Good to see Gary Hart! Thank you, sir, for giving us 41 minutes of your valuable time, and your valuable insights. Here's hoping you return! Gary, I think you probably know this, but our country needs more sane voices, and fewer insane ones. Every time you appear on BHTV, that's one less opportunity for a lunatic wingnut (aka "Republican") to appear. We need you. And, thanks Bob. (Maybe we'd win more elections if you did less to promote the views of the hatemongering right.)

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/143...5:16&out=35:31

You're all class.

Bob spent a lot of time on the Palin phenomenon and little on how Gary would advise Obama on what he should do. His advice which really wasn't aired out was to alter the campaign strategy in such a way so the emphasis would be on changing the scope of the U.S. executive leadership in order to deal with the modern world and it's complexities. Since so little time was spent on it I don't really know what he meant exactly - perhaps, the global economy, modern warfare and the like. To me if he were to do such a thing it should have started at the Democratic Convention not now with time running and the election not too far off. As it is, I think Obama has a wrap on it and don't see him losing due to our faltering/bailout/stimulous rebate economy and ill conceived "War On Terror." John

Dear My Georgian friend Wright: I do not have a %&*^*$&%# temper, you stupid liberal peacenik piece of ca-ca. Here's some straight talk: You can put lipstick on a liberal, but he's still a pig who smells like dead fish! And why are you so jealous of the cool kids from high school? Did you ever have the guts to play tackle football? Did you enlist? How many wild animals did you kill before graduation? I didn't think so! I've got one word for you, Wright: Yellow belly draft dodger! The kind of person red-blooded Americans like Suzie Palin and me hated in high school were the underweight eggheads who got straight A's and went to Princeton on scholarships. Those were the pussies, Bob. Still are. Real men bomb Cong villages, Bob; real women cook moose. War is Peace,
John M

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/143...5:53&out=15:57

It's something of a psychological wonder that Senator Hart's advice on how to win presidential elections is on Bloggingheads.

Quoting a Duoist: It's something of a psychological wonder that Senator Hart's advice on how to win presidential elections is on Bloggingheads.

Why? Aside from being blindsided for behavior that until the moment he ran didn't raise eyebrows, what reason do we have not to be receptive to his advice?

Transform the military in what way?
We just had Rumsfeld pursue his version of a transformation of the military, didn't we?
What other way is there to transform it?

Haven't listened yet, and may not, but last time Bob had Gary Hart on, I commented that Bob had broken faith with the bhtv audience. Just to repeat the charge: while of course bhtv is at its core about bringing together guests with strong (sometimes fiercely partisan) views, Senator Hart had come dressed in a campaign spokesman's hat, armed with rote talking points, and generally made a bore of himself. [This is not a personal attack on Senator Hart, for whom I have great respect.] I hope things are different this time, and I hope Bob will acknowledge the distinction and seek to preserve bhtv's unique value proposition, which includes freewheeling candor at its core. To put it another way, there's enough of that crap on TV.

What the heck is going on here? It is already Wednesday and you've had nothing that I can find about Fannie/Freddie nationalization. This is a monumental act by the federal government - historic, stunning, obscene on its face, but debatably necessary. And you give us Senator Boring plus you add yourself to the flacid list of those who think Palin is interesting to talk about non-stop. Lehman is close to toast, too and WaMu seems to be getting prepped for seizure. Come on, Bob. Why concentrate on the dust balls of soon-to-be-history when our actual national life is sending enormous and very, very frightening events at us.

And I think the ideas he mentioned are great ones. As has been discussed ad nauseum, it's all about framing the discussion. His suggestion that Obama frame the job-description of CIC in a way so that he is the only one capable of doing it, seems like a great idea. Bush did it by suggesting that in this dangerous world, Kerry couldn't protect America, and enough people bought into it for it to succeed. In addition to letting Obama control the discussion, following Harts advice would also play very well into Obama's strength (that alot of people believe he has the forward-thinking attitude to succesfully navigate a more complex future.) This was, at the heart, what got so many people excited about Obama but he hasn't been pushing it enough recently. Wasn't Hart's defeat more due to his extramarital affair rather than lack of understanding how to run an effective campaign. Mr. Hart, please contact the Obama camp and share your ideas. I'm sure somebody will take your call. I enjoyed this diavlog and thought it was much better than the first Hart appearance.

Quoting Gravy: What the heck is going on here? It is already Wednesday and you've had nothing that I can find about Fannie/Freddie nationalization. This is a monumental act by the federal government - historic, stunning, obscene on its face, but debatably necessary. And you give us Senator Boring plus you add yourself to the flacid list of those who think Palin is interesting to talk about non-stop. Lehman is close to toast, too and WaMu seems to be getting prepped for seizure. Come on, Bob. Why concentrate on the dust balls of soon-to-be-history when our actual national life is sending enormous and very, very frightening events at us.

I hear the Administration wants South Korea to bail out Lehman Bros. and according to Libertarian Karen De Coster General Motors is toast, too. I wonder if a person like Robert Rubin should have run for pres instead of the usual actors, lawyers, or warriors? Someone who has started and run a successful business enterprize - one that creates jobs for Americans not destroys them like Mitt Romney's operation was alleged to have done. It definitely would be a change of pace. John

Quoting Gravy: What the heck is going on here? It is already Wednesday and you've had nothing that I can find about Fannie/Freddie nationalization.

Bhtv has become the all-Palin, all-the-time channel. I've passed along the names of some guests qualified to discuss these topics, and hope management books them right away. Per my comment above, I was happy to see Gary Hart bring his A-game instead of talking points. What he said would have been 100% on point, except for one central fallacy. Senator Obama could win with a campaign of Big Ideas, even if they're Hart's Big Ideas, but the real problem is that Obama isn't about Big Ideas. Hope/Change isn't an idea, it's more like a mood or an attitude (or a music video). Small ideas include throwing money at the laundry list of existing (some demonstrably failed) programs, fooling around with the tax code, moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan faster, etc. If Bob didn't see the false trichotomy before Hart pointed it out, I have to assume a lot of the Greater Obama Support Network and perhaps the candidate himself don't. A further problem in implementing Hart's campaign vision is that it would require a

I'm sorry, but Mr. Hart is an idiot. His campaign slogans appear to be World Government, Higher Taxes, Put Your Trust in Harvard Lawyers, More Government Regulation. Like this is going to win the election, much less lead to a successful administration. Does anybody besides Gary actually believe this stuff? http://www.dankingbooks.com

Seeing the topic list, I thought Hart was going to say 'lay off Palin' because she actually is much more accomplished and capable than people give her credit for and they'd be much more successful at dimininishing her impact by ignoring her. Instead, he shows he's totally on the establishment train of condescension that has already built up a full head of steam. He dismisses Palin as a 'moose-hunting hockey mom' and ignores her executive and bi-partisan experience, completely parroting the ridicule and ignorance about Palin that the msm has already advanced Palin over the last week as a down payment benefit-of-the-doubt with the American people. I can imagine the republican hacks in Alaska saying the very same thing about her a few years ago. Does Hart truly think that by being a hack for another party it's going to produce a different outcome? Palin may very well still implode but it won't be because of people like Gary Hart who know next-to-nothing about her and yet ridicule her for being very average in her private life. It's no wonder the women of

Joe Biden made a comment recently that Hillary is more suited to be VP than he is. Where is he anyway? Anyhow, I wonder if this is a prelude for Obama to dump him and put her in the VP slot. Bob said not very many people like the prom queen or something to that effect. This older version of a high school looker in Sarah Palin (why does John M. call her Suzy?) does not fit his analogy. She is not only liked but has jump started the McCain campaign. John

Personally, I thought he was going to say "lay Palin". I still remember John Denver's "The Ballad of Gary Hart".

Quoting harkin: Seeing the topic list, I thought Hart was going to say 'lay off Palin' because she actually is much more accomplished and capable than people give her credit for and they'd be much more successful at dimininishing her impact by ignoring her.

Dear My Georgian Friend Bkjazfan, First off, are you a Polack? If not, how do you explain that consonant cluster in your name? Don't get me wrong, I like Polacks. I think you guys should get some big nukes to defend yourselves against the Russkies. Do you still have a border with Finland? Never mind, I'll look it up in the Brittanica. On to your question:

Bob said not very many people like the prom queen or something to that effect. This older version of a high school looker in Sarah Palin (why does John M. call her Suzy?) does not fit his analogy.

Please, don't get caught up in conspiracy theories. I know her name is Sarah, not Suzy. I get a little confused sometimes. If I don't get enough sleep, my Alzheimer's acts up. That's why Suzy's so good for the campaign -- When I'm taking a nap in the afternoons, she can step right in, put on some lipstick, and she's fresh as a daisy. Speaking of prom queens, Bob Wright is a Drama Queen. He oughta wear a dress when he has his little kaffeeklatch with Mickey Kaus. Wright brings his poodle sometimes, fer Chrissake! How gay is THAT? I don't know how Mr. Kaus -- an early

Guess you guys both missed the part were the hockey mom was elected Governor of Alaska. You can not even bring yourselves to address her with the respect her position warrants. Bob, I also believe she won Miss Congeniality in highschool. I love listening to blogging heads, it always reinforces my decision to vote republican.

