It always seems like the world is getting cooler in Canada. I missed that report in the Canadian press, but if James is trying to create the impression that the media in Canada (and hence, media outside the US) are less than certain that climate change is real, human caused and going to lead to disaster, he is sorely mistaken. I'm not smart enough to do it myself, but I suspect a person could comb through most of what James says and find it's supported by misleading references. On another note, I'm a big fan of the space elevator as well, but I don't often bring it up because people tend to stop taking me seriously when I do. I guess visionaries like James Pinkerton can get away with it.

Study Jim's brain! This man is odd! But there are many Fundie Fans of Fantasy out there, just like him. Miracles and science and magic are all the same to them. The space elevator is just like J.C. walking on wine or turning fish into lepers (or whatever). It's so sad that these types will never understand that the methods science uses to achieve its wonders are not in any way like the miracles of old. It takes hard work and rigorous thinking to make space elevators. You can't just believe in science; you have to do science. Does Jim dream of a world of hard-working, rational scientists enslaved by evangelicals? Now that we've walked on the moon, should we sacrifice a goat on it?

Quoting Ray: Study Jim's brain!

This man is odd! But there are many Fundie Fans of Fantasy out there, just like him. Miracles and science and magic are all the same to them. The space elevator is just like J.C. walking on wine or turning fish into lepers (or whatever).

It's so sad that these types will never understand that the methods science uses to achieve its wonders are not in any way like the miracles of old. It takes hard work and rigorous thinking to make space elevators. You can't just believe in science; you have to do science.

Does Jim dream of a world of hard-working, rational scientists enslaved by evangelicals? Now that we've walked on the moon, should we sacrifice a goat on it?

It's interesting to consider the differences in James' belief in carbon nano fibers, needed to to build a space elevator, and things like climate change and, dare I say, evolution. The latter two are much more scientifically accepted than the feasibility of building a space elevator. An ideologue, however, gets to pick and choose.

Neither party has addressed some fundamental problems facing the common good over the past 30 years: 1). Disappearance of non governemt union manufacturing jobs (sorry, John Nesbitt everyone can't be a computer geek).). 2). Public schools eroding in many locales especially large cities (sorry, all unions are looking after their teachers but who has has the students' backs? Not the pols they send their kids to private schools.) 3). Crime and imprisonment rates (off the charts here in California). 4). High cost of living (how's a lower to middle income person suppose to make it?) 5). U.S. being the savior and policeman of the world (without the necessary manpower, money, or resolve). 6). A non-sensical immigration policy (includes both legal and illegal). 7). Ethnic and racial antimosity (sorry, newspaper and editorial writers the white/black adverserial paradigm is not inclusive enough). 8). High taxation and user fees (looking at the California ballot they want more). Neither candidate has adequately addressed these or other issues so what's the use in even voting for president? John

Jim choice of the carbonfiber-pie-in-da-sky and his seeming belief that Japan is trying to take over the world again are a little to Heinlein meets Clancy for my taste but I do believe we are more likely to see breakthroughs in material science compared to somehow squeezing lots of efficiencies out of near term propulsion technologies. Whether space elevators or tethers or something else I think that since we spend lots of money on making materials do interesting things, we will see something more economical and practical come out of that vs. newer rockets. Mind you I tire at the buckyballs being "thrown" about as the answer to whatever ails as much as the next skeptic.

Quoting bkjazfan: Neither party has addressed some fundamental problems facing the common good over the past 30 years:

1). Disappearance of non governemt union manufacturing jobs (sorry, John Nesbitt everyone can't be a computer geek).).

2). Public schools eroding in many locales especially large cities (sorry, all unions are looking after their teachers but who has has the students' backs? Not the pols they send their kids to private schools.)

3). Crime and imprisonment rates (off the charts here in California).

4). High cost of living (how's a lower to middle income person suppose to make it?)

5). U.S. being the savior and policeman of the world (without the necessary manpower, money, or resolve).

6). A non-sensical immigration policy (includes both legal and illegal).

7). Ethnic and racial antimosity (sorry, newspaper and editorial writers the white/black adverserial paradigm is not inclusive enough).

8). High taxation and user fees (looking at the California ballot they want more).

Neither candidate has adequately addressed these or other issues so what's the use in even voting for president?

