Usually Jane is just a puke, here she becomes a rude puke.

I haven't watched any of this yet, but I'm predicting it will be crankier than my old favorite: The Thrilla In Manilla.

I'm sorry to have to say that Jane's smirking, sign-waving, gesturing sideshow is making me ill. What a terrible diavlog. I was hoping that Jerome Corsi would look like a buffoon because he couldn't make a legitimate defense of his book, but instead I largely felt sympathetic to the guy. On at least two points that Jane tried to make I sided with him, and I'm an Obama supporter! (1. Of course Corsi can go on any radio show, hosted by David Duke and O.J. Simpson, or quote any author, and shouldn't be asked to disown or denounce the show's hosts or sponsors: he's not a pol, he's an author.
2. As a recovering cocaine addict, I feel comfortable with Corsi's position that almost all drug users lie about their pasts when it comes to their "quit" times and experiences.)

Whatfur, I wish I could disagree.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...orsi_held.html Very timely considering he is now being detained.

Ha ha ha! Free speech! Birth certificate! Communist poet! Drug experts!

Jerome Corsi? 9/11 conspiracy theorist kook? Bob! Why are you giving a platform to this lunatic?

Quoting Tim_G: Jerome Corsi? 9/11 conspiracy theorist kook?

Bob! Why are you giving a platform to this lunatic?

It's okay. Corsi only damages himself. Like other wingnuts who can't control their bullying, authoritarian instincts, Corsi shows his true repulsive self to the world and turns people away from his hateful right wing ideology. The more exposure he and his sycophants get, the better. Jane did us all a service by agreeing to expose him to a new audience. Go Jane.

Here's what Corsi said on the Alex Jones radio show. Judge for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yCfI...d.php?t=121359

Maybe Corsi should start a new 527? Swift Boat Veterans for 9/11 Truth Has a nice ring to it

Thanks for posting that. This underscores Corsi's lack of moral character, that he would come on to BHTV and say one thing while saying something completely different when he's at home with his fellow lunatics and wingnuts.

Wow...

Oh, let's get this straight. Corsi can play guilt-by-association with Obama but he' immune from guilt for consorting with outright racist hate characters? How did Jane Hamsher miss this?

Fuck. Never thought I'd see this. Time for Coulter!

An ignorant hateful character like this complete fool Jerome doesn't deserve the privelege of the Bloggingheads platform. As a conservative I find him unable to add the slightest drop of positive forward looking dialog or liberal critique to the national conversation.

I know she was singing with her own choiR aroUnD hEre and Corsi Probably seemed like an easy target bUt if this is Jane's half-baKEd, version of being a professional then there is promise for her. Promise of ending up hiding in the bushes near a hotel pool trying to get a shot of Brittney Spear's cellulite.

Quoting seyoyo: Oh, let's get this straight. Corsi can play guilt-by-association with Obama but he' immune from guilt for consorting with outright racist hate characters?

How did Jane Hamsher miss this?

Obama is running for President. Duh. And maybe not racist, but we can certainly add Jane to the "hate characters" that Corsi has appeared with.

I'm actually rather impressed by Corsi. I've heard from a variety of places that he's a vile guy and I just accepted that without researching. Now, he is prickly, but I suppose if I had constantly been derided as vile then I too would want to cut off my interlocutors--at least those who want to attack me to feel better about themselves and win kudos from their fans--at the pass. Two areas that raised red flags, however: the searching for Obama's birth certificate seems to me as unwarranted as Sullivan's search for the birth certificate of Trig Palin. Surely if Obama wasn't a citizen this would have been found out by now by those who oppose Obama. Second, he said that Obama conceded a lot of things about the book. How does he know this? Because Obama didn't respond to them. But there are a variety of very plausible reasons why someone of Obama's stature and business (as in, busy-ness) would not respond to Corsi. Another problem with him is that he was very strict about making sure that Jane let him respond to the question asked, but he would often

Wow.....

Jerome Corsi, Obama Smear Author, Detained In Kenya

NAIROBI, Kenya — The American author of a best-selling book attacking Barack Obama as unfit for the presidency was being deported from Kenya on Tuesday, a criminal investigations official said.

Jerome Corsi, who wrote "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," was picked up by police Tuesday for not having a work permit, said Carlos Maluta, a senior immigration official in charge of investigations.

He was briefly detained at immigration headquarters before being brought to Jomo Kenyatta International Airport for deportation, said Joseph Mumira, head of criminal investigations at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.

...

Not hard to guess what the human pig was doing there.

Quoting TwinSwords: ...human pig...

That's harsh, Twin.

I think Anne definitely got the better of him on the drug issue. Jerome seemed completely lost trying to defend his point. He also really seems like a jerk as a person. However, otherwise her points were refuted and when she got refuted, she just skipped to the next question. She really looks juvinile having her points refuted and then looking so smug as if she actually got the better of him. She keeps talking about "corrections" in general, but when she gets to any specifics (other than the drug issue), she loses almost every point. This makes her look like an idiot.

A new, ugly low for Bloggingheads.tv.

I don't see how she got the better of him on the drug issue. If his research really shows that drug-users are prone to lying about their past behavior, then that's relevant to trusting Obama on the issue. I should say, though, (1) I'm not really sure what his research was; and (2) I don't get the impression that Obama was ever a really serious coke user. If he had been, surely that would have come out by now, right?

Hey, Bob, I actually appreciate you having Corsi on, but why pair him with someone as unimpressive as Jane Hamsher? The whole thing devolved into backbiting pettiness . . .(I was waiting for her to start screaming "You're a coward!" a la Bill O') Also, I wonder if Corsi was mad that he wasn't labeled as Jerome Corsi, PhD. (Is that playa hata's degree, as the rapper Ma$e used to put it, back in the '90s?)

WTF If you're not running for President you're not subject to guilt-by-association? When you're running for President, your brother's father's client who met the Devil establishes you as the devil, and the moron who comes forward to make this charge can be the devil's partner but it doesn't count. What's the polite word for wingnuttery.

Quoting Bobby G: I don't see how she got the better of him on the drug issue. (1) I'm not really sure what his research was

That's my problem. He did not cite one source. He just kept referring to general knowledge. On other points he gave specifics which makes me also wonder why he couldn't on this point.

Quoting seyoyo: WTF

If you're not running for President you're not subject to guilt-by-association?

When you're running for President, your brother's father's client who met the Devil establishes you as the devil, and the moron who comes forward to make this charge can be the devil's partner but it doesn't count.

What's the polite word for wingnuttery.

No you are, it just that no one really cares.
What's the polite word for "Duh"?

Quoting mvantony: A new, ugly low for Bloggingheads.tv.

I thought so too. Don't mind hard questions...even ones that may end out making someone look foolish...but mocking like that? Stay classy Jane!

I guess I lost track of the point. It's one thing to go on a radio show where you disagree with the host's repellent views. It's another thing to be friends with someone with repellent views. I forgot, though: did Corsi allege that Obama is bad because he's friends with some rotten people, or because he accepted money from them, or because he once ran into them...? What was the point?

Everyone cares about Corsi consorting with racists given some of the comments he himself has made. In the end, associations matter or they don't.

Quoting seyoyo: Everyone cares about Corsi consorting with racists given some of the comments he himself has made.

In the end, associations matter or they don't.

