Quoting CHUD: Skip to 13:20 to avoid the shouting match.

Again? No other diavlogger has this issue.

Althouse, you magnificent bastard!

Quoting look: Althouse, you magnificent bastard!

No link?

Quoting CHUD: Shouting starts at 10:00, ends at 13:20.

Wow! I had to drop my earpieces!

Where can I buy Ann Althouse t-shirt? I just have to have it!

Michelle, didn't you get the memo. Obama wrote a book and Palin wrote a book so they must be the same thing, and treated the same way regardless of what is in the actual text. Ugh...15 minutes in and I doubt I'll make it through the whole thing. Ann's contempt for Obama is so strong that it's really hard to take her seriously. I do agree with Ann on one thing, I would rather see someone else on the right-hand side of the screen. Please Bob, please, less Althouse. Michelle, if there's a God and a heaven, you are a a saint for showing such patience.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Michelle, if there's a God and a heaven, you are a a saint for showing such patience.

What patience?

Apparently Ann didn't read the title of the book...

Oy. These are two of the more shrill people we get on bloggingheads, wouldn't we expect this when they get together? I tend to like Ann in print more, for whatever reason when in person she gets very....animated, and strident. That being said, nothing compares to the demagoguery and far left paranoia of Michelle Goldberg.

I tried, I really did. Every time I see an Althouse diavlog I swear I'll never watch another one, and then I screw up and watch the next one, and I remember why I swore I was all done with her. I did okay. I made it about twelve minutes into this one. Sadly, I'll never have those twelve minutes of my life back.

Quoting CHUD: Shouting starts at 10:00, ends at 13:20.

Thanks, CHUD. I went straight to 10:00.

The patience to waste her breath on Althouse. Obama is: not a good writer, not serious about the job, pushing an extreme liberal agenda as seen by his actions, doesn't take a stand as seen by his lack of actions, disappointing the moderates, disappointing to conservatives, Palin's book just proves that Obama's wasn't good, Obama's Asia trip was a failure because Palin's book got attention, etc. etc. Sorry, but I expect a little more from a conservative blogginghead than simply rehashed Fox News talking points. All I got our of this diavlog was that Ann came ready to "pushback" against Michelle and to show her anger towards Obama. I know many people on the left who are disappointed that Obama is TOO centrist and TOO pragmatic for their tastes, so when I hear a bitter Conservative attack him as not being the pragmatic centrist that she thought he would be, it sounds more like someone who just doesn't like Obama because she's a conservative and only likes to oppose anything even remotely liberal.

Rush Limbaugh calls Palin memoir "one of the most substantive policy books I've read"

Ann begs to differ.
But where she will not differ is in the likeness of Sarah Palin as the equal and opposite version of Barack Obama.... except of course, in opposite world (a sub-set of Ann's world).
This thought never occurred to me... What was I thinking?

Ann Althouse should pick on somebody her own size (age).

Awww shit. I do the same thing when I see you post something. (Just kidding...not sure I ever have seen you post ;o) ) But I WILL try to avoid clicking on your name next time.)

After watching Ann for sometimes I must say she is just as guilty of the same type of intellectual vacuosity she accuses Palin of. For instance, "[in the book Dreams from my Father] he talked to much about his father". Another " [Sarah Palin] only puffs up and exaggerates no worse than any other politician...I didnt investigate Troopergate, the bridge to nowhere [if she admitted originally supporting it], nor did I investigate the gas pipeline". Another e.g. "People spend way too much time harping and worshipping these visually appealing candidates...Did you see how Obama's china trip was a failure (it was theater ann, relax)...Do you think Palin would be wear she was if she wasn't so Pretty?" With the same rationalizing that allows Ann to partially study something and pronounce judgement, we can derive Palin's fount of confidence. "Why won't Obama do something, he thinks too much". And this is me pointing out things that stick out, Ann is the worse type of intellectual charlatan she knows something and glibbly translates that into knowing everything. She admitted she didnt finish reading the book!!! She claimed she didnt "plan" on talking about Obama, but she must've thought looonggg and haaarrrd about how he is destroying our country. As

Quoting JoeK: Where can I buy Ann Althouse t-shirt? I just have to have it!