John

John, none of the issues you raise has a lot to do with Presidential politics. Look to Congress and the state legislature for answers there. The reasons to vote, one

I'm only a few minutes into this, but I have to take issue with the notion that Huckleberry, er, Huckabee would be better positioned than McCain at this point. Sure the Arkansas gov. spent some of his campaign "talking" about the middle class - but, like the charges leveled at our man Obama - it was all talk. Where was his plan to provide health care to people who can't afford it? To provide high-wage jobs? To stimulate growth? Sure, Huckabee talked a good game, but he never had the policies to back up his professed concern. I caught Huckster on O'Reilly last night (oh my God, I can't believe I just admitted that), and it was more of the same. Professed concern, and then GOP talking points against "spreading the wealth" and promoting "socialism." Sorry, Mr. Pinkerton: on the economy, Huckabee is McSame.

Well said, thouartgob. This space travel thing is much harder than Jim imagines. We'll throw a permanent seed of civilization out into space someday, but not within our lifetime. On the other hand, materials research is likely to change our lives in more profound ways in the near term. We are just getting started in the business of designing materials atom-by-atom. As Richard Feynman said, referring to the possibilities of engineering at small scale, "there's plenty of room at the bottom". PinkerBob rocks! Very simulating. This is even better than PinkerCorn.

Phones work both ways. Hu Jintao, or whatever apparatchik whose currently clawed his way to the top of the heap, can call any time and make an offer. Oh, and what's your in at the White House that indicates there was no attempt to do a treaty? Jeez. Sit down and listen to yourself sometime. Screedy.

Wow - Pinkerton is brilliant and reasonable in so many ways. And yet his 2 listed affiliations are the profoundly stupid and unreasonable Fox News, and a creationist who's as nutty as a fruitcake. I can only conclude that these day gigs are too lucrative to turn down. (And that BHTV doesn't pay enough!)

Last minute in the vlog, Pink articulates my dream scenario. Obama bravely takes a stand on immigration (pleasing both Mickey and the unions, who might not even demand card check at that point) and follows it up with a plan to increase access to health care and spending on education. By coupling these ideas, he can appeal to multiple groups at once. And his race may well stave off the inevitable charge that he's being anti-immigrant.

This was good *and* entertaining. Pinkerton does more on-camera chuckling than any other bhead. I like the way Wright goes down a sort of checklist of positions and is always looking for a way to make someone's views (including his own) either coherent or incoherent. My next question is, what's the difference between Pinkerton and Kevin Phillips, if we omit religion from consideration? I already have a space elevator. I prefer the Otis to the Schindler. Any diavlog in which Hegel and the Owl of Minerva come up is OK by me. I was wondering how it was that David Corn and James Pinkerton seemed actually to be friends, but I'm beginning to get it now. Apart from everthing else, Pinkerton does have a winning personality...usually. So I just realized something that was intimated on one of Gary Hart's bheads appearances. Hart's friendship with McCain was based upon a shared taste for womanizing. I think William Cohen sort of intimates this, too, maybe on the "Frontline" that recently aired called "The Choice."

There is no way Obama can back down on escalating Afghanistan, at least in terms of adding 10,000 troops. Wouldn't it be ironic if US-imperial-hegemonist Obama ends up acting like Lyndon Baines Obama, escalating his way into a tragedy and quagmire, while a craven Republican minority in Congress fails to oppose him? Wait, wouldn't that be George W. Obama? There will be an antiwar Congressional Dem. minority opposed to escalation -- the progressive folks who haven't drunk the Obama koolaid. The question is, will there be enough antiwar Republicans who have the vision and integrity necessary to Just Say No to Perpetual War?

Ron Paul's message on war and militarism resonated with many millions of Americans. That's a good thing, and we can build on pro-peace views in both parties and among independents. The peace lobby is diffused throughout Greens, libertarians, progressive Dems., "isolationist" Republicans and a vast latent force of anti-war sentiment that crops up in the population every time we get involved in an armed conflict (at least since WWII). Obama is going to be president because he opposed the Iraq War. We need to remind him of that throughout his tenure.

Jim is a wonderful guest on bh.tv. However, if he believes Japan will be taking over the world (through space elevators or anything else), and that the climate change is some misbegotten lefty plan... then he is just whacked. Jim is the smiley face on the body of religious nationalism. A wonderful guy no doubt, and certainly understanding of the illegal alien problem, but still a throw back to a previous time. At the very end of the diavlog is a revealing comment... about how in 2 weeks will will know the future better. There is irony there. First - yes, in 2 weeks will will know how Oct 22 to Nov 3, 2008 worked out both in our own lives and in the World at large. However, may I suggest that the future beyond that will be unknowable, just like it is now. Everybody thinks they can somehow predict the future.

