But in your earlier post you say both

Quoting Wonderment: John McCain participated in the real terrorism inflicted on the Vietnamese people. McCain flew 23 mass-murder missions.

and

Quoting Wonderment: McCain was part of Rolling Thunder. Read about and tell me who is the terrorist.

which makes it seem like you think McCain is a criminal/terrorist by virtue of his participation in the Vietnam war (or at least aspects thereof). Ocean said

In the examples given, Kerry seemed to be proud of some aspects of his participation, while he regrets others

and you agreed that this meant he's sufficiently repentant, but I'm not sure that it's true that Sen. McCain doesn't regret any aspects of his

I don't know if anybody's participating in this thread anymore, but I'm behind on my diavlogs, and am just getting around now to watching to this one (Friday morning in the US), which apparently was recorded on Tuesday before Hillary's speech (it took a while for me to work up the courage for McArdle/Althouse--and not to put too fine a point on it, I mostly like Megan). I have to say, this is the way to view all election-watch diavlogs. It's 24 karat comedy gold. Yes, the Clintons totally slipped the shiv into Obama--good call! Yes, Invesco Field was an epic fail, and it would have been a disaster even if it didn't rain--holy cow, does MK stand for Mickey Kaus or Miss Kleo?? That said, something tells me time is not going to increase the hilarity of Wright/Hewitt.

Quoting Exeus99: So, in response to Ocean, it is not hard for me to understand that Sen. Kerry is proud of some parts of his service and regrets others, it IS hard for me to understand how--assuming the same is true of Sen. McCain as it is (as you say) of probably "anyone that served in Vietnam,"--Wonderment can say on that basis that Sen. Kerry is sufficiently repentant while Sen. McCain isn't.

Exeus, Please tell me when McCain has made a public statement about regretting his actions in Vietnam. What did he say to that effect? We know what Kerry said. It's posted above. Furthermore, has McCain done anything to denounce actions taken by Americans in Vietnam? Is there any political activism towards that effect by McCain? Do you know of any? I think that you are getting lost in looking for apparent contradictions between different commenters. Can you step back and try to interpret the essence of our rather- straight- forward opinion? The process of "logical" analysis that you are applying to our posts is frankly awkward. You are comparing statements made by different people, in different contexts, and then extract you own idiosyncratic interpretation, to end up drawing a

Quoting Incompetence Dodger: I don't know if anybody's participating in this thread anymore, but I'm behind on my diavlogs, and am just getting around now to watching to this one (Friday morning in the US), which apparently was recorded on Tuesday before Hillary's speech (it took a while for me to work up the courage for McArdle/Althouse--and not to put too fine a point on it, I mostly like Megan). I have to say, this is the way to view all election-watch diavlogs. It's 24 karat comedy gold. Yes, the Clintons totally slipped the shiv into Obama--good call! Yes, Invesco Field was an epic fail, and it would have been a disaster even if it didn't rain--holy cow, does MK stand for Mickey Kaus or Miss Kleo??

That said, something tells me time is not going to increase the hilarity of Wright/Hewitt.

Mickey, in his blog, had a great post about how underwhelmed he was by Obama's speech. Great as in self-parodying. I mean that warmly, MK. It seems clear to me that he has been prepping himself intensely to be underwhelmed, and the pessimism you mention here seems to indicate a set of blinders that both Wright and Kaus are wearing. Not

Seriously. The notorious greek columns looked like props from a high school graduation. They were just frames around jumbo TVs. Big deal. Just another hissy fit, courtesy of the Republican party. It does lead one to wonder, what will McCain's stage look like? The answer is obvious:

Mickey, undewhelmed, gee I didn't see that one coming. As usual, Ezra Klein outdoes Mickey, with a good rundown of the speech: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...l_elect#108716

Quoting Craig McGillivary: Mickey Kaus believes is free trade and open markets. He doesn't believe in sacrificing economic growth for economic equality. So when he talks about how immigration hurts some workers I question his motives. I don't think Mickey is a racist, but he wants politicians to legitimize a movement which holds that immigrants are taking our jobs and skrewing up our country. The anti-immigration movement seeks to use for political advantage the fear of other cultures and communities that has been a part of human culture from the beginning. I support free trade but as bad as protectionism is I can understand it as the service of narrow special interests which has always been a part of our politics. The anti-immigration movement is worse than protectionism because it attempts to be a broad based movement against people I know who just want to work here and make a better life for themselves.