If you find out where one can order one...let me know. Just one with that beautiful smile of hers and maybe the word "Nuance" below it.

Quoting AemJeff: No link?

Yeah, just choose "View Diavlog".

"Dreams from My Father"? Which father? When? I thought it was Dreams from My Grandfather? Congrats, Ann. I've never seen a liberal punk out so patently. Amazing.

Yes, I can tell you didn't like Ann's arguments. I was just pointing out that Michelle came across (to me) more as a warrior than a saint. I don't think I have to clarify that I mean it as a metaphor for the strength and determination of her arguments and in a positive way... I think that both Michelle and Ann are very intelligent and it's very interesting to listen to them debating, even when Ann's political views may be irritating at times. She does offer valuable analysis and gives you some hints as to how the "other side" may see the political players. Michelle, of course, represents mainstream liberal thinking and we can celebrate her acute observations and rebuttals. I enjoyed the diavlog as long as I kept the cursor on the volume controls.

Quoting Ocean: Yes, I can tell you didn't like Ann's arguments. I was just pointing out that Michelle came across (to me) more as a warrior than a saint. I don't think I have to clarify that I mean it as a metaphor for the strength and determination of her arguments and in a positive way...

I think that both Michelle and Ann are very intelligent and it's very interesting to listen to them debating, even when Ann's political views may be irritating at times. She does offer valuable analysis and gives you some hints as to how the "other side" may see the political players.

Michelle, of course, represents mainstream liberal thinking and we can celebrate her acute observations and rebuttals.

I enjoyed the diavlog as long as I kept the cursor on the volume controls.

I have to say that it's not her political views, as such, that I find irritating. It's her apparent disingenuousness, the feeling that she'll say or do any random thing, as long the result is Eyes on Ann!

Brown, I hate to break it to you, but coming in with an obvious agenda of attacking her fellow diavlogger at every turn is hardly new operating procedure for Althouse. She basically admitted that she came into this one ready to fight because of a previous diavlog with Michelle) apparently Michelle had no such intention. For another example of Ann being Ann, go watch her abysmal display with Garance Frank Ruta. Or her attacks on Ezra Klein. Or her immature interactions with our own BJKeefe here in these forums. You give her too much credit when you expect thoughtfulness and even a modicum of open-mindedness towards whatever the liberal diavlogger has to say. In fact that's probably what bothers me the most about her is that she never seems to actually listen to what her opponent says, she just proceeds to her next pre-scripted point of attack. It makes for occasional entertainment of the car-wreck variety, but not the usual level of intellectual sparring of ideas that is usually the goal (at least one of them) here at bhTv. Most of us learned long ago that

Quoting AemJeff: I have to say that it's not her political views, as such, that I find irritating. It's her apparent disingenuousness, the feeling that she'll say or do any random thing, as long the result is Eyes on Ann!

Perhaps. But I think that what we see is also due to her having her lawyer skills deep to the bone (am I making up that expression?). She takes pleasure in coming up with the most convincing and elaborated arguments that can prove the opposite point of view to her interlocutor's. Or you could say she is a contrarian. Her need for attention or recognition may be collateral.

Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.

Quoting claymisher: Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.

Bingo. And she hit it out of the park this time.

Quoting claymisher: Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.

I have no clue who Andy Kaufman is, but I agree with the rest. I have learned to appreciate Ann's performance skills. Of course, it may be a different story if I'm having a really bad day...

Quoting AemJeff: I have to say that it's not her political views, as such, that I find irritating. It's her apparent disingenuousness, the feeling that she'll say or do any random thing, as long the result is Eyes on Ann!

I buy that scenario on a gut level. Yet I think it's evident that Ann has the instincts of certain boxers. Study their weaknesses (re-watching and posting the previous dv w/Michelle), and attack their vulnerable spots. Ann was relentless in her pursuit of outmaneuvering Michelle, more than making any substantive points. I would only find it attractive if I were aligned with her ideologically. But I have even less respect for her, since as you suggested, it's not clear that she even believes in her attacks. Just win baby!