As for international governance, I can't recommend enough the episode with Daniel Deudney: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/298?in=&out= The basic idea is that technology improves weapons and force get greater reach, and to balance the twin threats of anarchy and hierarchy (totalitarianism, etc) you need new structures. So in the case of nuclear weapons, which have global reach, you're going to have a global structure to deal with it. This means intrusive arms inspections. It doesn't mean a global currency, or global president, or any of the black helicopter stuff. I think that program is a lot less utopian than Pinkerton's moon men and flying cars, so I don't understand why he's so dismissive of it. We've have some pretty big arms control successes since 1945, and there's no reason to think they can't be repeated in the near future.

Quoting Wonderment:
Obama is going to be president because he opposed the Iraq War.

I strongly doubt that. If indeed Obama wins, it will be due more to simple tiredness with the Republicans on the part of the independents, as well as a generic obeisance on the part of traditional Democrat groups.

I strongly doubt that. If indeed Obama wins, it will be due more to simple tiredness with the Republicans on the part of the independents, as well as a generic obeisance on the part of traditional Democrat groups.

You're right. Let me rephrase what I meant: Obama became the Dem. nominee because of his opposition to the war. In that sense he owes his presidency to the antiwar movement. Voting for the Bush war was the dealbreaker that put Hillary Clinton out of business, and that Biden, Edwards and Dodd all tried to finesse (to varying degrees of success) in order to get back in the ball game.

Don't you think that Obama owes less to any particular person or group than the usual candidate for president? History shows that, once in office, campaign statements don't mean a whole lot. But in this case, there's really nobody who can hold Obama's feet to the fire on any issue. After all, he fought much of the Democratic establishment to get where he is. And now he's simultaneously a hawk and a dove. He can do whatever he chooses. and we know little about what that will be.

How good is Bob? The civility and good humor defending his ideas is a joy to watch. Kudos to Pinkerton too for strongly supporting his ideas but avoiding repetition and listening politely. Bob has a knack for not letting differences of opinion degenerate into antagonism. It's no mean talent and takes a lot of maturity and emotional control. Well done.

Quoting claymisher: ... So in the case of nuclear weapons, which have global reach, you're going to have a global structure to deal with it. This means intrusive arms inspections. It doesn't mean a global currency, or global president, or any of the black helicopter stuff. I think that program is a lot less utopian than Pinkerton's moon men and flying cars, so I don't understand why he's so dismissive of it. We've have some pretty big arms control successes since 1945, and there's no reason to think they can't be repeated in the near future.

I like this idea of looking at individual areas where the idea of global cooperation/ agreement can be reached. People tend to interpret the global governance as an all-or-nothing concept. And thinking about a global governance of everything is certainly Utopian in the foreseeable future. However, if we look at specific areas where there has already been some success, like WTO, international arms control treaties, or any others, even if the success is partial, we can then expand them or apply the learned principles to other relevant areas. I think that Pinkerton's view of the world is that of a threatening place with

Quoting InJapan: Jim is a wonderful guest on bh.tv.

However, if he believes Japan will be taking over the world (through space elevators or anything else), and that the climate change is some misbegotten lefty plan... then he is just whacked.

Whacked like a fox! Dude, you just don't get it. If the Japanese elevate themselves into space, then Shinto beats Baby Jesus! Next thing you know, you're sipping sake at communion and prayin' to a bamboo cross. Oh well. At least you'll be able to buy your Sunday School Teacher's panties from a vending machine.

Yes, Ron Paul's foreign policy views look good right now. Of course, the talking head pundits called him weird, eccentric, quixotic, and other derogatory terms. Also, he has been against the bailing out of Wall Street billionaires which both presidential candidates endorsed. Imagine, many thought he was strange. John

Bob Wright. You are a great guy with terrific ideas, but you are a whiner and have a low anger threshold. Please, Bob, only do diavlogs with Mickey Kaus. Your personalities are a perfect match. Also ask your staff to create an index to rate the boring-ness of some of your participants. While you're at it get rid of the nervous and irritating laughing of some bloggingheads. I know that you're not going to take my advice but think about it while you're wondering why bloggingheads.tv is not quite ready for prime time. I'm not wondering at all as I watch less and less of it. The best diavlogs, hands down, are between Glen Loury and John McWhorter; the worst are a toss up between you and anyone but Mickey Kaus and that woman science writer with the nervous annoying laugh and anyone else.