Yes, Mickey is on the anti-illegal immigration bandwagon. According to the polling that I'm aware of most people are of a similiar view. I have looked into this issue closely and see why it occurs. Business interests

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Mickey, undewhelmed, gee I didn't see that one coming.

As usual, Ezra Klein outdoes Mickey, with a good rundown of the speech:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...l_elect#108716

That whippersnapper! No wonder Mickey won't DV with him! Also good: Andrew Sullivan's reaction.

Thanks for the link. I wonder why hasn't Sullivan ever come back to BHTV? (He did the one diavlog with Bob about Christianity but never returned). I wonder if it's that he's too busy with bigger venues (Chris Matthews etc.) I don't always agree with him and sometimes think he gets a bit off track, but in general, he's an interesting guy with a very large readership. I don't think he could match up with the more wonky Heads (Heather Hurlburt, Glenn Louwry etc.) but for a more general audience, he is great. He would seem like a good guest to have every once in awhile. And would definitely increase ratings.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Thanks for the link.

I wonder why hasn't Sullivan ever come back to BHTV? (He did the one diavlog with Bob about Christianity but never returned). I wonder if it's that he's too busy with bigger venues (Chris Matthews etc.) I don't always agree with him and sometimes think he gets a bit off track, but in general, he's an interesting guy with a very large readership. I don't think he could match up with the more wonky Heads (Heather Hurlburt, Glenn Louwry etc.) but for a more general audience, he is great. He would seem like a good guest to have every once in awhile. And would definitely increase ratings.

I quite agree. I have watched that Bob & Andrew two-parter several times. I think it was one of the best diavlogs ever. You're probably right about a wonkfest not being the best setting, but I'd love to hear him discuss Obama with Glenn Loury. (Among many other pairings I could think of.)

The US could have done better in southeast Asia without the chaotic social upheaval caused by the Ayres of those times. Thank heavens we have much fewer such heros these days, otherwise we might have committed the same ghastly precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

Ayers didn't cause the social upheaval. The draft, racism and imperialism caused the upheaval. The antiwar movement was anti-racism, pro-gay, pro-feminism and pro-environment. Say thank you.

Dan Quayle with Tits. From JimPortlandOR on Matt Yglesias' comment section.

Quoting JIM3CH: But to elevate Ayers and others to the level of hero for peace is over the top. Those who advocated peace at any cost, including Ayers, have as much blood on their hands as do those who perpetrated the precipitous exit from Vietnam in 1975.

Don't you think giving them credit for the political failure of the Viet Nam war is a little generous too?

Jim:

The US could have done better in southeast Asia without the chaotic social upheaval caused by the Ayres of those times.

I don't agree. The US had years before the antiwar movement became a force to be reckoned with. If they were ever going to win, they would have been able to do it before serious opposition grew up. And don't forget: a big impetus for the antiwar movement was that the situation was correctly perceived as a quagmire, or more politely, a stalemate. Things had gotten to the point where adding more bodies was just going to mean piling up more casualties, on both sides. Short of annihilating the Vietnamese, and I mean nuclear-level annihilation, the US would never have been able to get them to surrender. I also have to say, clinging to this notion that a ragtag bunch of hippies could cause the most powerful nation on earth to lose a war borders on conspiracy thinking.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Dan Quayle with Tits.

From JimPortlandOR on Matt Yglesias' comment section.