Quoting Ocean: Perhaps. But I think that what we see is also due to her having her lawyer skills deep to the bone (am I making up that expression?). She takes pleasure in coming up with the most convincing and elaborated arguments that can prove the opposite point of view to her interlocutor's. Or you could say she is a contrarian. Her need for attention or recognition may be collateral.

It's possible. My opinion is partly based on what I regard as her callousness with regard to her interlocutors. I understand lawyerly advocacy, and I approve of that sort of thing. You ought to be able to argue either side in a disagreement, if it's a disagreement worth having. I interpret Althouse in terms of selfishness, because I detect an impulse, or at least a willingness, to humiliate without provocation.

The saddest thing, at the end, is Ann predicts her shouting will "go viral". She got attention for that last time, and obviously came in here, interrupting and overspeaking determined to "win" on behalf of that "dumb but pretty" Sarah Palin. No Ann. You play those games, you got to raise the shock level each time. Yelling and cutting off a younger lady ... you played that card already. Either they're going to have to get Ann a better suited opponent (how about a real conservative, and a true Palin supporter to argue against? Some working-class intelligent woman who can SHOUT back at her, if that's the game) or else she's going to have to think up something more outrageous as her schtick. Yelling and shouting and coming in all caffeinated just to get some pre-set points in, what will Ann do if there's other bloggingheads and Sarah Palin's positive publicity won't carry her? (The cuckoo anger act kicks in at 9:43 and escalates from there... "Of COURSE it was RE-CEIVED well!..." Screeching harpy! And the "they were hot for him?" Speak for yourself, John Ann.)

Quoting Ocean: I have no clue who Andy Kaufman is, but I agree with the rest. I have learned to appreciate Ann's performance skills. Of course, it may be a different story if I'm having a really bad day...

Kaufman was a comedian who found comedy in acting like a terrible comedian. Comedy nerds love him. I think he was a genius. Althouse is a garden variety internet troll that Bob Wright takes seriously. I don't think Bob's in on the joke, the poor guy. The only sane responses are to ignore her or to play along with the insanity. The improv comedy technique is to reply with "yes, and ...." For example: Althouse: Obama is really a Muslim pretending to be an atheist pretending to be a Christian.
You: Yes, and I'm a ferret pretending to be a beaver! Munch munch munch. Gabba Gabba Hey!

That's some pretty awful improv there, but this is Althouse we're talking about. What are you gonna do?

ps. Can you imagine being an intelligent working-class woman sitting in her classroom and being lectured like that, and having to restraint yourself from SHOUTING back? Trust me bloggingheads, find a young lady who isn't intimidated by the yelling and can counter in kind, if that's the professor's game, and let them have at it. Althouse is OVER-RATED for somebody who can't seem to make up her mind from day to day exactly what she thinks politically.

Agreed. I don't know why I clicked the link for this Diavlog; Goldberg isn't my favorite Liberal voice on bloggingheads, and Althouse is unbearable.

Near the end of this diavlog, when discussing how (supposedly) attractive Sarah Palin is perceived to be by the American populace, Ms. Goldberg puts herself below Palin on the scale of "pretty" and sounds a bit reticent about her own attractiveness. I disagree with you Michelle! I think Ms. Goldberg is a very attractive, adorably cute (yeah, ok, I'm sexist) woman. Indeed, given the choice between the two, I'd pick Ms. Goldberg. That's not based on ideological correlation, either.

Michelle got pwnt. That said, this diavlog is unwatchable. I'm so sick and tired of people cutting each other off. Maybe debate rules should instated.

Quoting claymisher: Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.

Perfectly said. And I have fault MG for going into this unprepared for an Ann-bush.

The strongest evidence that one can find for showing the utter stupidity, of we the blogging-heads community, will be that this daivlog will most likely garner 5x the attention that other more thoughtful diavlogs of substance will get.