Quoting jmoe: On another note, I'm a big fan of the space elevator as well, but I don't often bring it up because people tend to stop taking me seriously when I do. I guess visionaries like James Pinkerton can get away with it.

Count me in the space elevator fan club. Talk away -- I'll gladly take you seriously. Jim got one thing seriously wrong in that all-too brief discussion of the space elevator, when he referred to the "100 mile" cable length. He's off by more than two orders of magnitude there. The other end of the cable has to be anchored in geosynchronous orbit (i.e., about 22,000 miles above the surface of the Earth) in every discussion I've ever heard of the concept. I could maybe write that off to a simple verbal slip, although Jim said so many other completely whacked things during this diavlog that I'm hesitatant to give him that much benefit of doubt. If you haven't already come across this, I highly recommend the August 2008 conversation between Jon Udell and Maurice Franklin. Blurb:

Maurice Franklin, a Microsoft software engineer who is passionate about the space elevator, recently organized and hosted a conference on

Quoting Ocean: I like this idea of looking at individual areas where the idea of global cooperation/ agreement can be reached. People tend to interpret the global governance as an all-or-nothing concept. And thinking about a global governance of everything is certainly Utopian in the foreseeable future. However, if we look at specific areas where there has already been some success, like WTO, international arms control treaties, or any others, even if the success is partial, we can then expand them or apply the learned principles to other relevant areas.

I think that Pinkerton's view of the world is that of a threatening place with insurmountable obstacles and enemies. Due to that he retreats into his "home" of traditional values which are known, predictable and safe. In order to make it a little less boring, he indulges in a world of fantasy and sci-fi. The real world is too scary. And I would be cautious about his seemingly gentle smile. When someone feels cornered and threatened so easily, it becomes much easier to pull the trigger.

Pinkerton has a pretty narrow and incomplete view of history. He sees the problems but doesn't see the solutions. For example, he talks

Quoting nikkibong: I caught Huckster on O'Reilly last night (oh my God, I can't believe I just admitted that) ...

Came across an interesting neologism yesterday that I think has some significance here:

Call it "hathos", as someone I can't recall once coined. Hathos is the attraction to something you really can't stand; it's the compulsion of revulsion. I feel that way about Bill O'Reilly. Hannity is just evil. Grace is unwatchable past two minutes. O'Reilly, however, is compelling in some mysterious way. I need a fix every now and again - and not just of the turkey wobble neck. You find yourself watching him the way you sometimes smell your own farts: it's disgusting, but you can't help yourself.

My own hathos manifests as a compulsion to read NoQuarter and other PUMA sites.

The sudden tightening in the polls suggests that voters are taking a much harder look at the young man about to be thrust into the hot-seat.

Hilarious. Those would be the imaginary polls that only you can perceive? See non-tightening RCP Poll of Polls graph here. Scroll down to graph where McCain tanks at 42%. Fox News has Obama +9 today.

Quoting Ray: Whacked like a fox!

Dude, you just don't get it. If the Japanese elevate themselves into space, then Shinto beats Baby Jesus!

Next thing you know, you're sipping sake at communion and prayin' to a bamboo cross.

Oh well. At least you'll be able to buy your Sunday School Teacher's panties from a vending machine.

Nice.

Quoting Ocean: People tend to interpret the global governance as an all-or-nothing concept.

Completely right, as far as characterizing Jim goes. I could not believe how utterly simplistic he was in his negativity on everything to do with the possibility of the US cooperating with other countries. In that way, as in others, it makes perfect sense to me that he aligns with fundies like Huckabee and preaches the worldview of the anti-elites -- it seems that if there isn't one magic bullet that will solve everything by Thursday of next week, Jim believes there is nothing to be gained by putting in any work at all. He seems to have no appreciation for incremental gains, taking a bottom-up approach, or even the idea that every long journey begins with a single step. I don't know why other people find Jim so appealing. He's okay when he's laughing, but as soon as he starts talking, I always think he'd a lot more comfortable standing on a milk crate on a street corner, wearing a sandwich sign board and a tinfoil hat.

Quoting JackLifton: [...]