That's too simple. Merely playing "who do you know?" doesn't expose much that's interesting. Geographic and social realities mean that all of us have associations that have various levels of meaning. The question has to be deeper than that mere association. Also hanging in a crowd that includes some less savory members isn't the same as hanging with an unsavory crowd. If you're a Republican Louisiana politician, you probably have ties to David Duke. That shouldn't be a problem for you. If you hang at Klan rallies, that's something else again. The Ayers association for Obama doesn't bother most of us because it isn't prima facie evidence that Ayers' past is the issue that joined them together. If you're a Democratic Chicago politician, association with Ayers sounds nearly inevitable. Some evidence that Ayers' past is relevant would seem like a necessary starting point before attempting to tie Obama to that past. Of course, in the last days of a hard fought political campaign, niceties like evidence and fairness

What the h**l happened to Jane Hampshire? She was civil and interesting in other diavlogs. But she completely ruined her last diavlog with Jim Pinkerton, and I couldn't even get through this one, even trying multiple times. This Corsi guy isn't a prince, but I totally blame Jane for this disaster of a diavlog.

Corsi is a joke, but this wasn't very funny. I would've liked to see him given more rope. An interviewer that listened patiently and even sympathetically prodded him along could've tapped a rich vein of comedy gold. ("That is indeed a terrifying possiblity. Is there any chance that John Kerry is somehow involved?") It would've required a lighter touch than Jane seems capable of, but someone out there in BHTV-land could've really made this classic. Matt Welch maybe.

Quoting mvantony: A new, ugly low for Bloggingheads.tv.

I realize you're very senstive, mvantony, but don't omit Jane's context, or her point. This was in the midst of the discussion of Corsi's groundless insinuations that Obama is a coke addict or alcoholic. She was simply showing that two can play at Corsi's game. Corsi published his insinuations in an NYT best-seller. Hamsher made her insinuation -- obvious sarcasm -- before an audience of a few thousand. The fact that you condemn her, but not him, tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual honesty and moral character.

Jane is not a good person to have on bh.tv within two months of an election, clearly. She could barely manage to keep civil with James Pinkerton a little while back so it was unsurprising that she disgraces herself here.

Quoting otto: Jane is not a good person to have on bh.tv within two months of an election, clearly. She could barely manage to keep civil with James Pinkerton a little while back so it was unsurprising that she disgraces herself here.

I agree. Too much sound and fury signifying nothing. I'd suggest that the bloggingheads editors and directors put substantive discussion over views and hits. You'll get less viewers by being less shrill, but do you really want to go the DailyKos route in name of getting more hits?

I didn't watch it, but perhaps in a future installment Hamsher would care to explain an interesting link her PAC has. At the same time as FDL advocates for immigration "reform", her PAC is/was working with a group headed by someone with a series of links to the Mexican government. Speaking about corrupt foreign governments, she isn't exactly up in arms about Corsi being detained: alternet.org/blogs/peek/101979/jerome_%27swift_boat%27_corsi_taken_to_task%2C_arr ested_in_kenya/

Quoting TwinSwords: This was in the midst of the discussion of Corsi's groundless insinuations that Obama is a coke addict or alcoholic. She was simply showing that two can play at Corsi's game....

The fact that you condemn her, but not him, tells us everything we need to know about your intellectual honesty and moral character.

Once again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You let facts "tell you things" much too easily, and then issue "cutting" personal attacks on the basis of your silly inferences. I'd never heard of Corsi -- "the human pig," in your words -- before listening to this diavlog, and so knew nothing about how credible he is or isn't. I was merely commenting on Hamsher's boorishness, and how, to my mind, it reflects poorly on BhTV.

What an ass. Not that I'm surprised. Its true there was good potential comedy in someone else's hands, but Jane's too serious for that, even when she tries to be light...

Corsi's principle claims about Obama are prima facie idiotic and outrageous. There's no more reason to spend BHeads' precious electrons on hidden birth certificates and cocaine fables than there is to debate alien abductions or the moon landing being faked. I guess Jane's point was to tie Corsi to more mainstream Republicans, but since this is a guy who thinks McCain is funded by Al Qaeda, it's a bit of a stretch. Jane tried to make it funny, but it wasn't. It came across like making fun of a mental patient. Relax, Jane. The election's over. Obama won.

Quoting Wonderment: Relax, Jane. The election's over. Obama won.

It's odd. Your opinion and mine seem to swing on pendulums approximately 180 degrees out of phase. I'm watching the RCP numbers seem to flatten out and I'm getting just a little nervous.

It's odd. Your opinion and mine seem to swing on pendulums approximately 180 degrees out of phase. I'm watching the RCP numbers seem to flatten out and I'm getting just a little nervous.

I probably shouldn't declare victory so quickly, so I'll walk that one back a little bit (new cliché I've learned from the campaigns). It's never a good idea to count your chickens before they've hatched (old cliché I learned from my grandmother). Still, I'm pretty confident. The turning point for me, when I went from hopeful to we're-gonna-win-it, was the suspending-my-campaign stunt. The whole country seemed to say in a rare display of omnipartisan unity, "Give me an f-ing break!"

Gee, a lot of talk about whether this guy is a smart guy or a bad guy. This does not make for the best diavlog, but it brings out the polarized partisans in the commentariat to hurl insults about. I guess that's his purpose here. I didn't hear anything to send me into fits of rage, but I do think he would come across better if he were a little less thin-skinned. Just for laughs, take a look at the histogram of reviews of his book on amazon.com: Now that's what I call polarization!

Felt really good!

Quoting AemJeff: It's odd. Your opinion and mine seem to swing on pendulums approximately 180 degrees out of phase. I'm watching the RCP numbers seem to flatten out and I'm getting just a little nervous.

Have a look at Gallup's tracking poll, Pollster.com, 538, and Rasmussen. RCP tends to suppress the performance of Dems/Obama just a little bit. But really, even their electoral map should provide comfort.

Quoting Wonderment: I probably shouldn't declare victory so quickly, so I'll walk that one back a little bit (new cliché I've learned from the campaigns). It's never a good idea to count your chickens before they've hatched (old cliché I learned from my grandmother).

Still, I'm pretty confident. The turning point for me, when I went from hopeful to we're-gonna-win-it, was the suspending-my-campaign stunt. The whole country seemed to say in a rare display of omnipartisan unity, "Give me an f-ing break!"

Broadly, I'm with you. Personally I think McCain's chickens are coming home to roost. (Old cliche that I think I've heard recently.) But, I'm less confident now than I was over the weekend.

Quoting bjkeefe: RCP tends to suppress the performance of Dems/Obama just a little bit. But really, even their electoral map should provide comfort.

Yeah, they do, and it does. I'm just watching the deltas and considering the last minute ferocity of the R's. I'm quite sure that odds still favor the Dems.

Quoting Whatfur: And maybe not racist, but we can certainly add Jane to the "hate characters" that Corsi has appeared with.

Don't ever sell Jane short. In her (and Barney Frank's) world of delusion, any criticism of crooks if they happen to be non-white equals racism. But remember her lovely bit of racist art over at Huffington, a website read by millions? I guess it's OK if it's from someone at the Lamont campaign. And what about that SNL skit about the bailout that has been pulled off the net because it hit too close to the truth? Ahhhhh the double standards of some liberals here and the msm!

Jane's the one who is the bully. She's the one who wants to dish out the Scarlet Letters. Shame on her! Lets all piss on her political correctness!!!

I concur. What a Miss Goody Two Shoes. I vomit on her.

Quoting harkin: Don't ever sell Jane short.

In her (and Barney Frank's) world of delusion, any criticism of crooks if they happen to be non-white equals racism.

But remember her lovely bit of racist art over at Huffington, a website read by millions?

I guess it's OK if it's from someone at the Lamont campaign.