I think Gary Hart is saying something similar to what I have been thinking when he says that Obama should make "the problem bigger" - that is that Obama should provide a "narrative" or a governing philosophy for what Bob Wright calls the laundry list of policy positions. I think this was (and, judging by his appearance at the DNC, continues to be) Bill Clinton's great talent. In 1992, Clinton talked about a "New Covenant" by which he meant that the US should maintain and even expand the social safety net, but, at the same time, demand more responsibility (e.g. work hard and play by the rules") from its citizens. For all his rhetorical talent, I don't think Obama has quite provided such a simple, all-encompassing framework to make sense of his policy agenda. It is telling that in defending Barack Obama here: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/142...9:20&out=30:49, the best Peter Beinart could do was to recite Bill Clinton's narrative. I think such a over-arching policy framework is also what Glenn Loury has been asking for when he says that the Obama campaign needs to explain what our responsibilities to each other are as a society. I think the Al Gore/Gary Hart/Tom Friedman narrative

Quoting harkin: One hopes that people recognize that this board and the msm have become 'all-Palin, all the time' because of their completely insane attempt to take control of the narrative as soon as she was named to the ticket and ridicule/smear/dismiss her. All the smears about her not really being the mother of her youngest, the Alaska independence movement, the 'sambo' idiocy, the book banning, etc etc etc have only proven that the people who continually boast about the 'truthiness' of what they say in fact are very short on confirmation of sources skills.

Your wrong, harkin. The "MSM" doesn't control the narrative, not in the partisan way you imagine. They really don't give a shit what the content of what they cover is, as long as they can find an angle that'll sell it. A far better picture would be to imagine them surfing the narrative, picking up on whatever wave they can, amplifying it, sucking all of the energy out of it, and then moving on to the next thing. (Ok, so "surfing" isn't a perfect metaphor, I can't think of a better one.) The problem isn't partisanship, it's cynicism. Right-wing paranoid fantasia aside, it's not hard to imagine Palin

Every time a Dem. opens his/her mouth with a nasty gendered remark about Palin, as Hart did in dismissing her as a "moose-hunting soccer mom," the Obama boat (my boat) sinks deeper. Whatever Hart meant overall, those kinds of comments come across as demeaning and condescending. I am horrified at how poorly Dems. have responded to Sarah Palin. Yesterday's lipstick-fish gaffe is the first time I've ever thought Obama said something truly stupid and regrettable. That was bad enough. But then he exacerbated the situation by saying more stupid and regrettable things today, in a lame attempt to fix things (at a rally and on Letterman). The Dem. Party is stunned by Palin, and Obama is painfully off message. Obama can win this as an agent of true change and because of his integrity, leadership, policy and programs. But he's got to get a grip fast.

I get the sense that Bob Wright might be unaware that Gary Hart was a groomsman at John McCain's wedding. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/143...7:57&out=29:26 See this Arizona Republic story: http://www.azcentral.com/news/specia...-chapter5.html

I think Bob is waiting for Mickey to come back to discuss the Fannie Freddie deal. Mickey has written about it in the past.

I think you're mistaken. I believe they actually talked about this in Hart's first BHTV appearance. (I was surprised by it..strange bed-fellows indeed.)

Wonderment "Every time a Dem. opens his/her mouth with a nasty gendered remark about Palin, as Hart did in dismissing her as a "moose-hunting soccer mom," the Obama boat (my boat) sinks deeper.
Whatever Hart meant overall, those kinds of comments come across as demeaning and condescending. " To be fair, it was Bob who kept harping on the Sarah Palin question.

It's a tough situation. Obama can't just ignore the nastiness that seems to be her only offering, but I agree that Obama is playing right into the GOP's playbook of distraction by continuing to play along. At the end of the day, I agree with Hart, that people don't vote for VP. As counter-intuitive as it may seem he has to ignore the pig/pitbull whatever in the corner.

Quoting Wonderment: Whatever Hart meant overall, those kinds of comments come across as demeaning and condescending.

I am pretty sure Hart's comment was intended to be demeaning and condescending. And he's not the only one who questions whether hunting moose or managing a city of 6000 (at the time she was mayor) is qualification for president. She's been governor for less time than it takes to get an associates degree. She's obviously a woman of remarkable talents and ability, but don't think cooking or hunting moose is a qualification for high office. Let's suppose this was, say, John Kerry. Remember when the Swift Boating scum of the Republican party and their dishonest enablers in the media said that Kerry deserved it because he made his experience as a vet into a campaign issue? Likewise, if the people you are defending and protecting choose to make Palin's culinary interests and mayoral responsibilities into qualifications for high office, I think it's legitimate to point out that, no, actually cooking moose meat does not qualify one to run the most powerful country on earth.

Quoting Wonderment: I am horrified at how poorly Dems. have responded to Sarah Palin.

Yesterday's lipstick-fish

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: It's a tough situation. Obama can't just ignore the nastiness that seems to be her only offering, but I agree that Obama is playing right into the GOP's playbook of distraction by continuing to play along. At the end of the day, I agree with Hart, that people don't vote for VP. As counter-intuitive as it may seem he has to ignore the pig/pitbull whatever in the corner.

I seem to remember a lot of people advising John Kerry to not dignify the Swift Boat Vets. That was awful advice. When there's a battleship blowing holes in your defenses, it's probably not a good idea to pretend it isn't happening. It's not Obama's fault that Palin is the new media obsession. And if he ignores her, her lies and smears will go unchallenged. That's a reply of the same failed approach Democrats have been using for years.
.

Quoting TwinSwords: Bottom line: You may be interested in playing fair with McCain, but he sure as hell isn't going to play fair with you.

Hell not!

I seem to remember a lot of people advising John Kerry to not dignify the Swift Boat Vets. That was awful advice.

John Kerry's campaign was largely based on his credentials as a war hero. The swift boat attacks were a direct attack on his character. Not responding to that attack is much different than being baited into going off your own message. I have got to give it to John McCain. He has redefined "deploying the moose!!"

Quoting TwinSwords: I seem to remember a lot of people advising John Kerry to not dignify the Swift Boat Vets. That was awful advice.

When there's a battleship blowing holes in your defenses, it's probably not a good idea to pretend it isn't happening.

It's not Obama's fault that Palin is the new media obsession. And if he ignores her, her lies and smears will go unchallenged. That's a reply of the same failed approach Democrats have been using for years.

It's a fine line. The Democrats are not generally good at achieving the level of modulation necessary to play this game, while the Republicans seem to have mastered it. Underplay and you look weak. Overplay and you look like a weak blowhard. It's a tough game, and finding the right tone consistently is like playing virtuoso violin. Obama looked like he had chops at one time, not long ago. I sincerely hope he's just temporarily off his game. I suspect that's the case.

Quoting Bob M: John Kerry's campaign was largely based on his credentials as a war hero. The swift boat attacks were a direct attack on his character. Not responding to that attack is much different than being baited into going off your own message.

And claiming that Obama called Palin a pig when he did no such thing is not a direct attack on his character? Of course it is. And of course Obama needs to respond. I don't know where you all learned to fight, but running away is a good strategy only if your intent is to lose.

Quoting Bob M: I have got to give it to John McCain. He has redefined "deploying the moose!!"

Good one!

Quoting AemJeff: It's a fine line. The Democrats are not generally good at achieving the level of modulation necessary to play this game, while the Republicans seem to have mastered it. Underplay and you look weak. Overplay and you look like a weak blowhard. It's a tough game, and finding the right tone consistently is like playing virtuoso violin. Obama looked like he had chops at one time, not long ago. I sincerely hope he's just temporarily off his game. I suspect that's the case.

What do you think he's done that indicates he's off his game? I've been watching him lately and I think his game is right on. Did you see the video of his response today to the pig lies? — Obama responds (video) Maybe you could email that link to everyone in your address book after you're done watching the video. I agree it's a fine line. I agree it's a tough game. I agree the republicans have a natural talent for telling lies and playing unfair. They're scum, but being scum brings with it certain advantages, like not having to play fair or be honest. The entire Republican Party is based on low morals and dishonesty. It

John Kerry's campaign was largely based on his credentials as a war hero.

I have to disagree on this one. The MSM and GOP certainly like to piant it this way, but I knew several people who supported Kerry and even worked on his campaign, and his war experience never was his big selling point (and certainly nowhere near to the level that POW...McCain...POW...has...POW...used it...POW...veteran...America). Now, I will concede that the Kerry campaign did an abysmal job of clarifying WHY we were supposed to prefer Kerry, and that failure left a vacuum that the media and GOP were eager to fill with their own narrative, but the idea that he was running on his war record, seems a bit like revisionist history.

Quoting John M: Dear My Georgian Friend Bkjazfan,

First off, are you a Polack? If not, how do you explain that consonant cluster in your name?

Don't get me wrong, I like Polacks. I think you guys should get some big nukes to defend yourselves against the Russkies. Do you still have a border with Finland? Never mind, I'll look it up in the Brittanica.

On to your question:

Please, don't get caught up in conspiracy theories. I know her name is Sarah, not Suzy. I get a little confused sometimes. If I don't get enough sleep, my Alzheimer's acts up. That's why Suzy's so good for the campaign -- When I'm taking a nap in the afternoons, she can step right in, put on some lipstick, and she's fresh as a daisy.