Wow. The juxtaposition of this comment and travis68's is amazing. For the record, I'm with travis: Bob is remarkably good at sitting patiently through ideas that he clearly doesn't agree with and treating them with respect. I'll contradict you on another point, too, Jack: I think the diavlogs with Mickey are generally the worst diavlogs that Bob does. They're not all bad, and they used to be better, but for the past year especially, I've much preferred when Bob talks to other people. I'd rather hear him interviewing or discussing than bickering.

I'm going to score highbrow points now and quote Chesterton:
Quote:

The pessimists believe that the cosmos is a clock that is running down; the progressives believe it is a clock that they themselves are winding up. But I happen to believe that the world is what we choose to make it, and that we are what we choose to make ourselves; and that our renascence or our ruin will alike, ultimately and equally, testify with a trumpet to our liberty.

Yup. That's it. Fill yourself with hatred and doom and that's what you'll encounter at every turn.

Quoting claymisher: I don't get his approach to space at all. In this episode he acknowledges that getting into space is pointless because there's no gain in it, and then he gets excited about space elevators and colonizing space.

It seems like all his fatalism is just an excuse to indulge in his reveries about colonizing space. But given his belief in eternal war among men, why even bother? Let's keep him on BH, and away from the levers of power.

We all have hopes and fears. But where do we place them? Jim seems to place his

OK gang, I got a topic: let's answer Bob's questions. What's gonna happen? Obama:
Fast action on health care, taxes, and Iraq. Restarting arms control talks with Russia. McCain:
Based on his campaign, nonstop drama. War with Russia and Venezuela. Me stocking up on booze.

Quoting claymisher: OK gang, I got a topic: let's answer Bob's questions. What's gonna happen?

Obama:
Fast action on health care, taxes, and Iraq.

Restarting arms control talks with Russia.

Health care pushed back, as usual. Maybe second year, if lucky. Taxes, yes, possibly within first six months. But nothing too significant. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, well, throw in the rest of the globe! Immediate talks, calling for coalitions, building/ strengthening EU support, diplomacy for Latin America, more talks with China, reach out to Russia diplomatically, dump Africa (as usual). Immediate action, no choice about that. Oil/energy, trade, global financial crisis also on the table. Lots of action here.

McCain:
Based on his campaign, nonstop drama. War with Russia and Venezuela. Me stocking up on booze.

End of civilization. Ocean moves out of the country...

I may only be parroting back Bob's essential views here but Jim seems to be willfully ignoring the broad trajectory of history. By citing specific examples of when internationalism has fallen short instead of stepping back to look at the larger picture, he's able to weave together a narrative that is incongruous with the general course that humanity has been on ever since we came down from the trees and banded together in hunter/gatherer clans on the plains of Africa. From village to city state to nation, the long term trend has always been one of increasing interconnectivity and cooperation. Yes, we've had terrible wars. Yes, empires have risen and fallen. But it is simply indisputable to say that the world, today, is more interconnected than at any other point in history. Perhaps the paradigm did shift a bit with the advent of nuclear arsenals large enough to obliterate humanity but, barring this armageddon scenario, there's no reason to believe that greater interconnectivity, driven by increasing technology and trade, will not, eventually, lead to some sort of world governing structure (beyond what the U.N. currently provides). I understand why Jim's politics would

Quoting Ocean: We all have hopes and fears. But where do we place them? Jim seems to place his fears in his immediate sociopolitical reality, and his hopes in a distant future dreamy world.

And how!

Quoting Simon Willard: Don't you think that Obama owes less to any particular person or group than the usual candidate for president? History shows that, once in office, campaign statements don't mean a whole lot. But in this case, there's really nobody who can hold Obama's feet to the fire on any issue. After all, he fought much of the Democratic establishment to get where he is. And now he's simultaneously a hawk and a dove. He can do whatever he chooses. and we know little about what that will be.

Well, Obama has raised $600 million. If he wants to win in 2012 he'll have to keep us, I mean, his donors happy. Let's hope he knows what we, I mean, they want!