Wow, Ann Althouse. What low level of specious, attack-dog, dirty-pool tactics will you not stoop to? I'd appeal to your sense of shame or ethics, but that would clearly be like talking to the proverbial brick wall. I had to turn off the diavlog after 10 minutes, your viciousness was so distasteful.

Quoting Simon Willard: Thanks, CHUD. I went straight to 10:00.

Yeah seriously, he really knows how to raise our anticipation.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ...

Michelle, if there's a God and a heaven, you are a a saint for showing such patience.

Ann racked up enough patience in their earlier encounter with Michelle to absolve her from taking a mans head off with a baseball bat.
That said, I do think comparing Palin to Obama is off. Obama has the capacity to convey some level of depth, Palin does not. I am sorry she just doesn't. I think Ann would agree with this statement. I went for McCain over Obama of course, but my biggest worry about Obama was somewhat allayed. His rhetoric led me to think he was more Wonderment-esque in his foreign policy approach (i.e. pulling out of Iraq too fast, drawing down in Afghanistan, independent of the concerns of the generals) I know Frum thinks those moves were done more out of political necessity than deep want and belief in the policy, but even if that were true, it shows some level of restraint, even against his own likely pacifistic - soft power over all instincts.
So my biggest worries of Obama fizzled. At least on the foreign policy front (it could have been alot worse). But perhaps that was

Quoting Starwatcher162536: The strongest evidence that one can find for showing the utter stupidity, of we the blogging-heads community, will be that this daivlog will most likely garner 5x the attention that other more thoughtful diavlogs of substance will get.

It's laziness. Much harder to attack a stronger target, a stronger argument, a well written comment. Notice the silence after such things are stated/written. Like roaches fleeing the light. How often is someone going to admit that their sense of things and general philosophy has no good solutions for something? That after hearing a critique of their devastating critique of their thinking they are left with no retorts of substance? People prefer reaching for the low hanging fruit.

Quoting listener: Wow, Ann Althouse. What low level of specious, attack-dog, dirty-pool tactics will you not stoop to? I'd appeal to your sense of shame or ethics, but that would clearly be like talking to the proverbial brick wall.

I had to turn off the diavlog after 10 minutes, your viciousness was so distasteful.

I completely get how anyone could get that impression. The real test is whether they got the same sense from Michelle in the earlier encounter with Ann and even Matt Welch. If the answer to that is a no to her attacks on conservatives and even Palin, then your problem is when the sniping is aimed at your direction, not a problem with the act of sniping itself, pettiness itself.

In general, I really appreciate the tone of the diavlogs on BHTV, where people who disagree politically can listen to and be civil, even friendly, to each other. It is refreshing, even inspiring, to see. In contrast, it was very dismaying to see the ugly spectacle of Ann Althouse behaving in such a vicious, inflammatory, and attacking manner to her partner in today's diavlog. I have come to expect more from BHTV and hope that the kind of bomb-throwing vitriol emanating from Ms. Althouse will be avoided in the future. Meanwhile, I will be sure to skip any diavlogs in which she is a participant.

Quoting JonIrenicus: I completely get how anyone could get that impression. The real test is whether they got the same sense from Michelle in the earlier encounter with Ann and even Matt Welch. If the answer to that is a no to her attacks on conservatives and even Palin, then your problem is when the sniping is aimed at your direction, not a problem with the act of sniping itself, pettiness itself.

Thanks for your reply. You seem like a thoughtful person. While I have not seen the earlier encounter you referred to, I dislike incivility and specious, opportunistic argumentation no matter what perspective it comes from. That said, one person's egregious behavior does not excuse another's. Therefore Althouse's behavior is inexcusable in my book no matter what preceded it. Otherwise, we're just back in the schoolyard with the biggest bully winning.

....Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.... This comment is the beginning of an insight into Althouse that then goes astray. The performance artist metaphor is okay, but it's a mistake to think that behind the blowing hot and cold and what not there's not something serious and very smart being articulated in a deceptively systematic way. The problem for this exchange was that Goldberg was so patently lame, was so unable to make a coherent argument in defence of her talking points, that Althouse had no respect for her. So an irony was that while Goldberg vaunted nuance, she was anything but nuanced, whereas Althouse, reacting against the Liberal obsession with nuance, intellectuality and subtlety, was throughout exceedingly supple and subtle when she wasn't just plain out spanking Goldberg. Althouse faced a bit of an understandable predicament. She holds no particular brief for Palin, in fact says she doesn't like her. But more than she doesn't particularly like Palin, she intensely dislikes dull, unsubtle, self satisfied liberals like Goldberg who condescendingly

Hmmm...fascinating...is Sarah Palin dumb or is she loathsome? Honestly, Michele in print is magnificent, but chatteriing on in this manner it is apparent that both she, and Ann, would fall through the cracks and gratings of any and all Manhattan sidewalks. The core issue, and indeed the mystery, of Sarah Palin is her evocative, redolent, self-presentation. This totally escapes Ann and Michele. And why? Because Palin has a dream....like Martin Luther King. But how dare she? The problem is that her dream is colliding with the realities of a new world beset with so many problems. Essentially, Michele and Ann get it that the human race is on the point of dinosaur distinction, and Sarah just wants to bake cookies for her husband and her children - including that scoundrel Levi that the cat (i.e. her daughter) brought into the house. Can anybody blame Sarah Palin for trying to hold the fort, in this case The Alamo? Well, yes, these two miserly bloggers here in this diavlog.... I mean, is there a remedy for Sarah Palin? Yes, but Michele and Ann seem only capable of aggravating the snake bite. Too bad. Instead of being part of the solution, they both exasperate the Palin phenomenon.

Quoting basman: ...

Ahhh...thank you...someone who actually saw it for what it was.

Quoting listener: Thanks for your reply. You seem like a thoughtful person. While I have not seen the earlier encounter you referred to, I dislike incivility and specious, opportunistic argumentation no matter what perspective it comes from. That said, one person's egregious behavior does not excuse another's. Therefore Althouse's behavior is inexcusable in my book no matter what preceded it. Otherwise, we're just back in the schoolyard with the biggest bully winning.

However, I am going to guess that you too agree that Obama is like,like the greatest President Evaaa.

Stay classy David Frum...

I agree; she's quite attractive.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Ann Althouse should pick on somebody her own size (age).

I think Admin should do like many other blogs do when they delete a post and that is to leave a placeholder so as someone does not make the mistake of reposting something thinking that maybe they just thought it and didn't actually post it. I mean I wouldn't want Admin to ban someone for a double posting of something.

Classy or not, isn't there something to his point? Do you not think that winking and starbursts had anything to do with her appeal?

Quoting Michael: they both exasperate the Palin phenomenon.

I'm 'exasperated'.... One of the best examples lately of the Palin phenomenon/hatefest/diversion from Obama's circus: "The widely read blogger and purveyor of all truth, Andrew Sullivan, was impelled to blog 17 times on the subject of Palin on the same day Americans learned that the Obama administration awarded $6.7 billion in stimulus money to non-existent congressional districts — which did not merit a single mention. To see what is in front of one's nose demands a constant struggle, I guess."

While Obama continues to mull things over, more Americans are killed in Afg. Can't the military be ordered to stand down while the strategy review takes place? Or, what I think is a good middleground, send over more equipment and soldiers that are tasked to protect the soldiers on patrol. More blast resistant vehicles that are driven on the roads and detect buried bombs. Deploy thousands of remotely controled cameras, then contract with Indian call centers to have people view the video feeds looking for lethal activity. Sniper teams who ambush the rebels before they attack our people. Do something. Something different. What is being done is not working. Here are the names of the most recent casualties. From a DOD email feed. -------------------- Spc. Joseph M. Lewis, 26, of Terrell, Texas died on Nov. 17 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash. Spc. Christopher J. Coffland, 43, of Baltimore, Md., died Nov. 13 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 323rd Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Meade, Md. Lance Cpl. Shawn P. Hefner, 22, of

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: The patience to waste her breath on Althouse.