That is, in fact, funny. Kevin Drum has some choice tidbits:

* In an election season in which voters desperately want change, McCain has picked a hard-right conservative. I mean, really conservative. We're talking about a former activist for Pat Buchanan, staunch opponent of reproductive rights, global-warming denier, and skeptic of modern biology. There's a reason every right-wing group in America is jumping up and down with glee this afternoon.

* The usual pattern is for Republicans to reach national office and then face ethics investigation for alleged wrongdoing. This year, the GOP seems willing to reverse this, putting a governor on the national ticket who's already facing an ethics investigation.

* She recently asked what a Vice President does all day. How encouraging.

She was funny on Craig Ferguson's show a while back, but other than that she hasn't appeared on my radar until now. I'm not liking what I see.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Dan Quayle with Tits.

From JimPortlandOR on Matt Yglesias' comment section.

Less crudely, Andrew Sullivan asks, "Harriet Quayle?"

Quoting AemJeff: ... I'm not liking what I see.

Nor am I. Just for starters: The biology problem has been documented.

I think it's a home run for McCain, or perhaps the check/checkmate metaphor is better. We'll see how well she does in upcoming weeks, but day one has been phenomenal for the McCain campaign. When Obama's handlers prohibited him from naming Clinton VP, McCain swooped (brilliantly, in my view) to the young female right-wing, card-carrying NRA soccer mom. He also firmly planted a stake in Dick Cheney's evil heart, declaring a repetition of a Darth Vader vice-presidency a non-issue. This is likely to have enormous appeal to women and independents. I blame Bill Clinton. He screwed around with Monica Lewinsky (and many other women) and lied about it, thus irreparably damaging Gore's candidacy, and now he shot off his mouth so much against Obama that he was seen to be a deal-breaking liability as VP-spouse. He ruined not only Hillary's bid for the presidency (a good thing in my view) but also her bid for vice-president (which could have clinched the election for Obama). Advice to the Dems: Keep your eye on the ball -- the war-mongering old codger who will give the Supreme Court a right-wing extremist majority.

Quoting bjkeefe: Nor am I. Just for starters: The biology problem has been documented.

Just wait till Tina Fey gets through with her..

Her rhetoric and voice pitch reminds me of our elementary school PTA President. Five kids? Could be... Wait, anti-abortion, anti-biology, hard-right conservative? Nah, can't be from my neighborhood. This is die-hard Democrat land.

Also, McCain managed to out-Jesus the bunch of them. None of the bogus (in my view) faith stories of McCain himself, Obama or Biden will stand up to the old-time religion of Palin. What I mean by "bogus" is that Obama, McCain and Biden all doctored up their Christianity to play to the "Focus on the Family" crowd. But Palin seems to be the real deal. The Creationists and right-to-lifers may now feel validated and jazzed to vote.

Quoting Wonderment: I blame Bill Clinton. He screwed around with Monica Lewinsky (and many other women) and lied about it, thus irreparably damaging Gore's candidacy, and now he shot off his mouth so much against Obama that he was seen to be a deal-breaking liability as VP-spouse. He ruined not only Hillary's bid for the presidency (a good thing in my view) but also her bid for vice-president (which could have clinched the election for Obama).

WOW! Wonderment, If we don't stop you right now, Bill's f***k will be in the Guinness Book of records as the most catastrophic event that Humanity has faced and the direct cause of Cosmic collapse!!! Aren't you getting a little carried away?

Quoting Wonderment: Also, McCain managed to out-Jesus the bunch of them.

None of the bogus (in my view) faith stories of McCain himself, Obama or Biden will stand up to the old-time religion of Palin.

What I mean by "bogus" is that Obama, McCain and Biden all doctored up their Christianity to play to the "Focus on the Family" crowd. But Palin seems to be the real deal. The Creationists and right-to-lifers may now feel validated and jazzed to vote.

I think she may be the anti-Christ...

Aren't you getting a little carried away?