Speaking of prom queens, Bob Wright is a Drama Queen. He oughta wear a dress when he has his little kaffeeklatch with Mickey Kaus. Wright brings his poodle sometimes, fer Chrissake! How gay is THAT?

I don't know how Mr. Kaus -- an early supporter of mine and a truly great American ---puts up with Bob's girly antics.

War is peace,
John M

John M, You are quite the character. Frankly, I enjoy your comments. Are you sure you are not a Hollyweird gag writer? I have never

And claiming that Obama called Palin a pig when he did no such thing is not a direct attack on his character? Of course it is. And of course Obama needs to respond. I don't know where you all learned to fight, but running away is a good strategy only if your intent is to lose.

I think Obama's response was effective. He called them out for bringing up trivial nonsense and said that we need to focus on the important issues. And I am hopeful that playing the victim will ultimately work against the McCain/Palin ticket. On the other hand, the McCain team has dominated the news cycle for a month or so. The "issues" that the MSM has covered for the last month have been: - Obama the Celebrity
- Obama's styrofoam Greek columns
- Palin the surprising veep choice
- Is Palin qualified, and are Obama & Biden sexist because the MSM (NOT Obama or Biden) has questioned whether or not Palin is qualified?
- Palin's pregnant daughter
- Palin the Hockey Mom
-Did Obama imply that Palin is a pig? These are not the issues that the Democratic ticket wants to be discussing, and they have got to find a way

Quoting TwinSwords: What do you think he's done that indicates he's off his game? I've been watching him lately and I think his game is right on. Did you see the video of his response today to the pig lies?

— Obama responds (video)

Maybe you could email that link to everyone in your address book after you're done watching the video.

I agree it's a fine line. I agree it's a tough game. I agree the republicans have a natural talent for telling lies and playing unfair. They're scum, but being scum brings with it certain advantages, like not having to play fair or be honest. The entire Republican Party is based on low morals and dishonesty. It comes natural to them.

But if I was running for president, I wouldn't model it on the failed candidacies of Al Gore and John Kerry, who tried to remain aloof of the slime being hurled at them, were defined by Republicans they did not challenge, and lost elections they should have won.

Even if it fails, Obama is to be applauded -- and should be supported by his ostensible supporters, hint hint -- for trying to find a strategy that works.

I mean, it's not

Quoting Bob M: I think Obama's response was effective. He called them out for bringing up trivial nonsense and said that we need to focus on the important issues. And I am hopeful that playing the victim will ultimately work against the McCain/Palin ticket.

On the other hand, the McCain team has dominated the news cycle for a month or so. The "issues" that the MSM has covered for the last month have been:

- Obama the Celebrity
- Obama's styrofoam Greek columns
- Palin the surprising veep choice
- Is Palin qualified, and are Obama & Biden sexist because the MSM (NOT Obama or Biden) has questioned whether or not Palin is qualified?
- Palin's pregnant daughter
- Palin the Hockey Mom
-Did Obama imply that Palin is a pig?

These are not the issues that the Democratic ticket wants to be discussing, and they have got to find a way to make sure that the campaign is about their agenda and not sideshows. And to bring it back to Hart's advice, Obama should provide a framework or narrative about the counntry's challenges and his solutions for those challenges

I agree with everything you said. I would just add for anyone else reading this thread that Obama

I have to disagree on this one. The MSM and GOP certainly like to piant it this way, but I knew several people who supported Kerry and even worked on his campaign, and his war experience never was his big selling point

I believe that Kerry won the Iowa Caucus because, at the last minute, most Iowans decided not to support Dean, and Kerry's war record made him seem like the most electable alternative. The Democratic Convention also focused way too much on his record in Vietnam, and the Swift Boat ads (along with the media's willingness to turn them into an issue) brilliantly turned that against him. Kerry did a good job in the debates making the case against Bush/Cheney. I agree that those of us who voted for Kerry in the general election did so because of his policy agenda (and mostly because he wasn't GWB) and not because of his heroism in Vietnam. However, for enough voters on the margin, the GOP successfully challenged his biggest selling point (other than not being GWB), and Kerry seemed weak for not disputing them.

The fact is that if the media wants to hand the election to McCain, and every indication is that it does, then there will be very little Obama can do to gain traction. We didn't make these rules. We just lose by them.

I think we are largely in agreement, but I don't think the media wants to give the election to one side or another. I just think that the major networks prefer to cover the horse race and the daily squabbling instead of policy issues. Perhaps this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. i hope not.

Quoting Bob M: I think we are largely in agreement, but I don't think the media wants to give the election to one side or another. I just think that the major networks prefer to cover the horse race and the daily squabbling instead of policy issues. Perhaps this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. i hope not.

There's always a problem discussing the media as a monolith, though we all do it. In fact (as you know) it's composed of individuals, each with their own integrity (or lack thereof) and agendas. Still, it's my opinion that the wealthy broadcasters who make millions per year want Republicans to win if for no other reason than to avoid Democratic tax increases. Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell and the rest of that crowd may not have much in common with the lunatic theocrats and anti-American torture advocates of the Republican Party, but they do like the smell of money, and when they consider that it's going to cost them a pretty penny to let a Democrat get elected, I am convinced they steer the converage to favor their preferred candidate.

Gotcha. I'm totally in agreement. I think I misinterpreted your earlier post (my bad.)

Quoting AemJeff: One thing to remember is even if Obama loses, we still have Congress - both houses. With luck we'll have sixty in the Senate, which will mean that McCain will have a hard time sailing fundamentalist-friendly judges through.

According to the data I've seen, there is virtually no chance that the Democrats will control 60 seats. Getting to 60 seats requires that the Democrats pick up 9 seats, and current projections give us less than a 15% chance of pulling that off. Furthermore, that 60 would include Lieberman, who can't be trusted. So to get a Lieberman-proof 60 would require us to win 10 seats for a 61 seat majority -- something for which we have less than a 10% chance, according to fivethirtyeight.com: On top of all that, 60 or 61 would still include some number of red state Democrats who can't be relied on, especially when it comes to issues of social conservatism, such as abortion and Supreme Court justices. Finally, the low percentages shown above are going to only get lower from now until election day, as the media is now working overtime to protect the Republicans from a blowout. We'll be lucky, quite honestly, if we have 56 seats in 2009.

Quoting AemJeff: Here's a

Do you care to be more specific? I saw two of Obama's responses today (but not the Letterman interview), and thought he handled it perfectly.

He shouldn't have discussed it at all, IMHO. He only made matters worse. Talking about the nuances of the "pig" comment only kept the sexism innuendo lingering in the air for another 24-hour news cycle. You know, like the taint of rotting fish.

Bottom line: You may be interested in playing fair with McCain, but he sure as hell isn't going to play fair with you.

I am interested in Obama winning. He doesn't need to convince me, or anyone in my state of 37,000,000 for that matter. He needs to convince independent voters -- particularly women --- in the so-called battleground states. He's not running against Sarah Palin, but he has sure sounded like he is for the past few days. Since Palin is a far, far better candidate than John McCain, she'll beat Obama in the soundbites and media sensationalism.

Quoting Wonderment: He shouldn't have discussed it at all, IMHO. He only made matters worse. Talking about the nuances of the "pig" comment only kept the sexism innuendo lingering in the air for another 24-hour news cycle. You know, like the taint of rotting fish.

Wonderment, I think that you are exaggerating. Obama had to say something and then move on. And that's what he did. He said it's a distraction. And it is. He said there are important problems that need to be dealt with. And that's exactly what it is. What else? We've got to stop talking about this woman. Even negative attention is attention. Let's stop. And trust Obama. We'll have to trust his judgment for the next four years anyway...

Quoting Wonderment: He shouldn't have discussed it at all, IMHO. He only made matters worse. Talking about the nuances of the "pig" comment only kept the sexism innuendo lingering in the air for another 24-hour news cycle. You know, like the taint of rotting fish.

Can I ask your opinion of something else? What do you think of Matt Damon's comments, here: — Matt Damon on the horrifying possibility of a Palin presidency

Quoting Wonderment: He's not running against Sarah Palin, but he has sure sounded like he is for the past few days.

I think he is running against Palin, and has to. I realize the conventional wisdom, repeated by Gary Hart, is that the VP is a non-entity and people don't vote for VP. But that conventional wisdom is now OUT THE WINDOW. Inoperative. Palin is a FAR bigger attraction to the Republican masses than McCain. She's the star of the Republican ticket, and honestly, the star of Election 2008. We simply cannot pretend she doesn't exist. She's going to get more media exposure from now until election day than any other candidate. McCain's biggest applause line at the convention was when he mentioned Palin's name. When McCain was doing events before picking Palin, he was having

Quoting dankingbooks: I'm sorry, but Mr. Hart is an idiot. His campaign slogans appear to be World Government, Higher Taxes, Put Your Trust in Harvard Lawyers, More Government Regulation. Like this is going to win the election, much less lead to a successful administration. Does anybody besides Gary actually believe this stuff?

http://www.dankingbooks.com

'Thanks for the concern Troll.