And what about that SNL skit about the bailout that has been pulled off the net because it hit too close to the truth?

Ahhhhh the double standards of some liberals here and the msm!

It's racist? Is blackface somehow glorified here? There's no double standard, just an inability or unwillingness to parse symbols for what they actually mean on the part of Republican complainers.

Quoting AemJeff: Broadly, I'm with you. Personally I think McCain's chickens are coming home to roost. (Old cliche that I think I've heard recently.) But, I'm less confident now than I was over the weekend.

Guess who else is less confident? How about David Frum?

My pals over at the Corner are very excited by the last-minute attempt to transform Bill Ayers into the Willie Horton of 2008. Well, good luck

[...]

But Bill Ayers? Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show? It's like Ronald Reagan's opponents trying to beat him by pointing out that Birchers once supported him.

Negative campaigning only works when it offers a new data point to support a convincingly drawn hostile image.

[...]

Obama is not some wild-eyed radical. He's a normal Chicago politician. That's the problem.

Unfortunately for our team, it's probably not a big enough problem ....

How about Rich Lowry?

But it doesn’t matter how many times Sarah Palin rips Obama for consorting with Ayers, or if the McCain campaign runs exclusively Ayers and Wright TV ads for the next four weeks — the subject of

Quoting bjkeefe: Guess who else is less confident?

How about David Frum?

How about Rich Lowry?

And how about the new shiny object that's taking the rightosphere off message?

And guess what Web video is currently #1 on ViralVideo?

Heh. Remind me to continue to check in with you when I'm getting depressed about politics.

I agree completely.

So true.

Jane's not a jackbooted thug as well? Her jackboots may be Prada and pink, but she's a PC authoritarian ass.

Jane's moral character is pretty thin as well.

Going on someone's radio show is the same thing as being friends with them or working with them?

So you are against traveling to foreign countries?

Quoting bjkeefe: How about David Frum?

Obama is not some wild-eyed radical. He's a normal Chicago politician. That's the problem.

Unfortunately for our team, it's probably not a big enough problem ....

We can think what we like about Frum. When he's right, he's right.

Actually, David Duke is a political pariah in Louisiana. I mean the governor of the State is Bobby Jindal and David Duke hates him.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a 'rabid' lefty.
Granted that one of the reasons we all frequent this website is the broad spectrum of ideas represented here, from the 'heads to the commenters, much of what is said here is well thought out, intellectually honest commentary, from both sides of the fence. It remains a non-partisan breath of fresh air in an increasingly polarized America, a place where we can respectfully disagree and maybe even learn a few things. Mr. Corsi represents neither the spirit of intellectual honesty nor mutual respect we admire this site and it's contributors for. The man is an ideologue who can't even be bothered to use actual facts to disseminate his beliefs. Men like Mr. Corsi thrive on the fact that even merited allegations of serious factual errors only sell more books and get you more face time on the networks. This, in turn, allows baseless swill to reach even more listeners/readers/viewers, many of whom will simply eat it up. While it's absolutley important to have people on the site who don't like Obama it's also important that their criticisms are legitamate. Factless, illogical punditry does not lend itself

Quoting industwetrust: FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a 'rabid' lefty.
Granted that one of the reasons we all frequent this website is the broad spectrum of ideas represented here, from the 'heads to the commenters, much of what is said here is well thought out, intellectually honest commentary, from both sides of the fence. It remains a non-partisan breath of fresh air in an increasingly polarized America, a place where we can respectfully disagree and maybe even learn a few things.

Mr. Corsi represents neither the spirit of intellectual honesty nor mutual respect we admire this site and it's contributors for. The man is an ideologue who can't even be bothered to use actual facts to disseminate his beliefs. Men like Mr. Corsi thrive on the fact that even merited allegations of serious factual errors only sell more books and get you more face time on the networks. This, in turn, allows baseless swill to reach even more listeners/readers/viewers, many of whom will simply eat it up.

While it's absolutley important to have people on the site who don't like Obama it's also important that their criticisms are legitamate. Factless, illogical punditry does not lend itself

Quoting AemJeff: But, I'm less confident now than I was over the weekend.

Maybe you should visit Florida. Or Ohio. Or even Virginia.

Quoting Lyle: Actually, David Duke is a political pariah in Louisiana. I mean the governor of the State is Bobby Jindal and David Duke hates him.

How many Republican pols in LA over a certain age haven't had a direct relationship with Duke, do you think?

Quoting bjkeefe: Maybe you should visit Florida.

Or Ohio.

Or even Virginia.

We just got back from FL! We were in Dunedin the same day Obama spoke, though we made no attempt to join the throng. Clearwater was pretty peaceful, though, apparently, recent appearances by certain Republican pols seem to have unfortunately disturbed that idyll. But, I get your point. I'm slightly concerned with volatility, and with the effectiveness of Republican attack politics. But, at the moment, Obama has incredible mo'.

Quoting AemJeff: We can think what we like about Frum. When he's right, he's right.

Could be. Another conservative voice: Douthat weighs in:

But when I listen to Republicans talk about "taking the gloves off" where Barack Obama's relationship to William Ayers is concerned, I hear the sound of conservative failure ...

To be precise, Ross actually said it first.

Quoting bjkeefe: Could be. Another conservative voice: Douthat weighs in:

To be precise, Ross actually said it first.

Ross has been one of the most consistently rational voices on either side of this, even despite his forthright infatuation with the Governor of Alaska early on.

Pretty much all of them. He's a Republican only because he has the right to join the party, and they don't have the right keep him out of it. I mean how exactly could Bobby Jindal have so much support from Republicans if they're all David Duke's best friend?

Quoting Lyle: Pretty much all of them. He's a Republican only because he has the right to join the party, and they don't have the right keep him out of it.

I mean how exactly could Bobby Jindal have so much support from Republicans if they're all David Duke's best friend?

You're missing the point. There's no reason to think they're Duke's buddy. Duke was a fact of life in LA politics for years. Knowing him was unavoidable, and therefore unremarkable.

Quoting AemJeff: Ross has been one of the most consistently rational voices on either side of this, even despite his forthright infatuation with the Governor of Alaska early on.

Another voice, maybe just ahead of the rational conservative curve?

Quoting bjkeefe: Another voice, maybe just ahead of the rational conservative curve?

Boy, wouldn't it be sweet if Chuck decided he could explicitly follow suit? I wonder how much of this we'll see. It wouldn't shocked me if there's quite a bit of it. (And with any luck, if many Republicans do cross endorse, I'll get too see Michelle Malkin's eye's bulging while she spits in contemptuous rage. Not too mention ACE.)

He wasn't a fact of life in Louisiana politics for years though. He was in and out of it, and he never had the support of the national Republican Party or the State Republican party. When he ran as a Republican for governor against Edwin Edwards there were hardly any registered Republicans in the State. The party frankly didn't exist at the time. And the people who voted for him voted for him out of disgust to Edwin Edwards who was a seriously corrupt politician who ruined the State financially. So the truth of the matter, just look at Bobby Jindal himself, is that most Republican pols in Louisiana have no ties whatsoever to David Duke. Most of the Republican politicians in Louisiana are either former Democrats (like Billy Tauzin and the former governor Buddy Roemer who ran against Duke), or they are young politicians who are post-Democratic only rule, like Jindal and David Vitter.

I love Jane! She would express herself even if she was wrapped in a burka! It must have been torture for her to interview the swifter boater, you go girl!

Jeff, On this we agree. I think your statement is accurate.