Yes, of course. I know there are probably dozens of factors that influenced Gore's defeat, and no one thing can be isolated for special blame. And I also know it's arguable if Bill is a net neg. or a net pos. for Democrats even now (eg. his speech Wed. night). I have always disliked him, so I'm biased. He got off to an awful start with me when he ran off to Arkansas to make sure he executed a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector, to show how tough he was on crime in the primaries of 92.

Rector seemed incapable of understanding his pending death sentence. For his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, telling the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber that he was saving it "for later".

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, of course. I know there are probably dozens of factors that influenced Gore's defeat, and no one thing can be isolated for special blame.

And I also know it's arguable if Bill is a net neg. or a net pos. for Democrats even now (eg. his speech Wed. night).

I have always disliked him, so I'm biased. He got off to an awful start with me when he ran off to Arkansas to make sure he executed a retarded black man, Ricky Ray Rector, to show how tough he was on crime in the primaries of 92.

I was humorously trying to bring some perspective. And I'm not arguing for or against Bill Clinton. I voted for him twice, and would have voted for him again. Not because he was perfect, but because he was the lesser evil. That's the skeptical view I have of politics. I always thought that the Monica scandal was ridiculous, out of proportion and an embarrassment to this country. It portrayed, in my opinion, that the American understanding of politics is uniquely idiosyncratic. But that's an old topic and irrelevant to this discussion. As much as you may dislike him or his lack of good judgment for exposing

Quoting Ocean: I think she may be the anti-Christ...

LOL!!

Quoting Wonderment: I think it's a home run for McCain, or perhaps the check/checkmate metaphor is better. We'll see how well she does in upcoming weeks, but day one has been phenomenal for the McCain campaign.

Disagree. The "inexperience" card is now gone for the GOP. The Dems can't use it against her, but they win by having it off the table. And even as far as "day one" goes: There are a number of conservatives already weighing in with their unhappiness. Also, her fundamentalist views probably pushed as many fence-sitters towards the Dems as any of her qualities pushed toward the Reps. Already, a lot of people are seeing it as a stunt, or at best, as a pick designed purely to win an election, not to govern. Andrew Sullivan has about a hundred links already, if you want to see some evidence.

Quoting AemJeff: Kevin Drum has some choice tidbits ...

Just for the record, Kevin Drum is no longer the Political Animal in residence. Steve Benen, formerly of the Carpetbagger Report, now runs that blog, with Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings pitching in. That post is by Benen. Drum has a new blog at Mother Jones. And The Iliad and The Odyssey were not, in fact, written by Homer, but by another ancient Greek of the same name.

I just saw some clips of her speaking. Oy vay. That voice. I look forward to her being on a debate stage with Joe Biden. She's going to look like well, a former beauty queen who has been governor of the 47th most populated state for 20 months.

Wishful thinking, guys. This was a stroke of (evil) Republican genius, I'm afraid. Biden will have to be VERY careful with her in debating. If he patronizes, he loses. If he beats up the lady, he loses. If he's too soft on her, he loses. Think of how good she'd be debating McCain himself. He'd look a nasty old bully or a sexist putz. A Democrat male her age would defuse some of that, but debating grandpa Biden will make her look good. I do NOT like the She's Dan Quayle meme. I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss this politician as a light-weight dummy. Don't underestimate her.

More problems for swing voters: Palin appears to be a global warming denier. So, she doesn't believe in evolution, a woman's right to choose, or AGW. And this is helping McCain distance himself from Bush, how?

And speaking of Kevin Drum, this one is worth reading. He starts off by illustrating her utter cluelessness on foreign policy, goes on to describe how McCain met her once and talked to her on the phone once before picking her. Drum concludes:

This is all part of what I was talking about the other day when I noted that McCain is running such a palpably unserious campaign. Steve Schmidt seems solely interested in winning the daily news cycle; his staff spends its time gleefully churning out juvenile attack videos; McCain himself has retreated into robotic incantations of simpleminded talking points; and now he's chosen a manifestly unqualified VP that he knows nothing about. I've honestly never seen anything like it.