McCain is gone, no question. Palin is all there is for the GOP. People are curious about her. There is no substance to her. It's all "persona". A lot of the "puppies" that follow her are following the party and not her. Women don't like her. It's a lie. The Dems have to move on with their agenda. They can't engage in the GOP's game, or they will be wasting precious time. Although you are assuming that American people are stupid, there is a chance that many actually want to hear about how the serious problems that we have, are going to be solved. And that's the best point the Dems have. So they better get on with that agenda and not the GOP's. The more attention that Palin gets, the more the illusion that she is an important political figure. She is not. She has been raised to the spotlight because they couldn't figure out someone better when they realized that McCain is gone. But the only weight she has is artificial. The GOP has the purest troll strategy. Let's stop feeding it. And let's be a little optimistic. There is such thing as a self-fulfilling prophesy...

Quoting Ocean: McCain is gone, no question. Palin is all there is for the GOP. People are curious about her. There is no substance to her. It's all "persona". A lot of the "puppies" that follow her are following the party and not her. Women don't like her. It's a lie.

The Dems have to move on with their agenda. They can't engage in the GOP's game, or they will be wasting precious time. Although you are assuming that American people are stupid, there is a chance that many actually want to hear about how the serious problems that we have, are going to be solved. And that's the best point the Dems have. So they better get on with that agenda and not the GOP's. The more attention that Palin gets, the more the illusion that she is an important political figure. She is not. She has been raised to the spotlight because they couldn't figure out someone better when they realized that McCain is gone. But the only weight she has is artificial. The GOP has the purest troll strategy. Let's stop feeding it.

And let's be a little optimistic. There is such thing as a self-fulfilling prophesy...

You

Can I ask your opinion of something else? What do you think of Matt Damon's comments, here:
— Matt Damon on the horrifying possibility of a Palin presidency

I don't buy the argument very much, since I think Palin would almost surely be a better president than McCain. How could she be worse? McCain is a dangerous right-wing warmonger. In my view, he's worse than Bush; and a random American citizen -- like Palin -- would almost surely be better. I haven't heard her sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" nor have I heard her proclaim us all Georgians. She might be that idiotic, but it's not a given. Damon's argument seems to suggest that McCain is bad enough, but that Palin is shockingly worse. I would flip that: Palin can't be worse because McCain is as irremediably bad as it gets. In any case, I wouldn't panic yet. Obama and Biden should both win their respective debates handily. That will help.

"Flyspeck person"?
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/143...4:00&out=14:25 If Barack Obama does bring Gary Hart on board in some capacity, I hope handlers are assigned to keep GH away from live microphones.

Obama's remark "Lipstick on a Pig", gaff or calculated? Only if you believe Barrack Obama is a gifted orator who knows how to play to an audience would you be offended by a remark that seemingly jabs Sarah Palin? You would also have to know the street use of this term, analogous to putting a paper bag over a woman's head before sexual intercourse.

Quoting TwinSwords: You make a good case, and present a compelling argument. If it wasn't already so late, I'd respond in detail, but you've convinced me, especially with the text in bold above.

I still don't think Palin can be ignored, but you're right that the focus of the Democratic message has to be the real life concerns of the American people.

OK.

Also: I don't really think the American people are stupid. If I've ever said that, or something implying it, it was intemperate and I should retract it.

No, you didn't say that. I said it to emphasize an implicit assumption. The focus should be on the American people that can see beyond appearance and are waiting to listen to a political message. That's all.

Quoting Wonderment: In any case, I wouldn't panic yet. Obama and Biden should both win their respective debates handily. That will help.

Great!

Quoting Clatech: Obama's remark "Lipstick on a Pig", gaff or calculated?

Only if you believe Barrack Obama is a gifted orator who knows how to play to an audience would you be offended by a remark that seemingly jabs Sarah Palin? You would also have to know the street use of this term, analogous to putting a paper bag over a woman's head before sexual intercourse.

Well, that's being carried away with nonsense! In any case, whatever the adjudication of meaning, it came from the Republicans. Is that what the Republicans had in mind?

Merely the idea of Gary Hart calling any person "unserious" is laughable.

Quoting robarin: "Flyspeck person"?
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/143...4:00&out=14:25

If Barack Obama does bring Gary Hart on board in some capacity, I hope handlers are assigned to keep GH away from live microphones.

He wasn't saying that the people asking such questions were "fly specks," but that they were interested in the minute details of policy: fly specks; small details. Watch the clip again; they are discussing the different between "bigger bigger bigger," i.e., broad strokes of grand vision, and, as Wright says, "a detailed laundry list." This is a classic example of the kind of innocent comment that dishonest smear merchants like Kidneystones and his friend mvantony could pretend meant something it didn't. If Hart was running for president and said that, Republicans could distort it and force the campaign off the rails for weeks to explain what he was really trying to say.

It's a shame the candidates are afraid to talk much about nuclear power -- and never under the heading of "The Environment". Here is the jist of Obama's short-sighted nuclear policy from his web site:

"It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option ... Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority."

Here is the jist of McCain's tepid but somewhat better policy from his web site:

"construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 ... it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power."

Quoting Wonderment: Every time a Dem. opens his/her mouth with a nasty gendered remark about Palin, as Hart did in dismissing her as a "moose-hunting soccer mom," the Obama boat (my boat) sinks deeper.

Whatever Hart meant overall, those kinds of comments come across as demeaning and condescending.

I am horrified at how poorly Dems. have responded to Sarah Palin.

Yesterday's lipstick-fish gaffe is the first time I've ever thought Obama said something truly stupid and regrettable.

That was bad enough. But then he exacerbated the situation by saying more stupid and regrettable things today, in a lame attempt to fix things (at a rally and on Letterman).

The Dem. Party is stunned by Palin, and Obama is painfully off message.

Obama can win this as an agent of true change and because of his integrity, leadership, policy and programs. But he's got to get a grip fast.

I gotta say, I 100% disagree with you Wonderment. The worst mistake you can make after Palin tore into Obama at the convention would be to give her too much respect or treat her too carefully. There's nothing, and I do mean nothing, gendered or offensive about calling her a moose hunting soccer mom. That

bkjazfan, Bob did ask repeatedly for more specificity from Hart about making the campaign "bigger", but Hart was reluctant to get into details. Hart feels that the details are a distraction. I think Hart is onto something. The fact that he (Hart) has trouble elaborating it just means that it's difficult to do -- it takes a Kennedy or a Reagan to communicate this way.

Robert seems more interested in re-packaging both Senator Obama and Senator McCain in order to make Barack Obama a better sell. This strikes me as cynical. Gary Hart seems to suggest that Barack Obama double-down and be himself, while building an authenitic mandate for his ideas. And meanwhile diminish Sarah Palin through a sense of humor. This is a classic example of the disconnect in the Democratic camp - the right hand cannot move in coordination with the left hand. A coordinated attack in this vein would be to enlist Julia Roberts in the Obama campaign to make light of Sarah Palin - after all, that is who Sarah Palin reminds us of - Erin Brockovitch or the legal beagle in the Pelican Brief.

I'm really glad to be part of this community. As I watch respectful debate between many different sides, I am saddened to realize how different people see the world. It may be too much. Don't get me wrong, differences of policy are important (it is what makes us a democracy), but disagreement on the very soul of country is frightening. We have to agree on some basic level, it's what makes us citizens of the same country. What I am seeing in these debates strikes me as differences between two very different cultures, not policy debates. Maybe a great episode would be to see an Ann Coulter and Keith Olberman forced for an hour to talk about what they AGREE on. After that we can have a real, healthy debate about all the rest.

Quoting tottoritodd: Maybe a great episode would be to see an Ann Coulter and Keith Olberman forced for an hour to talk about what they AGREE on. After that we can have a real, healthy debate about all the rest.

Although I agree in principle to have any two parties in a discussion start by stating what they agree on, at the time of a presidential election is close to impossible to do that. The opinions are going to be polarized because when election day comes, you will have to pick either one or the other. Policies are not going to be up for grabs. Your approach would have to come later, at best.

Quoting TwinSwords: He wasn't saying that the people asking such questions were "fly specks," but that they were interested in the minute details of policy: fly specks; small details. Watch the clip again; they are discussing the different between "bigger bigger bigger," i.e., broad strokes of grand vision, and, as Wright says, "a detailed laundry list."

That may not be what GH meant, but it is the way I heard it. I guess I'm not ready for the test on Nov. 4. "Fly specks" may just be a phrase I have never heard used the way he did (assuming your take is correct). And my reaction to the words could have been colored by the fact that his tone generally put me off. That's why I made the comment about keeping Hart away from the live mics. I've listened to the whole diavlog a few times. In the early minutes, it seemed that Hart was saying essentially that Obama needs to "get back to 'hope and change'", while Bob was trying to make the point that, due to the way the debate has shifted, Obama can't go back to that well and expect the "hope and change" message to work on its own.