On the other hand, allowing a full range of opinion to be expressed is a good thing. I think that the frequency with which fringe figures like Corsi appear here is proportionally about right.

That's a good point. However, I don't think Bloggingheads has had any "fringe" figures as guests before that couldn't pass a simple fact check. I have not been here all that long, so I could be wrong. I'm always interested in hearing the other side of the argument, but there are more qualified people to give me that side than Corsi. Give me more Righties like Conn, Ross and Ramesh, even Jonah Goldberg. I may not agree with these guys, but their arguments are based in reality, and sometimes they even make me question my own opinions and beliefs in a way that increases my understanding of the topic under discussion. I suppose it's hard to draw the line. I'd hate to see ideas and opinions blacklisted from Bloggingheads, but I don't see the harm in not providing more exposure to an outright liar like Corsi. There's some cognitive dissonance there I suppose. Maybe I'm just pissed Jane didn't make him cry or something...

I went to high school with this loon who is one of the if not the head honcho the at "Stormfront." It is a white supremicist website, radio station, and whatever else they do that is aligned with David Duke. Anyhow, he is around my age, 61, and is a refugee of mind control, cultic operations like Soka Gokkai (formerly called Nichoren Shoshu) and Scientology (please don't sue me), and an objectivist (follower of Ayn Rand). Now, he has graduated to being to being a full fledged racist. One thing you can say about the U.S.: there is a lot of room when it comes to freedom of association. John

amen to that!

Quoting TwinSwords: OMG, this should be interesting.

Go Jane.

Yes, go Jane!!! Many posters here have criticized her for being aggressive. However, I admire her restraint in addressing this sociopath. Jane is outraged and revolted by him. I would be too.

Jerome Corsi is probably the most belligerent bully to ever appear on BHTV. He constantly browbeat Jane, from the first minutes to the last. Corsi absolutely insisted on dominating the conversation, becoming visibly enraged whenever Jane dared to speak. I'd guess 90% of the conversation was dominated by Jerome.

In Corsi's case, personality and ideology are perfectly matched. You can tell he's an authoritarian wingnuts even if your volume is turned down. If Corsi spoke an alien language none of us could understand, everyone watching would know where he stands, ideologically. If you're the kind of person who likes abrasive intimidation, you're probably a Republican. If you are repulsed by his behavior, you're probably a liberal. You don't actually need to listen to a word he says to know where he stands on most issues.

Excellent observation. I also agree that some people may not see anything wrong with Jerome's attitude, while others, like me, felt immediately nauseated by him. This is a narcissistic authoritarian sociopath that

Jane was clearly the intolerant one in this bloggingheads. Corsi could be Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein for all I care, but the jackboots were on Miss Jane today. At the very least she could have quoted him in context and been fair about his true views rather than constantly projecting false views on to him.

Dear My Georgian Friend Dr. Corsi (May I call you Joe?), Joe, you are a Great American. It is rare nowadays in the communist-dominated media to find a wise and brave man who will stand up to the Islamofascist Jane Hamster. Here's some straight talk: 1) The fundamentals of the economy are fine. 2) My opponent, B. Hussein Obama, is not a Muslim, as far as I know. He just spent his youth in an Indonesian madrassa under Khalid Sheikh Mohammad AKA KSM. 3) B. Hussein pals around with unrepentant terrorists who want to blow up the Pentagon. (I won't let them.) 4) I will hunt Obama bin Laden to the gates of hell. 5) Suzy Palin is hot. 6) B. Hussein Obama is a crackhead drug lord. 7) Michelle Osama hates America. Bababomb Iran!

Depending on who you agree with, either because you agree with his/her opinion, or due to partisanship, you will then pick an aspect of the dialogue to criticize. I disagree with Jerome's arguments, dislike his personality and reject his political views.

Quoting TwinSwords: This was in the midst of the discussion of Corsi's groundless insinuations that Obama is a coke addict or alcoholic.

This is a perfect example of what kind of crook this guy is. He basically supports the idea that Obama is guilty until he can be proven innocent. Jerome is using the argument that drug addicts and alcoholics tend to lie about their drug use and extrapolates that to say that "therefore it is legitimate to say that Obama may be an addict"? WOW! What kind of logic is that? When Jane challenges his assertion, he gets irritated. Frankly I think that Jane was mild with him. I would have pushed him on the same point to explain his logic. The main problem is that it doesn't matter whether drug addicts tend to lie about their use or not, but why he decided to apply this to Obama. Where is

what shitty satire!

Thank God I know I shouldn't watch this one.

Jermone seems like an ass and his defence of his Obama drug theory is laughable. However, none of the Jerome detractors on this thread are commenting on any other arguments he made because he made convincing rebuttals of all of Jane's attacks. Are ad hominem attacks the best that can be made on the substance of his book?

Quoting Ocean: And it's making us waste time refuting the most absurd arguments.

Good point. These lunatics have all of cable news and AM radio. Why give them a platform on BHTV? Question for you, Ocean: How do you account for the fact Corsi bullied Jane for 40 minutes, and most of the commenters seem to think she was out of bounds? I'll grant that Jane was very aggressive in her diavlog with Pinkerton, but in this episode, she could barely get a word in edgewise as Corsi breathed fire in her face. Several times, Corsi even refused to proceed unless Jane agreed to submit to his demands while enduring his repeated insults. After watching this episode, I think I know what it would be like to be raised by an abusive, alcholic father.

Quoting mvantony: Once again, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You let facts "tell you things" much too easily, and then issue "cutting" personal attacks on the basis of your silly inferences.

I'd never heard of Corsi -- "the human pig," in your words -- before listening to this diavlog, and so knew nothing about how credible he is or isn't. I was merely commenting on Hamsher's boorishness, and how, to my mind, it reflects poorly on BhTV.

Nice dodge, Michael, but it's not going to work. You didn't have to know anything about Corsi to deliberately quote Jane out of context, which is the only thing I condemned you for. If you were following the conversation, and I guess in retrospect there is no reason to assume you were, you should have known why Jane was motioning with the bottle: she was pointing out that if Corsi can insinuate baselessly that Obama's a drug addict in a book read by millions and discussed on countless news programs, she can insinuate the same about him, even if only to illustrate a point, on a tiny website viewed by a few thousand. The bottom line is that you chose to object

Quoting TwinSwords: Good point. These lunatics have all of cable news and AM radio. Why give them a platform on BHTV?

Question for you, Ocean: How do you account for the fact Corsi bullied Jane for 40 minutes, and most of the commenters seem to think she was out of bounds?

I'll grant that Jane was very aggressive in her diavlog with Pinkerton, but in this episode, she could barely get a word in edgewise as Corsi breathed fire in her face. Several times, Corsi even refused to proceed unless Jane agreed to submit to his demands while enduring his repeated insults.

After watching this episode, I think I know what it would be like to be raised by an abusive, alcholic father.

I think that Jane's pitch, voice volume and her short abrupt introjections create a negative effect. She also appears very anxious and outraged. If you don't understand why she feels that way, it's uncomfortable to watch. If you do know exactly how she feels, then you can identify with her discomfort and her aggressive questioning doesn't bother. If she was equally firm and unrelenting, but somewhat calmer in her demeanor, it would be more effective. Jerome, has the cold blooded

Quoting Ocean: I think that Jane's pitch, voice volume and her short abrupt introjections create a negative effect. She also appears very anxious and outraged. If you don't understand why she feels that way, it's uncomfortable to watch. If you do know exactly how she feels, then you can identify with her discomfort and her aggressive questioning doesn't bother.