Quoting bjkeefe: More problems for swing voters: Palin appears to be a global warming denier.

So, she doesn't believe in evolution, a woman's right to choose, or AGW. And this is helping McCain distance himself from Bush, how?

He should have stuck to Margaret Thatcher...

I disagree. If Biden calls her out and questions her knowledge I don't think the response will be the same as it was for Hillary when it appeared that the boys started playing rough with Hillary. It's a simple question of competence. I see nothing suggesting this woman belongs in the role of Vice President, let alone, (god-forbid) running the country. The idea of a crazy anti-abortion, anti-science etc., woman being so close to the levers of power for this country, should be enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone who has paid attention to what happened when a male version (W) got into the highest office in the land. Real feminists should be outraged at this obvious attempt to put a person into a position based solely on the fact that she has a vagina and is a wingnut to boot. The other aspect you didn't mention is that the VP is supposed to be the attack-dog for their Prez candidate. She is going to have a tough time playing that role effectively given her limitted experience. She could try to play the religion card (as a

Quoting Wonderment: Wishful thinking, guys.

This was a stroke of (evil) Republican genius, I'm afraid.

Biden will have to be VERY careful with her in debating. If he patronizes, he loses. If he beats up the lady, he loses. If he's too soft on her, he loses.

Think of how good she'd be debating McCain himself. He'd look a nasty old bully or a sexist putz.

A Democrat male her age would defuse some of that, but debating grandpa Biden will make her look good.

I do NOT like the She's Dan Quayle meme. I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss this politician as a light-weight dummy. Don't underestimate her.

Wonderment: You're starting to sound like Flowbee. This is nothing short of deranged fearmongering. Biden will drink her milkshake in the debate and will be completely courtly while doing so. That's assuming Karl Rove doesn't have her taken out before it gets that far. Every indication is that she is, in fact, a complete lightweight on national and international affairs. Not a dummy, certainly -- she's (appears to be) a good local/regional politician. But she's been tossed into the game too soon. Everything that was said against Bobby Jindal works just as much for her -- the

Quoting Ocean: He should have stuck to Margaret Thatcher...

Ocean, you're in rare form tonight. Watch it, though. Even though you're the apple (banana?) of Senator M's eye, there is only so much kidding he can take. Before he blows his top, I mean.

Developing ...

And some more good points by a young whippersnapper: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...ption#comments

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: She could try to play the religion card (as a die-hard Christian), but I don't think that approach will be a winner (not among Independents and working-class Democrats.) I just don't see what voters are now in play for the GOP that weren't already onboard yesterday. If anything, this should push Ind's and Hillary supporters even more in the direction of Obama.

I agree with your comments. The only reason for selecting her seems to be the "religion card". The Christian right hasn't been happy with McCain, and they may like Palin as a strong representative of conservative values. At the same time, as you pointed out, she would alienate the more liberal sectors. I don't see this as a smart idea at all. Maybe there is such thing as Republicans shooting themselves in the foot. Uncle ebeneezer, I didn't like your description of Palin's gender-related attributes.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: And some more good points by a young whippersnapper:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/e...ption#comments

Did you actually mean the comments, or did you mean the original post? Presumably, the post. Yeah, that was good.

Quoting bjkeefe: Ocean, you're in rare form tonight.

Rare form? You're confused...

Watch it, though. Even though you're the apple (banana?) of Senator M's eye, there is only so much kidding he can take.

No banana, please. Apple, OK.

Before he blows his top, I mean.

LOL
Ugliest ever!

Quoting Wonderment: Wishful thinking, guys.

This was a stroke of (evil) Republican genius, I'm afraid.

Biden will have to be VERY careful with her in debating. If he patronizes, he loses. If he beats up the lady, he loses. If he's too soft on her, he loses.

Think of how good she'd be debating McCain himself. He'd look a nasty old bully or a sexist putz.