The quote is from a well-known Steve Martin comedy. But there is a point to the comedy that connects to the presidential contest and to the elitism issue that vexes Bob. The Republicans have had some modest success at casting Obama as privileged. If this is counterintuitive, it is because we fall back on a caricature of an underprivileged "fatherless black child" that misleads us. Fatherless? Yes. Different from the old guys on the currency? Yes. But the phrase conjures up a cartoon image that sweeps a lot of detail under the rug: 1) His background is dissimilar to those from the ghettos of Chicago. His upbringing was in predominately white society. 2) To call Obama a black child is to disregard, even disrespect, his mother and maternal grandparents. 3) As a physical issue of optical reflectivity, he is not that black. 4) He had educational opportunities that not everyone enjoys. Obama is black by choice - a conscious adult decision to marry, work and live in the black community. That's fine. My point is only that his childhood and ancestry are more complex than "black". It's when we adopt a simplistic caricature that we blind ourselves to

Quoting robarin: That may not be what GH meant, but it is the way I heard it. I guess I'm not ready for the test on Nov. 4.

"Fly specks" may just be a phrase I have never heard used the way he did (assuming your take is correct). And my reaction to the words could have been colored by the fact that his tone generally put me off. That's why I made the comment about keeping Hart away from the live mics.

I haven't ever heard that expression, either. It was certainly unusual. But I think it's clear from the context that he wasn't minimizing certain people, but characterizing them as interested in the fine details of policy. Still, I think you are right to think that this comment could be used to damage (a) Hart, and (b) Obama, and (c) the Democratic Party. If Hart was a spokesman for Obama and Fox News got that video, there is little reason to doubt they would deliberately misrepresent it as some kind of put down of ordinary people. Since these are the absurd rules Republicans have written for this game we must all play, the truth is not only that Gary Hart should

Quoting tottoritodd: I'm really glad to be part of this community. As I watch respectful debate between many different sides, I am saddened to realize how different people see the world. It may be too much. Don't get me wrong, differences of policy are important (it is what makes us a democracy), but disagreement on the very soul of country is frightening.

We have to agree on some basic level, it's what makes us citizens of the same country. What I am seeing in these debates strikes me as differences between two very different cultures, not policy debates.

Maybe a great episode would be to see an Ann Coulter and Keith Olberman forced for an hour to talk about what they AGREE on. After that we can have a real, healthy debate about all the rest.

The implicit equivalence between Olberman and the fanged extremes of right-wing hate is a trope without any basis. Olberman might be a loudmouth partisan, but he does not engage in the disgusting, uncivilized extremes that are the natural province of the likes of Coulter. Pair him up with someone like Jonah Goldberg, fine. The slippery comparison to unhinged demagogues is a foul ball.

Bob's comment that Americans don't seem to want a smarter-than-they-are President isn't exactly right because both the highly intelligent Bill Clinton and Ross Perot engaged the public's attention on policy and where they wanted to take the country when they treated voters with respect and made them part of the discussion. So many other Democrats seem to exude a "don't worry, we're in charge" attitude. Obama in particular brings little enthusiasm to detailed discussions even when he attempts to speak about policy etc. I don't see where Gary Hart's idea of another grand speech, no matter how well crafted, will work at this time because frankly the public has heard too many of them and have pretty much tuned out. If Obama is able to bring this perspective into the debates then it may work but that venue is not really conducive to the expression of any overarching plan. It's just so ironic that The Party of the People so often picks a candidate that speaks down to the masses from their perch on The Parthenon. Absent any personal connection, the Republicans

Quoting AemJeff: The implicit equivalence between Olberman and the fanged extremes of right-wing hate is a trope without any basis. Olberman might be a loudmouth partisan, but he does not engage in the disgusting, uncivilized extremes that are the natural province of the likes of Coulter. Pair him up with someone like Jonah Goldberg, fine. The slippery comparison to unhinged demagogues is a foul ball.

Good post. I love the expression, "fanged extremes of right wing hate."

Quoting tottoritodd: I'm really glad to be part of this community. As I watch respectful debate between many different sides, I am saddened to realize how different people see the world. It may be too much. Don't get me wrong, differences of policy are important (it is what makes us a democracy), but disagreement on the very soul of country is frightening.

You are right. If you travel the internet and read Republican columns, blogs, and especially comments, you find a remarkable amount of conservative talk not just of opposition, but an actual desire to murder liberals and Democrats. A vast number of Republicans have been convinced by their leadership (e.g., Limbaugh) that Democrats are the enemy, traitors who are pulling for the terrorists, and they want to see us either incarcerated or murdered. While surely there are some unhinged lefties, too, there is no comparison between the two sides on this score.

Quoting tottoritodd: We have to agree on some basic level, it's what makes us citizens of the same country. What I am seeing in these debates strikes me as differences between two very different cultures, not policy debates.

It's an excellent point, and I agree with you. The incomparable Rick Perlstein makes the

Quoting Simon Willard: bkjazfan,

Bob did ask repeatedly for more specificity from Hart about making the campaign "bigger", but Hart was reluctant to get into details. Hart feels that the details are a distraction.

I think Hart is onto something. The fact that he (Hart) has trouble elaborating it just means that it's difficult to do -- it takes a Kennedy or a Reagan to communicate this way.

Simon Willard, You may be right. I don't watch these diavlogs as close as I should. Details are a distraction with our soundbite culture. With Reagan he had been around a long time and didn't change his message much. With Obama he hasn't been around long and has a tendency to not stay on message. For example, many were excited that he would end the Iraq War and bring the troops home. Then, later in the campaign he said that troops would be sent to Afganistan or some other places. Here his emphasis on bringing the trrops home is erased by sending them elsewhere. Then, there are his flip flops wich are numerous. He was for the D.C. gun ban and when the court threw it out he was for

I don't see where Gary Hart's idea of another grand speech, no matter how well crafted, will work at this time

But deebee, Obama's present success is based on the grand speech. He's getting bogged down in detailed policy discussions, as you say, where the enthusiasm gets lost. But the grand speech worked before, and Hart wants him to make it work again, even better. Hart is perceptive on this.

9-11 -- what a perfect day to denigrate Hart and bring up Monkey Business again -- The man only predicted the terrorist attack months in advance, and told us what to do to stop it, only to be ignored by the entire government including the Bush crime family, which entrusted our national security to a Russian expert/piano player, made terrorism 30th on the list of priorities, and told whoever it was who was issuing warnings in August "fine, you covered your a**." Oh, but its adultery. Obvious that the man has nothing instructive to contribute. Let's put on more of the people who have brought us to this pathetic state of degradation. They're "serious."

Obama is black by choice

Incorrect. Blacks are black, because of other people's perception and judgments, not the choice of blacks. If Obama's black enough for a taxi not to stop for him, then he's black. There is no actual pigmentation test for determining race.

If I'm not mistaken ( I don't follow this stuff as closely as you shills ) McCain has been beating the drum on the energy thing a bit. That's smart. He should go all out with an energy vision. Do a Gary Hart "bigness" thing with it. Obama has also tiptoed in this direction from the angle of "green jobs". He could also come out strongly for nuclear power from the anti-carbon angle. People just underestimate the importance of energy! It underpins our standard of living and economic health. Lowering consumption works up to a point, but not when it constricts our activities. I'm afraid the conservation thing just nibbles around the edge of the problem; it is not the solution.

Blacks are black, because of other people's perception and judgments

It's not clear whether you mean people collectively or person-by-person.

Mmmm personality driven governor of a northern state where have I seen that before. Trust me Jesse Ventura would be a great addition to anyone's ticket. He had 4 years as governor of Minnesota AND was a navy seal ( no the kind that Palin wanted 3.1 million in earmarks for but ... ) talk about a win win.

Quoting Wonderment: Yesterday's lipstick-fish gaffe is the first time I've ever thought Obama said something truly stupid and regrettable.

Hard to believe that you, of all people, are so unquestioningly buying into this rightwing distortion. Do yourself a favor and look up the entire quote. If you can't see that it was an appropriate use of a familiar idiom, and that the wingnuts cherry-picked it beyond belief, you're hopeless.

Gary puts it nice and succinctly at the end--"National elections are a test of the American people", and along with Bob I wonder if they'll pass. It seems like at this point concentration on who the people are who're voting, and why they vote the way they do, is a relatively more useful perspective from which to view political realities and electoral outcomes than further analysis of policy arguments which obviously many people aren't following along with on a high level, or basing their votes primarily on, at least on said high level. Leaders can and have to try to shift that somewhat, and persuade people in the middle, but in the short term, it more or less is what it is. (In the interests of laziness, I'll just paste in what I God know's why wrote to the Times comments today, even though its not exactly what I'd write in to this (higher level ) comments section)
There's just a lot of people in this country that aren't intellectuals, and view the world very differently than intellectuals by and large do. They don't really want the government to

Quoting Wonderment: I am horrified at how poorly Dems. have responded to Sarah Palin.

Yesterday's lipstick-fish gaffe is the first time I've ever thought Obama said something truly stupid and regrettable.

um, were you on vacation in april? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7344532.stm

Quoting bjkeefe: If you can't see that it was an appropriate use of a familiar idiom, and that the wingnuts cherry-picked it beyond belief, you're hopeless.