First a comment: how quickly these Bush-launched foreign wars become "These Foreign Wars" in the mouths of Fox contributors as they appear imminently to be taken over by Democrats. Question: Was the Vietnam conflict launched with near universal support among Americans in response to an attack on the homeland and prosecuted for seven full years by an incompetent Republican who after starting and nearly losing another war, this one unjustified and unrelated to the initial attack, handed the first, publicly supported, war off to his (rightfully of the opposing party) successor in worse shape than it was in at any time since its launch? If Jim will agree that the answer is no, then Afghanistan is unlikely to become "Obama's" Vietnam. Americans want to win in Afghanistan and get out of Iraq. This is because they remember 9/11, remember who planned it and where, still want to bring them to justice, remember the lies (come get me, Eli!) told to them to distract them and refocus their attention away from a difficult country where victory came by way of too few explosions and toward a country that posed only

On the other hand, where has Obama ever said he wants to expand the Afghan war into Pakistan, certainly in any way beyond what Pres. Bush has already done? Obama has said that he wants to increase troop presence in Afghanistan (1), and (2) that if he had actionable intelligence as to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden or other high-level Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, and the Pakistani authorities could not oe would not act, he would. Beyond those, what is in Obama's "platform" for Afghanistan/Pakistan that escalates the war further than Bush already has?

I did not support Ron Paul even though I agree with much of his foreign policy agenda. One problem with the establishment candidates is their moving to the middle during the primary makes the second or third tier aspirants look good. Now, I don't know if Obama will follow through on his hawkish debate views when elected ("just words, just words") but it was disheartening to hear them. I have a feeling he appeared to be in the hip-pocket of the Pentagon so as to play to McCain's strength in this area. Of course, I could be wrong. Someone brought up that the polls are tightening - actually they are widening. I think Obama is up 10 points and the McCain campaign has been atrocious. If he wanted to live up to his maverick image he should have opposed the billionaire bailout plan. As far as Japan is concerned I was there in the military long ago and found it to be an impressive country. Kudos to Barack for taking leave of his campaign and visiting his grandmother during this difficult stage of her life. John

Quoting claymisher: Well, Obama has raised $600 million. If he wants to win in 2012 he'll have to keep us, I mean, his donors happy. Let's hope he knows what we, I mean, they want!

I think he only needs to keep his base moderately happy, at most. Wait until we see what the GOP decides is red meat in the next presidential. Obama could govern in the center-right, on average, and if the Republicans put up say Palin or (more plausibly, I think) Huck or Jindal - who on this side is not going to dig into their pockets again? I'm not making a prediction, just trying to point out that Obama is going to have a lot leeway to govern, even if he pisses off some fraction of the left. What's the worst they could do, refuse to fully embrace him in the next primary? Dodd got most of that love this round anyway. If I had to guess, I'm betting he'll try to occupy a position just a notch to the left of where Clinton sat - nearly exactly where I think Hillary would have been.

Quoting bjkeefe: Came across an interesting neologism yesterday that I think has some significance here:

My own hathos manifests as a compulsion to read NoQuarter and other PUMA sites.

and, from the link you provided, a compulsion to read Andrew Sullivan as well . . .

This is an excellent pairing. I hope to hear more from them. Two observations on the idea of world governance and whether or not history is moving in that direction. First of all, it is not necessary to assume that there must be one world state in order for there to be perpetual peace. Kant, in his "Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose," thought that all that was necessary to eliminate war from international relations was the establishment of a federation of republics, none of which would have an interest in going to war because all would have a true conception of "justice" (universal freedom and equality), hence no desire to do injustice to the citizens of other republics. This falls well short of the utopian (or disutopian) vision of a world state that seems to strike so much fear in the heart of American conservatives. I haven't read Wright's book, but this seems to me the drift of his remarks in this dialogue with Pinkerton. Secondly, it is indisputable that world history, at least from the European (and American?) point of view, is moving in the direction

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/153...7:17&out=17:23

If I had to guess, I'm betting he'll try to occupy a position just a notch to the left of where Clinton sat - nearly exactly where I think Hillary would have been.

That's what I'm afraid of. But it's a far, far better fear to have than the terrifying prospect of McCain as president, or any of those other Bush train wreck collaborators who were up on the debate podium back in the primaries when they were asked to raise their hands if they believed in evolution (a hard question for leading Repub. contenders).

I think the biggest surprise will be the vigor of an Obama administration. Don't forget: W. is lazy, lazy, lazy. Obama is not. There is going to be a lot going on. Check this out, from Obama:

From a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.
I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is

Also, Jim Pinkerton is a lunatic: The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About
Oh noes! Quick, round up all the John Milton scholars! Burn all the copies of Paradise Lost!

Quoting claymisher: Don't forget: W. is lazy, lazy, lazy. Obama is not. There is going to be a lot going on.