A Democrat male her age would defuse some of that, but debating grandpa Biden will make her look good.

I do NOT like the She's Dan Quayle meme. I think it would be a big mistake to dismiss this politician as a light-weight dummy. Don't underestimate her.

There's a chance you're right about her. She might prove to be a smart, smooth pol that can pull her weight in a national arena. I don't think there are very many reasons to believe that, yet. Her selection was a Hail-Mary play by McCain at a moment that doesn't seem to have called for one. He might get lucky, she might be great. Right now I'm betting it'll turn out to be (to continue with some uncharacteristic sports metaphors) an unforced error. Biden can just play the gracious elder statesman on the debating

Quoting bjkeefe: Just for the record, Kevin Drum is no longer the Political Animal in residence. Steve Benen, formerly of the Carpetbagger Report, now runs that blog, with Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings pitching in. That post is by Benen.

Drum has a new blog at Mother Jones.

And The Iliad and The Odyssey were not, in fact, written by Homer, but by another ancient Greek of the same name.

Heh, serves me right for not visiting often enough. I'm glad to know Drum still has a platform.

He should have stuck to Margaret Thatcher...

Dear My Friend Chiquita Banana, I guess I owe you an explanation on why I went with Suzie instead of Maggie. Like I told you, the Iron Lady was still on my short list as of Wed. night. Here's some straight talk: I did not dump Maggie because she has dementia. Hell, everybody's got a little dementia. In my day, we called it forgetfulness. The other week I forgot how many houses I have. Same with Maggie, except she forgets what a house is. So what? She still knows what a commie is, and she's ready on Day One to go back into Argentina if need be. "Today, we are all Faulkland Islanders," I told her, when I gave her the call Thursday with the news that she'd have to wait till 2012 or 2016 for the VP nod. Alzheimer's doesn't progress all that fast, I said to cheer the old gal up. It's like this cancer thing I have on my face. It looks lumpy and bad, but the docs can control it. Anyway, Maggie with Alzheimer's is still way smarter than Suzy Palin in her prime. She believes in creationism, for Christ Sake! So why Palin? One word: Sex appeal. Specifically, boobs. (Full disclosure: I am a breast man). Have you heard of Helen

Quoting John M:
So why Palin? One word: Sex appeal.

Hmmm... Giovanni, Giovanni. I knew it had to do with your cuddling fetish... Be careful, though. Your health matters. Now more than ever! Do you think that her religious conservatism will be an obstacle? What does Cindy say? Could someone please give her a job description? I'm always thoughtful, even with our friendly enemies, or enemy friends? Peace is Peace, and not war (even more subtle), Wake up America!
Ocean

That's why I settled on the Mooseburger

Don't you mean moose-knuckle? Sorry I couldn't resist. Nothing ruins a totally hot older woman, like conservative values.

"Steve Schmidt seems solely interested in winning the daily news cycle" Picking Sarah Palin confirms that.
Senator Biden can be gracious to her in the lone debate they will have. Treat her well, praise her, but still beat her on points.
And as we saw at the DNC convention, Senator Obama is going to fight his own battles. He wont need attack dogs to speak on his behalf.

Obama with Glenn Loury That would be a great diavlog. A two part diavlog between Cornell West and Andrew Sullivan would be fun too. But Professor Loury would be an actual possibility.

Dear My Friend Chiquita Banana,

Do you think that her religious conservatism will be an obstacle?
What does Cindy say?

I don't worry about religion. I just bombed the Gooks and let God sort it out. (Ha! Ha! That's a joke. I never really called them Gooks.) As for Cindy, she says Suzy is "likable enough," but that it doesn't matter because we own a big enough piece of Alaska to buy and sell trailer trash like the Palins ten times over. See why I don't know how many houses we own? I didn't even know about the Alaska property. Cindy calls her Lil Suzy. You remember the old Everly Brothers song? We used to listen to the Everlys to get in the mood for a wake-up Vietnam napalm run. No meth or other uppers for us. Just country music. Anyway, Cindy has been singing it in a kind of mocking way every since I told her about Suzy. She goes...