Brendan, I'm curious what your view is of the crowd's reaction to Obama's remark. He first said, "But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig," and at that point there were already laughs and cheers. Then, after a short pause and adding "It's still a pig," pretty much the entire audience applauded and cheered. (Here's the video, in case you want to have another look. I view the people behind Obama as representative of the entire audience -- sort of like a deep-space Hubble photo of distant galaxies in a small patch of sky indicating something about the total number of galaxies out there.) Is it not obvious that the applause and cheering was due to the fact that the audience took Obama to be making some sort of reference or other to Palin? I mean, I'm sure audiences haven't applauded and cheered that way when Obama has used the line in the past, or when McCain has, or when anyone else has for that matter. (Do

It's amazing that people continue to insist that Obama had no clue that his 'lipstick' and 'smelly fish' blasts would not be taken as criticism of Palin. This was said after her 'lipstick' line was probably her most quoted one from her entire speech. Right after he said these incredibly foolish words, his own supporters began chanting 'no more pit bull'. This is from US News And World Report and NBC News, not any Repub distortion machine. Oh yes....and the democratic party when McCain chose Palin. No way that had anything to do with BO's foolishness.

Quoting TwinSwords: Although a lot of conservatives and Republicans fantasize about murdering Democrats

The delusions are really getting serious. The only mainstream death fantasies I can recall from the last few years are Bill Maher's regarding Dick Cheney and that bastion of leftist thought, the UK Guardian which pleaded..... "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save

Quoting mvantony: Brendan,

I'm curious what your view is of the crowd's reaction to Obama's remark. He first said, "But you know, you can put lipstick on a pig," and at that point there were already laughs and cheers. Then, after a short pause and adding "It's still a pig," pretty much the entire audience applauded and cheered.

(Here's the video, in case you want to have another look. I view the people behind Obama as representative of the entire audience -- sort of like a deep-space Hubble photo of distant galaxies in a small patch of sky indicating something about the total number of galaxies out there.)

Is it not obvious that the applause and cheering was due to the fact that the audience took Obama to be making some sort of reference or other to Palin?

No. It is obvious that it had nothing to do with Palin. The entire lead-up was him talking about John McCain being like George Bush. He had already gotten them chuckling with the bit about "yeah, he's got different policies ... if you don't count economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy ..." (paraphrased). Then he went into

If the handwringing on evidence in this diavlog bugged you as much as it did me, here's an antidote. (h/t: Dave Noon, LGM.) I am moved to wonder, not for the first time, who's doing more to torpedo the Democratic candidate this year, Mickey or Bob?

Quoting bjkeefe: No. It is obvious that it had nothing to do with Palin.

Well, if we could go back in time and question people after the event about why they reacted as they did, I'd bet a lot of money that it would be overwhelmingly Palin-related. But that's not an experiment we're going to get to see the results of.

Quoting mvantony: Well, if we could go back in time and question people after the event about why they reacted as they did, I'd bet a lot of money that it would be overwhelmingly Palin-related. But that's not an experiment we're going to get to see the results of.

Seriously, Michael, what is your problem here? Now you want to imagine what the audience thought, and extrapolate from that to keep pushing the wingnuts' meme? Is this really the most important thing on your mind right now? Or are you now in the let's-smear-Obama-nonstop-even-if-we-have-to-make-shit-up camp?

Quoting bjkeefe: If the handwringing on evidence in this diavlog bugged you as much as it did me, here's an antidote. (h/t: Dave Noon, LGM.)

I am moved to wonder, not for the first time, who's doing more to torpedo the Democratic candidate this year, Mickey or Bob?

They are neck and neck comin' down the stretch.

Quoting Ocean: you are assuming that American people are stupid, there is a chance that many actually want to hear about how the serious problems that we have

no that is not an assumption. The American electorate proved their stupidity and ignorance in 2004. 2000 - maybe, possibly not absolute proof of stupidity. 2004 - yep, that proved it. no assumptions needed. alright, enough cynicism for me today.

Quoting popcorn_karate: no that is not an assumption. The American electorate proved their stupidity and ignorance in 2004. 2000 - maybe, possibly not absolute proof of stupidity. 2004 - yep, that proved it. no assumptions needed.

alright, enough cynicism for me today.

And let's say that almost half, or even more than half were smarter than the others, just less fortunate...

I can't believe you, like Wonderment, is so gullibly buying into the rightwing's noise. Have you not spent the last couple of decades observing them?

Just for the record, I do not share Michael's view on Obama's motives. I just think he made a gaffe and should avoid gendered language (all metaphors about manliness, lipstick, skirts, hair-does, hormones, menstural cycles, etc. , etc. , etc.). "Explaining" the gaffe (however valid the explanation was) only prolonged the noise for another day. I'm sure Obama learned his lesson and won't make future gender gaffes. That, for me, is the point of discussing the matter --- to learn how not to fall into Republican traps as the Dems. have been doing on a daily basis since the Palin nomination was announced (see polls and betting markets for the graphing). I don't know why any of this makes me "guillible" or a propagator of evil anti-Obama memes. Unlike most posters here (I think it's safe to say) I actually volunteer for the Obama campaign. I've got an Obama sign in my window and a bumper sticker on the car. But that doesn't mean I've turned off my brain and critical faculties until November.

Kindof off-topic, but an interesting take on Obama's responses so far: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...s_hitting_back

Quoting TwinSwords: I haven't ever heard that expression, either. It was certainly unusual. But I think it's clear from the context that he wasn't minimizing certain people, but characterizing them as interested in the fine details of policy.

It's not clear to me even in context what he meant, but I will resist the magnetic draw of the fainting couch!

Quoting TwinSwords: Still, I think you are right to think that this comment could be used to damage (a) Hart, and (b) Obama, and (c) the Democratic Party. If Hart was a spokesman for Obama and Fox News got that video, there is little reason to doubt they would deliberately misrepresent it as some kind of put down of ordinary people.

I doubt Hart's comment will travel beyond BHTV; but if it did, I would think he had some explaining to do. That said, I do concede that my interpretation was surely incorrect: I mean, what kind of elitist ass would say (or think) such a thing, i.e. refer to a person asking what was meant by a post-carbon economy as a "flyspeck"? Surely not Gary Hart.

Quoting TwinSwords: Since these are the absurd rules Republicans have written for this game we must all play, the truth is not only that Gary

Quoting Wonderment: Just for the record, I do not share Michael's view on Obama's motives.

Thank the FSM for small mercies.

just think he made a gaffe and should avoid gendered language (all metaphors about manliness, lipstick, skirts, hair-does, hormones, menstural cycles, etc. , etc. , etc.).

Sorry, I don't buy this. "Lipstick on a pig" is a very familiar phrase. As every third blogger in the leftosphere has documented, it's been used by plenty of politicians, including John McCain. Admit it. No matter what Obama says, the right will find a way to quote something out of context, distort the meaning, or otherwise lie about it to give them another excuse to hit the fainting couch. If we or Obama start getting that gun-shy, we're doomed. This is letting the terrorists win. Better to speak plainly, and not try to imagine what they're going to take offense at, because they will find a way to take offense at everything. Count on it. That's all they have going for them at this point. I think Atrios said it best. For the record, I am not advocating that Obama make any intentional gender-specific slurs.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Kindof off-topic, but an interesting take on Obama's responses so far:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...s_hitting_back

Maybe not so much off-topic, although another putdown comes to mind. ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: Thank the FSM for small mercies.

Sorry, I don't buy this. "Lipstick on a pig" is a very familiar phrase. As every third blogger in the leftosphere has documented, it's been used by plenty of politicians, including John McCain.

Admit it. No matter what Obama says, the right will find a way to quote something out of context, distort the meaning, or otherwise lie about it to give them another excuse to hit the fainting couch. If we or Obama start getting that gun-shy, we're doomed. This is letting the terrorists win.

Better to speak plainly, and not try to imagine what they're going to take offense at, because they will find a way to take offense at everything. Count on it. That's all they have going for them at this point.

I think Atrios said it best.

For the record, I am not advocating that Obama make any intentional gender-specific slurs.

I'm going to side with Wonderment on this. "Lipstick on a pig" is too easy. I considered a blog post on that theme on the night of Palin's convention speech. It's a great riposte to her joke, except that it's too easy to characterize, in classic Republican jujitsu form, as an over-the-line attack with

Quoting bjkeefe: Thank the FSM for small mercies.

RAmen.

For the record, I am not advocating that Obama make any intentional gender-specific slurs.

Should he refer to Michelle as his "spouse"? Welcome back, Brendan.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm going to side with Wonderment on this. "Lipstick on a pig" is too easy. I considered a blog post on that theme on the night of Palin's convention speech. It's a great riposte to her joke, except that it's too easy to characterize, in classic Republican jujitsu form, as an over-the-line attack with sexist overtones. I don't agree with with Wonderment that it was uncalled for, or that it really was over the line; but it was stupid, a tactical error that entirely foreseeable, with consequences that Obama, as the Democratic nominee, had a responsibility (IMHO) to have anticipated. If he didn't see how the comment was going to taken, he dumber than I think he is.

I think it's a mistake to think that Obama said that line with any larger (dog whistle) purpose in mind. It's such a common expression, especially among politicians dismissing each other's policy proposals, that I'm sure it just flowed out naturally. I can't believe I'm still talking about this, when there are urgent matters not being reported.

Quoting Ocean: Should he refer to Michelle as his "spouse"?

The wingnuts would scream about this, too, half of them saying it's codespeak for an agenda pushing gay marriage, and the other half saying he was trying to emasculate Palin's husband.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it's a mistake to think that Obama said that line with any larger (dog whistle) purpose in mind. It's such a common expression, especially among politicians dismissing each other's policy proposals, that I'm sure it just flowed out naturally.