Interesting observations. I know exactly what you mean. I love Jane. Indeed, I admire her for having the courage and the fortitude to put herself on the front line to protect American values. But I do see what you mean about her pitch and volume. It almost sounds like her voice is being picked up not by the headset she's wearing, but another speaker in the room, because her voice seems to reverberate around the room and echo off the walls, picking up extra tone that can be a little hard to listen to. If she has a working headset, her voice should stand out better against background/ambient room sound. Perhaps she should (a) get a new headset, (b) make sure her laptop mic is switched OFF, (c) move the diavloging to a room with softer walls that have more coverings and

Corsi is a bad father? And he's an alcoholic? Where do you get that from?

Quoting TwinSwords: It's interesting that you perceive him as "pseudo-calm." I think I know what you're talking about, and I guess I saw that, too, but my impression of his was aggressive, belligerent, and hostile. He seems like the type who needs to dominate the people he's interacting with, and if you talked to him in person, I think physical intimidation, and possibly even physical attacks, would be part of his repertoire of tools to achieve domination.

I agree with the feeling of intimidation and his attempts for domination. That's what he is about. The pseudo-calm refers precisely to those attributes even at times when he was "pretending" to be calm and smiling.

Corsi was just standing up to Jane's bullying. She belittled him with ignorance about his views and he fought back. Standing up for one's self doesn't make them 'hostile' or 'agressive'. You 'progressives' are starting to scare the crap at me when you can't distinguish from what is belligerent and what is standing up for one's self. Jane was an absolute jerk to this guy. Two thumbs down for Jane!!! Even if this guy is a charlatan, which I don't think he is now thanks to Jane's bullying.

Quoting Ocean: I agree with the feeling of intimidation and his attempts for domination. That's what he is about. The pseudo-calm refers precisely to those attributes even at times when he was "pretending" to be calm and smiling.

Gotcha, makes sense.

Quoting gwlaw99: Jermone seems like an ass and his defence of his Obama drug theory is laughable. However, none of the Jerome detractors on this thread are commenting on any other arguments he made because he made convincing rebuttals of all of Jane's attacks. Are ad hominem attacks the best that can be made on the substance of his book?

I didn't read the book and listened to some segments of the diavlog. I think that the content of his book, at least for the topics that I heard, were so absurd that there's only so many different ways you can refute them. Many of the posters here appeared to focus on the diavloggers' styles of interaction. Perhaps that dynamic offered more than the content itself. It was more interesting. It's true that Jerome made some convincing rebuttals about minor points, like the footnotes. The problem in this diavlog is that the book itself appears to have little substance. For what I heard it contains a lot of speculation and circumstantial "evidence". How do you refute speculation? I think it ends up being a match of opinions.

10 minutes into the diavlog and Mr.Corsi is very touchy and defensive.

Quoting rgajria: 10 minutes into the diavlog and Mr.Corsi is very touchy and defensive.

You're not kidding. I have the feeling that after probably hundreds of hostile interviews, Corsi has developed a strategy to intimiate the interviewer and dominate the conversation, so as to avoid getting derailed into subject matter of the interviewer's choosing. He has to be belligerant and hostile or he might not get to make all of his dumb points about Scary Brown Obama. The problem with his strategy is that he comes across like a jerk and a bully. I don't think it helps persaude anyone not already predisposed to believe that Obama is a Marxist, a black militant, a radical jihadist, a drug addict, an athiest, and a puppet of Chicago machine politics. (And that's just chapters 1-3.) <-- sarcasm

20 minutes in and Mr. Corsi is dominating the conversation, speaking over Jane Hamsher, and he is the one complaining about not being given enough speaking time!!!
Funny that Mr. Corsi does not wish to be judged about the fact that he appears on a racist pro-white radio show as he does not check every person he agrees to speak to.

Quoting rgajria: 20 minutes in and Mr. Corsi is dominating the conversation, speaking over Jane Hamsher, and he is the one complaining about not being given enough speaking time!!!
Funny that Mr. Corsi does not wish to be judged about the fact that he appears on a racist pro-white radio show as he does not check every person he agrees to speak to.

Heh. Wait until you start reading the forum comments! Around here, the consensus is that Jane was the bully!

"An ignorant hateful character like this complete fool Jerome doesn't deserve the privelege of the Bloggingheads platform." lol Do you sniff your farts outta wine glasses, too?

Quoting TwinSwords: Heh. Wait until you start reading the forum comments! Around here, the consensus is that Jane was the bully!

Yeah. We're suffering a pre-election invasion of right-wing wingnuts and ditto-heads shouting down common sense. No more can BHTV be accused of being a Lefty echo-chamber. Not even I have the stomach for trying to swim in the recent high-tide of right-wing BS. I thought Jane was funny with the "chugging from a bottle" mime, really a very mild and very much on-the-money jab at the alcoholic nasal rosacea clown on the other half of the screen. Don't let these creeps get you down, Jane. But, really, you're classy enough you don't need to be doing much more of this slumming with vicious idiots like Corsi. My own take is that giving this guy a forum, any forum, is probably ill-advised. EW

Twinswords, I did read the comments first. I wanted to compare the experience of reading the comments before hearing/watching the diavlog.
So far, I think Jane Hamsher is doing great. And I am 30 minutes in. She has to move to the next question as Mr. Corsi never satisfactorily answers any question. He accuses her of asking questions in bad faith.
His book which I have not read, apply the worst attributes to Barack Obama - Liar, Drug Addict, etc. He has never spoken to him or met him. How is that not bad faith.

Final Thoughts - Jane Hamsher was great. There is no dignifying this man's thesis. She did not need to speak lesser, Mr. Corsi hung himself anyways with his defensiveness, bluff and bluster, and bullying . Speaking about his cheap shots against Jews and Catholics, His 911 (former) ideas, his referring to McCain and Bush's background as suspicious and connected to the mob, his endorsement of the Constitutional party, and various other things provided a good background for us to consider. Kudos Jane, was disappointed with your exchange with James Pinkerton but tonight was great.

Quoting Eastwest: Yeah. We're suffering a pre-election invasion of right-wing wingnuts and ditto-heads shouting down common sense. No more can BHTV be accused of being a Lefty echo-chamber. Not even I have the stomach for trying to swim in the recent high-tide of right-wing BS.

Don't let these creeps get you down, Jane. But, really, you're classy enough you don't need to be doing much more of this slumming with vicious idiots like Corsi. My own take is that giving this guy a forum, any forum, is probably ill-advised.

EW

er: i'm not right-wing at all. a true liberal, an obama supporter! (i even went to iowa and volunteered for him before the caucus. ok, fine, it wasn't so much for him as against clinton.) anyway: i still thought hamsher was absolutely insufferable, and times simply rude. a true interview, or least an honest debate, would have been better than sheer snideness.

Quoting nikkibong: er: i'm not right-wing at all. a true liberal, an obama supporter! (i even went to iowa and volunteered for him before the caucus. ok, fine, it wasn't so much for him as against clinton.) anyway: i still thought hamsher was absolutely insufferable, and times simply rude. a true interview, or least an honest debate, would have been better than sheer snideness.

Jane has a colorful personality. She is assertive and vivacious and in this interview outraged by the absurdity of Corsi's assertions. Jerome is a dominant crook. In order to assert herself, Jane had to use an aggressive style of interaction that may not be palatable for some. You suggest an honest debate. I don't think this was a dishonest debate on Jane's side. It was a dishonest book on Jerome's side. I can think of some variations in style that could have been used by Jane or some other woman interviewing him, but not a substantial difference in the overall content.