Excellent point. No month-long vacations to "the ranch" to "cut brush." 'Course, with Bush, I always felt a little easier with him not in the White House.

This is level he's working at. With the right leadership in Congress (fingers crossed), we could have an explosion of common sense reform.

Yes. Much depends on Congress. I hope the Dems can show half the loyalty to Obama that the Reps showed to Bush.

Quoting claymisher: Also, Jim Pinkerton is a lunatic:

The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About

Oh noes! Quick, round up all the John Milton scholars! Burn all the copies of Paradise Lost!

One difference I've noticed is that it's much more likely the conservative diavloggers here come on their best behavior, so to speak. Where the libs tend to blog pretty much at the same level as they talk, there are people like Pinkerton and Frum and that Red State guy and Rod Dreher who write truly whacked-out stuff when they're back in their own cocoons. You think it's fear of the 13-member Go12? I guess if you believe in the Devil, that'd work your mind a little.

Quoting claymisher: Also, Jim Pinkerton is a lunatic:

The Devil Is In the Details: Another Obama Connection You Ought to Know About

Oh noes! Quick, round up all the John Milton scholars! Burn all the copies of Paradise Lost!

I read the article. I guess Jim is revealing more of his true self there. Sometimes you wonder whether this kind of stuff is pure sociopathy to get points with religious nuts or whether someone who seems to be otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable just has that 'blind' spot of superstition. Remember the movie Oh God! You Devil with George Burns?

What is the strange power of BhTV that turns the man behind this posting into the man who spoke with Bob? Is Jim outsourcing his blog posts to Fox interns? Saving up his intellectual firepower for Bob? Engaged in a kind of dadaist satire? Does he fight crime at night? I have more questions than answers really. Some are even semi-sincere. I just can't get used to the Jekyl and Hyde routine.

I when I was a little kid I loved George Burns. I can't explain it. I saw all of those movies. I'm sure they went right over my head. The devil is a terrific character. Everybody who reads Paradise Lost prefers him to the big guy. What's with the right and the willful stupidity / unfair mischaracterization / obsession with trivia routine? Pinkerton obviously isn't a moron. I imagine he's intelligent enough to use a computer and dress himself. But that article, whew, that is not smart. It's like little kid logic. I guess as a new fan of Jonathan Haidt (thanks BHtv!) I know -- it's the tribalism thing at work. It still grates.

What whacked out stuff are you referring to? Any examples? I find Frum, Dreher, and to a lesser extent Pinkerton extremely congenial.

OK, I read that article and I don't see what's whacked out about it (though I do believe in the devil). I don't think Pinkerton thinks Obama is a devil-worshiper. The point of the article is the dedication: to Lucifer, the first radical. Why is he a radical? Because he disobeys God's command to worship him. Who does Lucifer worship instead? Himself. Now, this could lead to one of two interpretations: Alinsky might simply be making the point that people, like Satan, ought to pursue their self-interest. But if that's his point, why pick Satan? Why not pick, I don't know, those who agitated for women's sufferage? He picked Satan, obviously enough, because he wanted to tweak organized religion. Organized religion is an organization that gets people to go against their self-interest, and so that's one of the organizations we must fight as well. So if you're someone who's a fan off organized religion (or _an_ organized religion) then you may be wary of someone who would blithely follow the lead of someone like Alinsky. That said, while I don't think the article is whacky, I do think it's wrong. I like Peter Singer's article in defense of a strong obligation to relieve famine, but I strongly dislike most of the

Quoting Bobby G: What whacked out stuff are you referring to? Any examples? I find Frum, Dreher, and to a lesser extent Pinkerton extremely congenial.

I'd have to look. Apart from the Pinkerton post that started this thread, I don't have any examples at hand, and I'm about ready to crash.

I knew you weren't literally indefatigable.

Quoting Bobby G: That said, while I don't think the article is whacky, I do think it's wrong. I like Peter Singer's article in defense of a strong obligation to relieve famine, but I strongly dislike most of the rest of his stuff. Could be Obama or H-Rod's attitude to Alinsky's stuff.

I agree. I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence. It's incomplete. There are two, at least, separate issues. One is the actual role of Lucifer in relationship to god. And that's too complex a topic for this hour. And the other, related, but not the same, is the tendency that very religious people have to freak out when this topic is raised. That's it...