I can't believe I'm still talking about this, when there are urgent matters not being reported.

As I fade away here, on a combination of Maker's Mark, Ambien, and something like the flu - and taking into account my objective disgust with McCain (if he was the Dem nominee, it would have been enough to keep me home in November) after he used a word to refer to his wife (!) that even in my most depraved, obscene moods I wouldn't use to refer to someone I despised - that is, lacking both the motivation and the moral authority to condemn her, I still hope this stings the campaign. I'm afraid, however, we're stuck in in a mode where the backlash to every attack of this nature outweighs the benefit. I think our side needs to stop responding and return the theme to our strengths.

Quoting AemJeff: As I fade away here, on a combination of Maker's Mark, Ambien, and something like the flu -

Oh, no! Feel better Jeff! (I'm coming down with something. But I think it's allergies.)

Quoting Ocean: Oh, no! Feel better Jeff!

(I'm coming down with something. But I think it's allergies.)

Thanks Ocean, I appreciate the thought! It's possible that allergies are what we're dealing with, too. (My wife is worse than I am.) If so, the pollen is especially awful this year. I hope it doesn't affect you too much.

Quoting AemJeff: Thanks Ocean, I appreciate the thought! It's possible that allergies are what we're dealing with, too. (My wife is worse than I am.) If so, the pollen is especially awful this year. I hope it doesn't affect you too much.

Raspy voice, morning sneezing, lightheaded... I'll survive.

Quoting deebee:
[a] Obama in particular brings little enthusiasm to detailed discussions even when he attempts to speak about policy etc....

It's just so ironic that The Party of the People so often picks a candidate that speaks down to the masses from their perch on The Parthenon. Absent any personal connection, the Republicans are all-too-eager to fill that gap....

[c] So here we are, back where we started, with an even race that is anybody's guess. Way to Go, Dems!

[a] Obama does tolerably well with prepared speeches, at least well enough to inspire the college kids. (But I think even they are starting to yawn at those.)

Unfortunately, when Obama tries to speak extemporaneously or in interviews, he almost always sounds like he's got some kind of nervous tic or speech defect always choking what should be a smooth expressiveness: so choppy, barely keeping with the flow of logic. (Compare, for contrast, Bill Clinton's speaking skills, emotional tonality, and ability to "read" the audience.) This problem of Obama's intellect grinding out technically tolerable answers with no real emotional resonance is just hurting him more and more as he has to go one-on-one with interviewers.

Yeah, you'd have to be

Quoting AemJeff: As I fade away here, on a combination of Maker's Mark, Ambien, and something like the flu - and taking into account my objective disgust with McCain (if he was the Dem nominee, it would have been enough to keep me home in November) after he used a word to refer to his wife (!) that even in my most depraved, obscene moods I wouldn't use to refer to someone I despised - that is, lacking both the motivation and the moral authority to condemn her, I still hope this stings the campaign.

I'm afraid, however, we're stuck in in a mode where the backlash to every attack of this nature outweighs the benefit. I think our side needs to stop responding and return the theme to our strengths.

I dunno. I don't care about Cindy's drug problem, but I do care about John's possible actions surrounding it -- cover-up, witness intimidation, special favors to keep Cindy from having to do time (mandatory sentencing in AZ for this, as I understand it), etc., both for reasons of winning the election and accountability. (If the latter isn't too quaint a term.) I agree that Obama and campaign officials needn't jump on this, but I think it's good for the blogosphere

Quoting Eastwest: The Republicans realize the electorate is dumb and programmable and votes from the gut, not from a check-list of issues, so they keep making a laughing stock of the Dems.

Amendment: Gad, just listened to first 10 minutes of Palin-Gibson on You Tube. Not even I think the American people are so stupid as to put this woman a heart beat away from being President. I had no idea she really is so completely stark raving nutz. Whew! Maybe there's a chance for the Dems after all. EW PS: Never been a fan of Gary Hart, but I think maybe he was right about this gal almost inevitably self-destructing (if, after this, she's allowed to speak in public much at all). Now, will the electorate actually be paying attention to notice it? Anybody's guess.

Dear My Georgian Friend Keefe,

I dunno. I don't care about Cindy's drug problem

Look, here's some straight talk: Cindy can be a C-word, sometimes, but she's no dope fiend! Cindy's was an EXTREMELY unique medical situation. You're making her sound like a Negro junkie from the ghetto. That's no fair. When rich white billionaires take drugs it is because they have an medical condition, like genital herpes or kidney stones. When I'm president, in addition to locking in tax cuts for the plutocracy, I will introduce legislation to legalize all controlled substances for people who earn more than $250,000 annually. Yes, that would include some Negroes (mostly athletes), but it would also help a lot of innocent people like Cindy who have been persecuted, if not prosecuted, for their health issues. You liberal scumbuckets never show any compassion! Lay off with the sexism. Next thing you'll be joining my opponent, B. Hussein Obama in calling Suzy Palin a stinky pig in lipstick. War is Peace,
John M

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it's a mistake to think that Obama said that line with any larger (dog whistle) purpose in mind. It's such a common expression, especially among politicians dismissing each other's policy proposals, that I'm sure it just flowed out naturally.

I can't believe I'm still talking about this.......

You're still talking about it because you're ignoring some very good points brought up by all sorts of folks (even committed Obama supporters) in your attempt to control the groupthink.

Quoting bjkeefe: Seriously, Michael, what is your problem here? Now you want to imagine what the audience thought, and extrapolate from that to keep pushing the wingnuts' meme?

Obama's supporters immediately start chanting 'no more pit bull!' after Obama's 'lipstick' blast and yet you say anyone who concludes that they knew he was referring to Palin is engaged in fantasy? Even after his own party's website has a post entitled
'McCain's selection of Palin is putting lipstick on a pig' accompanied by a picture of a pig wearing glasses?? Were you really the one asking people what their problem was and declaring others hopeless? You even try the old dodge of someone losing an argument

First,
I apologize if I offended anyone by pairing Olberman with Coulter. I just chose two people who would obviously squirm just by being in proximity to each other. Equivalencey wasn't my point. Second, It only takes one crazy person to do something awful. Right or left, there are too many on both sides for me. Yes it is probably too late for the type of discussion in this election. But I keep thinking about life after this election, no matter who wins. I don't know when it started, maybe with Presdident Clintons election, or maybe after Bush won in 2000, but it's irrelevant either way. But I live overseas now and it makes me sad that when I meet fellow Americans, it is almost instant that politics comes up. I am for McCain, but when I tell people I meet that, I often might as well not be from the same country. That IS sad. Most of my friends back home are very much for Obama. Half of my family is too. But we can't talk about politics, or it becomes ugly. I want to have a rational discusion, it is what makes my beliefs more solid.(or the opposite). My point is that we have to live together after

Quoting tottoritodd: First,
I apologize if I offended anyone by pairing Olberman with Coulter. I just chose two people who would obviously squirm just by being in proximity to each other. Equivalencey wasn't my point.

Second,

It only takes one crazy person to do something awful. Right or left, there are too many on both sides for me.

Yes it is probably too late for the type of discussion in this election. But I keep thinking about life after this election, no matter who wins. I don't know when it started, maybe with Presdident Clintons election, or maybe after Bush won in 2000, but it's irrelevant either way.

But I live overseas now and it makes me sad that when I meet fellow Americans, it is almost instant that politics comes up. I am for McCain, but when I tell people I meet that, I often might as well not be from the same country. That IS sad. Most of my friends back home are very much for Obama. Half of my family is too. But we can't talk about politics, or it becomes ugly. I want to have a rational discusion, it is what makes my beliefs more solid.(or the opposite).

My point is that we have to live together after

Quoting harkin: You're still talking about it because you're ignoring some very good points brought up by all sorts of folks (even committed Obama supporters) in your attempt to control the groupthink.

A less paranoid interpretation would be to say that I was merely expressing my own opinion. I have no delusions about my abilities to control what others think.

Even after his own party's website has a post entitled
'McCain's selection of Palin is putting lipstick on a pig' accompanied by a picture of a pig wearing glasses??

That looks like a screenshot from the open-access community section of the site. It has nothing whatsoever to with the official campaign. Anyone can post there, including Republicans. It is just as likely that an anti-Obama person put the post up in the spirit of ratfucking.

Quoting John M: When I'm president, in addition to locking in tax cuts for the plutocracy, I will introduce legislation to legalize all controlled substances for people who earn more than $250,000 annually.

No wonder Rush Limbaugh has been speaking more favorably of you lately.

Oh, and speaking of straight talk, Senator M, would you care to clarify any of the problems observed in your recent interview with WCSH's Rob Caldwell?

AemJeff wrote on 09/12/2008 at 10:33 AM As a conservative I am curious.... Who would be , in your opinion, Olbermans equal? I don't like Coulter, but like Keith, she will attack her own side without much thought if it threatens her. This isn't a defense of Coulter, but rather a question of your defense of Olberman. We can argue about the LEVEL of vitriol, but as far as intellectuallism they are both the same. I mean what is worse? Calling people evil names or calling the people who disagree with you "The worst person in the world" on a daily basis. You have to buy her books or catch her on her sporadic appearances on FNS, but Keith has a show on a network that most Americans have to pay for if they want basic cable. Honestly, who has a bigger reach?