Quoting AemJeff: We just got back from FL! We were in Dunedin the same day Obama spoke, though we made no attempt to join the throng. Clearwater was pretty peaceful, though, apparently, recent appearances by certain Republican pols seem to have unfortunately disturbed that idyll.

But, I get your point. I'm slightly concerned with volatility, and with the effectiveness of Republican attack politics. But, at the moment, Obama has incredible mo'.

One more point: Indiana!. Can you imagine?

WOW!!!! CNN
CNN of all people come to rescue a piece of Jerome Corsi. I guess he was right about BamBam and Billy. Now that we have established that Obama is a LIAR maybe we can get Jane to interview him here on BH too. She can then pantomime doing a little blow. There is a missing component to all this that CNN and most everyone else seems to want to overlook (except for Mr. Kurtz touching on it) as this story now has moved from "a guy in the neighborhood" to a long standing association...from "there is nobody behind the curtain to" to "ignore the man behind the curtain"...the component of 7 years of the up-to-now lacking executive experience that for some reason Obama and his team do not include or want to talk about. Come on Sherlocks, if that doesn't smell funny to you then I suggest you move further away from the pier and/or extract your head from your ass because your olfactory capabilites are more than lacking. Bottom line we have one of two things going here, either Obama is so afraid of being found out to

Quoting Ocean: Depending on who you agree with, either because you agree with his/her opinion, or due to partisanship, you will then pick an aspect of the dialogue to criticize.

Exactly. As Burton discusses here: http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader...ice/index.html studying brain activity of involved partisans in response to issues or candidates they are invested in shows that they react almost entirely using the centers of the brain involving emotion, and that centers involving logic and reason show no particular activity. Having read this far down the threads, its pretty notable that comments have been dominated not by substantive discussion of the diavlog topics, but instead by "I'm gonna puke" type emotional commentary.

Quoting Ocean: I think that this kind of trash doesn't deserve BhTV time. And it's making us waste time refuting the most absurd arguments.

Again find myself in violent agreement. While there are still interesting and informative diavlogs on BHTV, my subjective judgement is that some of the increased volume of diavlogs has been achieved by including diavlogs that are neither. By Corsi's claim of being on thousands of media outlets all the time, he is hardly lacking in opportunity to spew his opionions. I hope that

Quoting cragger: Exactly.
...
by "I'm gonna puke" type emotional commentary.

Actually Cragger, I am in "violent agreement" with you also. My initial posts WERE purely of an emotional nature as it was not that I found Corsi to be compelling(he did surprise me though with how he handled himself...I give him credit for sticking in there and effectively sparring) but that I found Jane's methods disgusting. But as you see by my last post, I have almost moved on. Maybe the challenge it holds needs the logical response of someone as grounded as yourself.

That was actually quite entertaining. When it came up in my podcast menu, I cringed at the thought of how it would go. I am disappointed that Jane didn't ask what I really wanted to know: If nothing you've said in the past is of any consequence, why is everything that everyone else has said in the past of the greatest consequence?

Quoting kynefski: That was actually quite entertaining. When it came up in my podcast menu, I cringed at the thought of how it would go. I am disappointed that Jane didn't ask what I really wanted to know: If nothing you've said in the past is of any consequence, why is everything that everyone else has said in the past of the greatest consequence?

A good question, so good, in fact it works purely as a rhetorical one, but I can guess at Corsi's answer: "Because I'm not running for president." And then if you tried to follow up by saying you weren't talking about fitness for office by only general credibility, he'd just keep interrupting and whining that the question showed liberal bias and was a hit job and that you hadn't read his rebuttals where he had already answered this, mixing in frequent repetitions of "we're not talking about me, we're talking about Obama." There's no way to interview this guy in real time once cattle prods are declared off limits.

Quoting AemJeff: It's racist? Is blackface somehow glorified here?

There's no double standard, just an inability or unwillingness to parse symbols for what they actually mean on the part of Republican complainers.

Awesome, another example of the double-standard by someone actually trying to discount it. The Huffington Post dropped this incredibly immature and racist photoshop like a hot potato when their own readers blasted them. Are you now going to claim that HP readers are all republicans? The Lamont campaign disowned Hamsher immediately, to the point that they were claiming someone who was helping produce campaign promos was 'not connected' to the campaign at all. And if I recall correctly, the main blame for this was all directed by Arriana and Jane towards the poor schmuck who drew it up for Jane's blog. You're right, that's some awfully nuanced symbol-parsing!

Quoting harkin: Awesome, another example of the double-standard by someone actually trying to discount it.

The Huffington Post dropped this incredibly immature and racist photoshop like a hot potato when their own readers blasted them. Are you now going to claim that HP readers are all republicans?

The Lamont campaign disowned Hamsher immediately, to the point that they were claiming someone who was helping produce campaign promos was 'not connected' to the campaign at all.

And if I recall correctly, the main blame for this was all directed by Arriana and Jane towards the poor schmuck who drew it up for Jane's blog.

You're right, that's some awfully nuanced symbol-parsing!

Yup, Lamont and Huffpo yelped and backed away. Lamont because as a pol runnng for high office, the couldn't deal with a controversy that could be spun like this obviously could. Huffpo, probably because Lamont's campaign asked them to. As I've said repeastedly in reference to this image, it was over the top. But, where's the racism?

I was hoping somebody else would bring James Frey: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...amesfrey1.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Million_Little_Pieces Corsi is almost claiming to have the expertise of Psychiatrists/Psychologists in regards to drug addicts. There are other participants with more expertise to cover the topic of substance abuse. BTW, what a coincidence to see Althouse following Corsi, birds of a feather...

Quoting AemJeff: But, where's the racism?

Elsewhere.

Quoting Whatfur: As Handle and now Ocean I see like the dramatic...

Did you go the the Palin School of sentence construction?
C'mon, is McCain worth you making this much of an ass out of yourself? I never thought even you would resort to incoherent rambling. Remember when you used to taunt me for ranting?
I never thought it would come to this, but being a Hill supporter in the primaries, I never thought Obama would be so far ahead in the polls, but read 'em and weep, my fellow redneck American.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/149...4:43&out=24:48

Moveon.GOP?

As near as I can tell, your post is something about the '60s. Whatever it may do for bringing back one's recollections of that long ago era, Strunk and White do suggest not indulging in what they quaintly term "historic self-medication" before writing about it.

RUH-ROH!

Quoting Lyle: what shitty satire!

While I disagree, I must admit this is better. Almost forgot the best part, watch as Palen, honing her look of overwhelming admiration, completely misses the gaff.

Dear Bob,
This was actually worse than the bs on cable news. The reason I've found blogging heads valuable is that it's one of the few forums in which people of opposing views actually talk to each other rather than at each other. Neither of these people are capable of a reasoned, informed discussion. There was nothing productive on display here. I'm curious, what do you feel was the point in posting this?

One is a best seller.
One is a Keyboard Soldier.
This interview broke down quick. Pressing a white person on being a "racist" solely on the point that they've shown pride in their heritage is ignorant. Her repetition of "Do you condemn this talk show host for being Pro-White?" is evidence of a fundamental flaw in her way of thinking. Corsi should have retorted, "Do you deplore the Congressional Black Caucus?" What would her answer be then? "Oh, that's different."?
Trying to justify allowing one cultural group to celebrate their heritage and preventing another from doing so is more of the same racism the liberal party has spread, and what Barack Obama's expansion of affirmative action will do.
Jane, a piece of personal advice. Holding up negative signs, inserting stabbing remarks and adding a condescending tone to your argument when you have insufficient evidence, in no way makes you look intelligent. To further this ignorance, smiling to yourself only emphasis's how out of place you are when interviewing someone who has accomplished things you have not, and may not ever do.
Corsi, as many on his side, are successful through their own means. There was

So how do you like the Kool-Ade?