Quoting Bobby G: OK, I read that article and I don't see what's whacked out about it (though I do believe in the devil). I don't think Pinkerton thinks Obama is a devil-worshiper. The point of the article is the dedication: to Lucifer, the first radical. Why is he a radical? Because he disobeys God's command to worship him. Who does Lucifer worship instead? Himself.

I haven't read Alinksy's dedication, but it strikes me as possible he was joking. That his example was possibly tongue in cheek. Considering this story is being put forward by conservatives, there's every reason to doubt it is being told honestly. Professional-level Republicans like Pinkerton are habitually dishonest and think nothing of lying to advance their movement. Ironically, they are Lucifer-like in their moral approach to politics. But anyway, the idea that Alinksy's dedication to Lucifer, tongue-in-cheek or not, should cast doubts on Obama is frankly the kind of lunacy that only the far-right could fall for. It's by far the most preposterous of all the Republican "guilt-by-association" tricks tried to date.

Quoting TwinSwords: I haven't read Alinksy's dedication, but it strikes me as possible he was joking. That his example was possibly tongue in cheek. Considering this story is being put forward by conservatives, there's every reason to doubt it is being told honestly. Professional-level Republicans like Pinkerton are habitually dishonest and think nothing of lying to advance their movement. Ironically, they are Lucifer-like in their moral approach to politics.

Remember what I said earlier about "grand pronouncements" without enough evidence to back them up? This is the sort of thing I had in mind. Even if you show me that Hannity, Rush, Coulter, etc. are dishonest--and you'll get no argument from me there; I listen to those folks quite regularly, and am astonished at their continuing cartoonishness--I don't see how that generalizes to Pinkerton, who write for TAC, for goodness sake.

Just saying: what a pleasure in comparison with Pinkerton and Hamsher or in comparison with Hamsher and anyone. Itzik Basman

Pinkerton is a political operative, in addition to being a quasi-intellectual on the Republican side. I say "quasi" only because everything I know about Pinkerton is from bheads. He might be a real intellectual; I can't say. But some of what he says is strictly for political purposes. That is the significance of having this split personality/dual role. So when he said to David Corn a few weeks ago that Obama would lose 40 states, or to Hamsher more recently that Obama's positions were too left-wing to win a national election, I think he was saying these things qua operative, and not in an entirely sincere way, but I have no way of knowing for sure. (And in defense of Pinkerton qua analyst, tt is fairly clear that Obama has been helped enormously by the financial crisis, I think we Democrats need to be honest about that. Before the crisis erupted into front-page news, the race seemed to be about even, a very scary thought.) On the subject of this citation itself, it is very damning about Pinkerton, I agree, because he never makes explicit what Alinsky's connection to Lucifer is. What exactly is Pinkerton getting at? Is he saying that Alinsky

One also has to question Pinkerton's competence as a political operative, if he really thinks that bringing up Saul Alinsky and his connection to Obama was going to win any votes for McCain. One might as well bring up the fact that Obama used to buy groceries from a Palestinian grocer in Hyde Park, a grocer who had many relatives now suspected of terrorism in the occupied territories. The whole thing is completely nuts.

More like a grocer who had a customer whose sister-in-law was married to a professor at Columbia who once made a remark that could be construed as supporting Palestinian resistance to the occupation of the West Bank.

"That’s right, Lucifer, also known as the Devil, Satan, Beelzebub—you get the idea." OMG, Pinkerton is the church lady! It all makes sense now...

that got me thinking..... Presidential candidates....... Lucifer..... oh snap!

Quoting Bobby G: I knew you weren't literally indefatigable.

Zing!

Quoting ledocs:
(And in defense of Pinkerton qua analyst, tt is fairly clear that Obama has been helped enormously by the financial crisis, I think we Democrats need to be honest about that. Before the crisis erupted into front-page news, the race seemed to be about even, a very scary thought.)

My own private theory on that -- When McCain ended the GOP convention with 'Nothing is inevitable, we must fight!', even though the Palin pick had given him a lead in the national polls, I wondered what the hell he was talking about. At the time I wrote it off as a lame writer trying to shoehorn a sense of underdog desperation into a candidate with momentum. But, looking back, I can only imagine that the McCain camp knew something the rest of us didn't, even then. My bet is that McCain's people knew they were on a steep losing trajectory *before* the convention and before the Palin pick was announced. Which means, in a way, that McCain took a hit to his own credibility for the good of his party. Or, that's the way he'd like to think of it. I'm not as sure that the kind of