Quoting tottoritodd: AemJeff wrote on 09/12/2008 at 10:33 AM

As a conservative I am curious.... Who would be , in your opinion, Olbermans equal? I don't like Coulter, but like Keith, she will attack her own side without much thought if it threatens her.

This isn't a defense of Coulter, but rather a question of your defense of Olberman. We can argue about the LEVEL of vitriol, but as far as intellectuallism they are both the same. I mean what is worse? Calling people evil names or calling the people who disagree with you "The worst person in the world" on a daily basis. You have to buy her books or catch her on her sporadic appearances on FNS, but Keith has a show on a network that most Americans have to pay for if they want basic cable.

Honestly, who has a bigger reach?

"Worst Person in the World!" with all its overblown presentation is obvious hyperbole. Nobody who pays attention is going to take it literally. Coulter plays a different game. Pinned down she might whine that it's satire, but the presentation doesn't support that interpretation. She takes on inappropriate targets (the 9/11 Widows, e.g.) describes people in the ugliest terms possible and generally

AemJeff wrote on 09/12/2008 at 12:40 PM I agree with you 100% on Ann Coulter. But I kind suspected you might mention Jonah. But your comparisan between Olby and Jonah doesn't carry water. Goldberg exposes himself daily (on this web site with Robin Wrright for god's sake) to people with a different take. I have read his books, and even there he goes out of his way to say he is not demonizing people who disagree with him. He certainly doesn't demagogue anyone. Show me an instance were Keith, even once has shown the class, open mindedness, of even someone I disagree with, Robin Wright. He doesn't. At best he is like Limbaugh, someone who is content to live and make money among his own demographic. Neither allows a real intelligent counterweight to their opinions. They have less debate then this forum. Both of us show more courage of our convictions in this section then he ever does. He has every right to do so. No disent, no problem.It's a job. Coulter is bad for conservatives, even if in the short term she is effective sometimes. Olberman is the same. In the primaries, great for Obama, now not so much. (if you don't believe me check

Quoting tottoritodd: At best he is like Limbaugh, someone who is content to live and make money among his own demographic. Neither allows a real intelligent counterweight to their opinions.

You've hit the nail on the head. Also, Olbermann and Limbaugh both exude an over-bearing sarcasm that makes them unwatchable/unlistenable for me.

look wrote on 09/12/2008 at 01:35 PM
Re: What Would Gary Do?

Quoting tottoritodd: At best he is like Limbaugh, someone who is content to live and make money among his own demographic. Neither allows a real intelligent counterweight to their opinions.
You've hit the nail on the head. Also, Olbermann and Limbaugh both exude an over-bearing sarcasm that makes them unwatchable/unlistenable for me. Thanks for engaging me in an intelligent conversation. I look foward to more and I hope both of us can accept whatever happens in November. Long live a good debate!!! Good night from a small town in Japan. Todd

Quoting tottoritodd: AemJeff wrote on 09/12/2008 at 12:40 PM

I agree with you 100% on Ann Coulter. But I kind suspected you might mention Jonah.

But your comparisan between Olby and Jonah doesn't carry water. Goldberg exposes himself daily (on this web site with Robin Wrright for god's sake) to people with a different take. I have read his books, and even there he goes out of his way to say he is not demonizing people who disagree with him. He certainly doesn't demagogue anyone.

Show me an instance were Keith, even once has shown the class, open mindedness, of even someone I disagree with, Robin Wright. He doesn't. At best he is like Limbaugh, someone who is content to live and make money among his own demographic. Neither allows a real intelligent counterweight to their opinions. They have less debate then this forum. Both of us show more courage of our convictions in this section then he ever does. He has every right to do so. No disent, no problem.It's a job.

Coulter is bad for conservatives, even if in the short term she is effective sometimes. Olberman is the same. In the primaries, great for Obama, now not so much. (if you don't believe me check

Quoting John M: Dear My Georgian Friend Bkjazfan,

First off, are you a Polack? If not, how do you explain that consonant cluster in your name?

Don't get me wrong, I like Polacks. I think you guys should get some big nukes to defend yourselves against the Russkies. Do you still have a border with Finland? Never mind, I'll look it up in the Brittanica.

On to your question:

Please, don't get caught up in conspiracy theories. I know her name is Sarah, not Suzy. I get a little confused sometimes. If I don't get enough sleep, my Alzheimer's acts up. That's why Suzy's so good for the campaign -- When I'm taking a nap in the afternoons, she can step right in, put on some lipstick, and she's fresh as a daisy.

Speaking of prom queens, Bob Wright is a Drama Queen. He oughta wear a dress when he has his little kaffeeklatch with Mickey Kaus. Wright brings his poodle sometimes, fer Chrissake! How gay is THAT?

I don't know how Mr. Kaus -- an early supporter of mine and a truly great American ---puts up with Bob's girly antics.

War is peace,
John M

John,
Your funny but not in a good way.
Have you noticed that no one is paying attention to you, well

Sorry I didn't realize I was making a "case". As most of my friends are Obama supporters, and most of them are lawyers I'm guessing you must have some background in law. The conversation tonight started with a call for "sameness". I suggested that Coulter and Olbermann be forced to agree to admit on what they agree on. You took umberage at me putting those two in the same sentence. I simply said that they would be two people who are Americans who hate eachother. I asked who would be Olbermans equivalent and your answer was Jonah Goldberg. I gave you my response that he was a really bad choice. I gave you a plethora of reasons why it was dishonest, and said "at best" Keith was (20 years too late) a Left response to to Limbaugh. At no time did I imply: "You might argue that Rush falls into the same category with Jonah and Keith" #39 Today, 01:48 PM
AemJeff Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 871 Re: What Would Gary Do?
[/i] I simply said that Keith AT BEST is the same as Rush. Jonah, as well as Robin Wright is on a whole different level. You, without getting personal, seem to take my words, and change them. Life isn't a courtroom. People can

[quote=tottoritodd;90897]Sorry I didn't realize I was making a "case". As most of my friends are Obama supporters, and most of them are lawyers I'm guessing you must have some background in law. The conversation tonight started with a call for "sameness". I suggested that Coulter and Olbermann be forced to agree to admit on what they agree on. You took umberage at me putting those two in the same sentence. I simply said that they would be two people who are Americans who hate eachother. I asked who would be Olbermans equivalent and your answer was Jonah Goldberg. I gave you my response that he was a really bad choice. I gave you a plethora of reasons why it was dishonest, and said "at best" Keith was (20 years too late) a Left response to to Limbaugh. At no time did I imply: "You might argue that Rush falls into the same category with Jonah and Keith" #39 Today, 01:48 PM
AemJeff Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 871 Re: What Would Gary Do?
[/i] I simply said that Keith AT BEST is the same as Rush. Jonah, as well as Robin Wright is on a whole different level. You, without getting personal, seem to take my words, change them. Life isn't a courtroom. People can simply

Dear My Georgian Friend Keefe,

Senator M, would you care to clarify any of the problems observed in your recent interview with WCSH's Rob Caldwell?

First of all, I can't review that interview because I don't know how those link things work on the Internets. My aides tell me all I have to do is "click," but I feel like an idiot sitting here and making sounds like a Swahili. "Clickety, click." Nothing happens. From what I recall though I said, "She [Suzy Palin] knows more about energy probably than anyone else in the United States of America." You betcha! Here's some straight talk: E= MC squared. When you're talking about energy and atoms and light rays and stuff, Suzy's your gal. Her own son Private First Class Track told me, "My mom's a fuckin' genius. She fuckin' knows fuckin' everything." In fact, when I had a little scare last week when the Russkies and Old Europe wanted to start up the Large Hardon Collider thingamabob, I asked my advisors if we should nuke it. Most said yes. But Suzy was a voice of saintly serenity. She said, "Trust in the Lord. He hath promised not to destroy the world whilst the Prophet George Bush reigns." Short version: we won't be sucked into any

Sorry, but of course you're "making a case." If you don't understand the mechanics of argumentation, then I can't do much. However, construing my responses to what you've said as direct characterizations of your words is at least an interesting form of confusion. mechanics of argumentation Wow, my simple words must have confused you!!!! I simply said that I never equated Goldberg, Olberman, and Limbaugh. You are obviously of the group who thinks using long words makes you smarter. Yet I understand every word you said (above) but cannot understand your overall meaning. or in your language: "The basic substanance of your diatribe alludes me. Perhaps some overall diachotomy of personality forebears you from directly giving me your internal maslovian response." Or as I tell my students as an English teacher, simple is best. Cut the Sh@t! We are all here to make a point. You artfully avoided a question. The best you gave was Goldberg as an equivalent. I answered you. Your answer was to imply I made an arguement that I hadn't. So if your answer is that Goldberg is Olbermans equivalent from the right stick to it. Don't bust out the thesaurus and expect to intimidate. "If you don't understand the mechanics

Quoting bjkeefe: Admit it. No matter what Obama says, the right will find a way to quote something out of context, distort the meaning, or otherwise lie about it to give them another excuse to hit the fainting couch.

For example (change "says" to "does" above). (h/t: TBogg)

What a condescending twit. A has-been political hack disparaging Reagan and Palin.
Thank God for "Monkey Business" Dog