Jane Hamsher is the best. Here's a link to her blog post about her discussion with Corsi: — Me vs. Jerome Corsi Gotta love how she concludes her post.

Any more Blogginghead posts like this and I am finished with this site. For the most part, bh.tv has been a venue for thoughtful and informed discussion. This diavlog, however, is merely shallow, unencumbered posturing by Jerome "John" Corsi. No more Bob. No more. And, if I wanted to watch an old, cranky curmudgeon, I will just watch John McCain.

Do you not know how to spell Sarah Palin's name? Palen? What's that?

Quoting Lyle: Do you not know how to spell Sarah Palin's name? Palen? What's that?

OMG you're right... it's a typo!.... I forgot the apostrophe: pale'n. My secret is out, I'm a racist! I've also been very concerned about the people she pals around with, the AIP. They are traitors to this country, and god only knows, if they got their way, what would happen to energy prices. They are the most unpatriotic of groups, they want to break away from this great country!! Hubby was a member! She's married to a terrorist!
Go ahead and deny it, it's as good as your Aires bullshit. (typo intended) Wanna point out any more typo's, meme-monger? I've been reading yours and Whatfurs "substantive" posts, and I can tell you are smarter than bringing this kind of pale'n crap, or pointing out typos. This forum is frequented by people who heard the tired, stupid "Billy" memes ad nauseum all through the campaign, just so ya know...

Seriously Bob, if Ann Coulter is to be shunned for her despicable tactics (and strategies;-) why have this guy on? His type of hit-job "journalism" is a big part of what's wrong with the American political system. It's bad enough that there are so many idiots (or GOP clubs) that actually buy his extended versions of the National Enquirer, but I would think that having on someone of his nature sorta goes against the mission of BHTV. One of the greatest things about BHTV is that I can usually come here and be assured that I won't have to listen to this kind of blowhard bullying. Jane showed far more patience than I could have ever mustered, and i commend her for it, but please no more of these nut-jobs. What's next, a Lyndon LaRouche interview? After all, he's written some widely read books too. I also found amusing, Corsi's annecdotal evidence that drug users tend to lie about when they stopped using drugs. First off, why this is important, is beyond me. So obama may have done drugs in college? Oh my, what a travesty that would be. But more importantly (and i wish Jane had mentioned this) by the same

Note to Jane and Charlie Gibson.
Wearing your glasses halfway down your nose when questioning someone makes you look like a condescending tool.
Charlie Gibson engages in verbal sex with Barack Obama

His condescension, his arrogance, his looking over his glasses and down his nose at the interviewee and his smirks, all were missing. Instead, a smiling, jovial, warm, soft-spoken and eyeglass-less Gibson sat across a table from Obama and literally kissed his tail.

BTW, nice of Jane to question him on his anti-catholic comments.
She has never done anything so offensive such as post a photoshop of Sen. Lieberman in blackface.

Just one more example of what a joke Jane is. How many more Diavlog's are you gong to waste on this clown? Bob, get rid of Jane and obtain Whoopi Goldberg or Rosie. Intellectually they couldn't be any worse - and they're actually funny - unlike Jannie.

Could you actually be any more childish? Do people not write Barack Obama's name correctly? You need to look yourself in the mirror... cause what I see is pretty ugly and pretty disgusting.

Quoting Lyle: Could you actually be any more childish? Do people not write Barack Obama's name correctly?

You need to look yourself in the mirror... cause what I see is pretty ugly and pretty disgusting.

I was joking, brainiac. About the typo part anyway, it really was a typo, and it was super clever of me to turn it into something you might actually taken offense to, and not the waste of time your response really was. If you searched my other posts like the smart person I mistook you for, you would see the she-bush's name correctly spelled, not that I really care.
I know you won't get this explanation of what just happened to you, but I respond so as to call attention to the truly obtuse nature of your end of this exchange. Here's a mirror for you:

Quoting Lyle: William Ayers was a terrorist and he worked with Barack Obama... so yes, Barack Obama 'pal'd' around with a terrorist. Not to mention a radical, extremist left-winger.

The most tired, annoying, and beat-to-death meme on the web.... six months ago.

I thought "she-bush" was good (The Daily Show) but George Wills, (my kind of conservative) hits it out of the park.
"female Sancho Panza" ouch!

Andrew Sullivan (A true conservative IMHO...):
Troopergate is on..
Palin (sp?) is in deep. added:
"This election really is a classic battle between fear and hope. All Palin and McCain are offering right now is more fear: fear of a black man, fear of terrorism, fear of the other, fear of Iran, fear of the future, fear of Islam, fear of the truth. And above all: fear of defeat. On that last one, they're rational. Which side are you on?"
Andrew Sullivan Can you say "in a nutshell"?

Quoting handle: I thought "she-bush" was good (The Daily Show) but George Wills, (my kind of conservative) hits it out of the park.
"female Sancho Panza" ouch!

WOW! This is one of the best metaphors for Palin. To be fair, Sancho Panza is a much richer character with layers of complexity underneath his apparent simplicity. But the overall resemblance, with Sancho Panza loyally sharing Quixote's delusional world while keeping an eye in the most reality grounded practicalities of life, is compelling...

Quoting Ocean: WOW! This is one of the best metaphors for Palin. To be fair, Sancho Panza is a much richer character with layers of complexity underneath his apparent simplicity. But the overall resemblance, with Sancho Panza loyally sharing Quixote's delusional world while keeping an eye in the most reality grounded practicalities of life, is compelling...

So Bush with a bra is out? I kid! I kid! I just thought I would provide contrast for your in depth and thoughtful analysis... so much for comic relief.

Quoting handle: So Bush with a bra is out? I kid! I kid! I just thought I would provide contrast for your in depth and thoughtful analysis... so much for comic relief.

Got it!

Childish and stupid, you're childish and stupid. Barack "Nigger" Obama... I'm only joking!!!! I'm only joking!!!

Quoting Lyle: Childish and stupid, you're childish and stupid.

Barack "*****" Obama... I'm only joking!!!! I'm only joking!!!

I was going to ignore this, and just let you twist on the rope you've generously provided for yourself, but that wouldn't be the civil thing to do.
I'm being totally serious, and I'm sincerely trying to help you salvage your reputation on this forum (I'm assuming you care):
You can use the "edit" function to delete any comment you have made.
No one will fault you if you leave the "reason for deletion" blank.

I used to enjoy and often tell some pretty borderline offensive jokes under the logic of free speech and "they're only words" and I don't really believe the stuff I just think everything is funny (which I do on some level.) But at a certain point I realized that although it is logically possible that I can enjoy racist humor and not be a racist, it gives the impression that I am a racist to others and that wasn't the impression I wanted people to have about me. Some would say i grew up.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I used to enjoy and often tell some pretty borderline offensive jokes under the logic of free speech and "they're only words" and I don't really believe the stuff I just think everything is funny (which I do on some level.) But at a certain point I realized that although it is logically possible that I can enjoy racist humor and not be a racist, it gives the impression that I am a racist to others and that wasn't the impression I wanted people to have about me. Some would say i grew up.