Wake up, a-little Suuuuuuuzy.
The movie wasn't so hot.
It didn't have much of a plot.
We fell asleep. Our goose is cooked.
Our reputation is shot.

Then she throws herself on the bed and lets loose with her screaming banshee laugh till she

Dear my Georgian Friend Ebenezeer,

Nothing ruins a totally hot older woman, like conservative values.

If you think Suzy Palin is an "older woman," you must still be in high school. Have you considered enlisting on graduation? If you can spell potatoe we will give you a $25,000 sign-up bonus. Let me know. We'll make a man out of you.
War is Peace (especially in peacetime), John

Quoting John M: Dear My Friend Chiquita (Banana: no),

Cindy calls her Lil Suzy. You remember the old Everly Brothers song?

Are you kidding? How old do you think I am? That's prehistoric. Only George W. and you would know. Well, he gets it all confused, but, what's new?

Then she throws herself on the bed and lets loose with her screaming banshee laugh till she pees her pants. I don't really get the joke. Symbolism maybe. You're a female. What do you think? Is she jealous or just bonkers?

Mon ami Jean (I'm trying to infuse multiculturalism in you, embrace it!), C'est bizarre! Surréaliste! Comprenez-vous? Some straight talk here: I don't want to hear about all that kinky stuff; ça me dérange! And, Jean, I'm sure you know exactement what Cindy is doing. You just forgot...

I have another question: Is it okay to discuss our missile shield program and enhanced interrogation techniques with the little governor when it's that time of the month?

Don't confuse her, s'il vous plaît. There is no time of the month for that kind of talk with Madam Lil Palin. Just talk simple to her. Or don't. That time of the month... that's personal. Ask her husband, mischievous John... Au revoir, mon ami, Wake up America! Vive la Paix! Océan

http://in.youtube.com/user/heathr456 Real Time with Bill Maher is here.

Quoting rgajria: http://in.youtube.com/user/heathr456

Real Time with Bill Maher is here.

Are you spamming on behalf of HBO or something?

Spamming for HBO. Nah, just an interesting episode that touched on some of the topics being discussed on these forums. So I thought I would share the link.

Ask her husband, mischievous John...

That's exactly what I was thinking. Todd Palin is a smart guy. Good head on his shoulders. Likes drilling. Guns. A man's man. I'm thinking about giving him his own office in the White House. That way Lil Suzy'll have more time with the kids, her knitting and whatnot. She and Cindy's maids can trade recipes. Yum - baked alaska! War is peace,
John

Quoting John M: That's exactly what I was thinking. Todd Palin is a smart guy. Good head on his shoulders. Likes drilling. Guns. A man's man.

I'm thinking about giving him his own office in the White House.

An oil guy. Not my type. At least he wasn't a beauty queen, or was he?

That way Lil Suzy'll have more time with the kids, her knitting and whatnot. She and Cindy's maids can trade recipes. Yum - baked alaska!
War is peace,
John

Now really, mon ami John, what were you thinking? Conservative Christian, anti-choice, anti-science, global warming denier, NRA, beauty queen, elementary school PTA speeches, doesn't know what a VP job is about, provincial gal? I'm starting to feel very, but very, very disappointed, John. Hmmm... On the other hand, I'm starting to think, that perhaps we have reached your heart, or, less likely, your head, and Madam Lil Palin is your gift to us! A noble sacrifice for your friends... A subtle, very subtle token of friendship. And perhaps, partisanship... B-A-L-D!
Go Go12!
Wake up America! Ocean

Quoting rgajria: Spamming for HBO. Nah, just an interesting episode that touched on some of the topics being discussed on these forums. So I thought I would share the link.

Okay. I did notice that you had posted it in more than one place, and I was just wondering.