Sorry Eb.. I'm just a little confused, are you saying that my fabrication of the sarcastic clarification that my typo was referring to the runner-up in question as "pale" is actually racist? I'm just asking In my mind, at best, it could be construed as a negative reflection on the effectiveness of her tanning bed. I, not having a tanning bed installed in my "joe 6 pack" residence, am somewhat paler than her, and would not take offense to those who would point this out. But perhaps I am deluding myself. If it could be construed as genuinely racist, does it merit our nice friend

No, I was referring solely to Lyle's "joke."

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: No, I was referring solely to Lyle's "joke."

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up. Added: I gotta say It is really kinda eerie to see that word, especially here.

TROOPEROOPS!

This is for anyone that read Lyle's post.

Nope, a point needed to be made. Calling people names is unserious.

Quoting Lyle: Nope, a point needed to be made. Calling people names is unserious.

Aw shucks, Paw! we'uns was jist funnin'!

This was a potentially important conversation turned missed opportunity. I presume Dr. Corsi was invited on so his credibility could be challenged and the rumors in his book could be dispelled. (Yes?) I fully welcome his presence on BHTV for that purpose, but may I suggest that Ms. Hamsher's occasional preference for snarky points to substantive points, proclivity for getting into shouting matches, and general inability to think on her feet make her a particularly (and predictably) poor choice for this interview. Not to mention, she obviously hadn't read the book--just what Kos, et. al. have had to say about it. Personality aside, Good v. evil aside, etc., Corsi came across fairly intellectually coherant. He wasn't just tactically successful in frustrating Hamsher: he was able to plausibly rebut her main talking points (which, as it happens, were somewhat narrow and petty in the scheme of things). Many thoughtful people could have done a better job, but as a first choice, I would have suggested Bob Wright himself for this interview. (Bob, sorry for not checking in more frequently! In general you do great work with this site!)

Jane Hamsher is the best.

Here's a link to her blog post about her discussion with Corsi:

— Me vs. Jerome Corsi

Gotta love how she concludes her post.

Are these what Jane Hamsher considered to be the most essential points she needed to establish? Assume his counterarguments to points a,b,c, and d were completely bogus. Who cares? (And the post-script is kind of irrelevant too, isn't it?) How about the question of whether the content of his book has any validity? How about challenging smears that are unfairly damaging to Barack Obama?

Quoting Magic Flea: I presume Dr. Corsi was invited on so his credibility could be challenged and the rumors in his book could be dispelled. (Yes?) I fully welcome his presence on BHTV for that purpose, but may I suggest that Ms. Hamsher's occasional preference for snarky points to substantive points, proclivity for getting into shouting matches, and general inability to think on her feet make her a particularly (and predictably) poor choice for this interview. Not to mention, she obviously hadn't read the book--just what Kos, et. al. have had to say about it.

Yes, I basically agree. I don't know enough about Corsi to judge whether he's a vile individual or not, as many commenters here think, but if he is, and if one wants to give such an individual a platform -- in my view it's not obvious one always should (Ahmadinejad, e.g., recently played Larry King like a violin) -- a pretty decent example of how it should be done, I think, is Wolf Blitzer's interview of David Duke. Notice the reasonable level of respect Blitzer accords Duke as his guest, even when things get a bit heated; the fact that Blitzer does not make, e.g., Nazi salutes and funny Hitler faces to the TV audience, outside of Duke's

Quoting mvantony: Yes, I basically agree. I don't know enough about Corsi to judge whether he's a vile individual or not, as many commenters here think, but if he is, and if one wants to give such an individual a platform -- in my view it's not obvious one always should (Ahmadinejad, e.g., recently played Larry King like a violin) -- a pretty decent example of how it should be done, I think, is Wolf Blitzer's interview of David Duke. Notice the reasonable level of respect Blitzer accords Duke as his guest, even when things get a bit heated; the fact that Blitzer does not make, e.g., Nazi salutes and funny Hitler faces to the TV audience, outside of Duke's view; the fact that Blitzer doesn't put Duke so much on the defensive that the audience doesn't get to hear the objectionable views Duke is associated with; etc.

Despite the fact that I didn't have a problem with Jane's more aggressive and clownish style when it comes to someone like Corsi, I agree, and had stated this before, that a different approach would have been more effective. I find your comments above very thoughtful and accurate. You describe well the dynamics of interviewing someone like

yikes, this diavlog has really brought the bile out . . .

Quoting nikkibong: yikes, this diavlog has really brought the bile out . . .

Yup, as crude as it gets around here...

Not a good performance by Jane, a poor follow-up to her bad performance with Pinkerton. Here, she did not do her homework. She should have read all of Corsi's replies to criticisms before the interview and looked into the merits of those replies. I heard the whole diavlog, and I still don't know what Corsi's primary charges in his book are. Jane does not even attempt to distinguish between two charges: (1) that Obama's relationship to William Ayers is more profound than his campaign would have us believe; (2) that, even if true, this somehow means that Obama is in any way condoning terrorism in general, or what Ayers did in the 60's. Similarly for the "new information" about Obama's purportedly communist mentor in Hawaii. I have no idea what the charge here actually is, except that Obama knew someone in Hawaii who Corsi says was a communist. So what? What I want to see in an interview like this is the taking apart of the interviewee on the facts and research. There is no point in going into his other work, his ideological commitments, his history, his associations. Just talk about the merits of the book as investigative

... actually David Duke got the best of Wolf Blitzer in that interview. Blitzer wasn't an ass like Jane was, but like Jane has done he made the interviewee look smart and reasonable.

You can't effectively interview someone in an 'aggressive' and 'clownish' way though. That's never the way to interview someone. You have to take the person seriously. Jane completely failed at it.

Quoting Lyle: You can't effectively interview someone in an 'aggressive' and 'clownish' way though. That's never the way to interview someone. You have to take the person seriously. Jane completely failed at it.

From your post to Bill O'rielly's ear.

Yep... Jane's Bill O'Reilly with tits.

Quoting Lyle: Yep... Jane's Bill O'Reilly with...

Stay classy, Lyle.

Quoting Lyle: ... actually David Duke got the best of Wolf Blitzer in that interview.

I agree. Blitzer prepared some, but not nearly enough to effectively counter Duke. And it's been even worse with Ahmadinejad: he's come out clearly on top in every interview I've heard him give to American interviewers (e.g., Mike Wallace, Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, Larry King) over the last few years, and always because of embarrassingly poor preparation on the part of his interviewers.

Jane's like Bill O'Reilly, but with a vagina!!!

Quoting kidneystones: Did you know, btw, that Zionist control of the US will end once Obama is elected?

Yes, I noticed that, and got worried for a second. But I calmed down quickly when I realized Jackson must be wrong: Which candidate is the Zionist-controlled media supporting, after all? ;-)

Anyway, my own research is going extremely well

What sort of research do you do?

Quoting kidneystones: I do a lot of different things. It's a long, dull story.

You?

Not that many things, but also dull story. :-) I'm an academic, a philosophy professor.

My principal ongoing project examines some of the same issues we address here. Right now I'm looking at Europe in the early 1800s, with a specific focus on one or two countries.

Sounds interesting. I'll take a look at your site periodically.

One thing I'm curious about is Corsi's hypocrisy about associations...one one hand, it is painfully evident that any acquaintance that Obama has had with out of mainstream Americans raises deep suspicions about Obama's fitness for office, while on the other hand, Corsi's association with anti-semites, 9-11 truthers, and random conspiracy theorists are discounted over and over again. Plus, he disavows contact with Mary Matalin (in part by disingenuously sluicing the convo over to who he's voting for) even though she heads up the imprint of SS that the book was published under, right? just askin'