Obama is: not a good writer, not serious about the job, pushing an extreme liberal agenda as seen by his actions, doesn't take a stand as seen by his lack of actions, disappointing the moderates, disappointing to conservatives, Palin's book just proves that Obama's wasn't good, Obama's Asia trip was a failure because Palin's book got attention, etc. etc.

I think you are missing the possibility that the Obama admin is shaping up as dismal failure of historic proportions. The US is increasingly ignored in the world. Iraq, Iran, Afg, Ukraine, Israel/Pakistan, NK, Tibet. Nothing that the US wants to happen in those troublespots is happening. The first terror attack on Americans since 9/11 happens in the Obama admin. The economy is in terrible shape. The stimulus has not worked and has increased the national debt. Where are the plans to get federal deficit spending under control? HCR basically comes down to putting half the population on the budget busting medicare program. Illegal immigration is not being addressed. The largest states in the nation are on the precipice of bankruptcy. Inflation does happen. What could the Fed do at this point to combat it? Doing what it has

Go Ann! Thanks for calling out Michelle's cheap shots.

She pouts,
She snipes,
She pouts, she snipes, she pouts,
pout, pout, pout,
snipe, snipe, snipe.
THE GOLDBERG AND ALTHOUSE SHOW!

Uh, no.

Quoting freedomforall: Uh, no.

Uh, why not?

Althouse is the most tiresome human being alive. Change your name to Coulter and get it over with, Ann.

A saw the VP debate. She would wink when she was giving "shout-outs" (for a lack of term). It was in no way a "come hither" kind of wink.

Quoting freedomforall: A saw the VP debate. She would wink when she was giving "shout-outs" (for a lack of term). It was in no way a "come hither" kind of wink.

How is that an answer? Sarah Palin's sexuality has been a fully integrated part of her public persona since I became aware of her. There's little reason to believe it wasn't the case before she came to national prominence. You completely missed the reference to Rich Lowry's Starburst piece which came pretty damn pretty damned close to making all of the sexual semiotics about her explicit.

That's Rich Lowry...one example.

Quoting claymisher: Come on guys, Althouse said herself that she's a performance artist. Taking her seriously is like worrying about Andy Kaufman ruining professional wrestling. The joke's on you.

Ann is not telling a joke. She falls back on the performance artist excuse only when she finally realizes what has just come out of her mouth. She's incapable of forethought. She embarrasses herself unthinkingly, then trots out eristics or advocatus diaboli or performance art as a transparent, gasping, grasping attempt to save face. Anyone who has experience with beauty pageants can see right through Sarah Palin: pageantry supplies the entirety of her persona. The same goes for Ann: anyone who has spent five minutes observing a high school girl trying to bluff her way into the cool clique (uhhh...yeah...I totally smoke menthols...uh...I started stealing them from my gra...uh...aunt when I was like fi...uh...thirteen) knows everything about Ann Althouse.

Quoting Ocean: I have no clue who Andy Kaufman is, but I agree with the rest. I have learned to appreciate Ann's performance skills. Of course, it may be a different story if I'm having a really bad day...

You have no clue who Andy Kaufman is?

Quoting freedomforall: That's Rich Lowry...one example.

You might be able to find one or two more if you try. http://www.google.com/insights/searc...8%2024m&cmpt=q

Quoting mattcbrown: You have no clue who Andy Kaufman is?

Not everybody grew up here.

Excellent analysis. I was especially impressed with AA drawing attention to Palin's description of her infantilization by the McCain campaign. As she is a feminist, one would hope Goldberg would have shown some intellectual curiosity and participated in the development of that part of the discussion. Adore Paglia, although I've found that in large doses, she becomes a grind.

Quoting AemJeff: You might be able to find one or two more if you try.

http://www.google.com/insights/searc...8%2024m&cmpt=q

But, maybe all those searches were liberals trying to discredit her in the future.

Do you seriously believe that Rich Lowry and other conservatives solely like Sarah Palin (a conservative) because of her looks?

Quoting freedomforall: Do you seriously believe that Rich Lowry and other conservatives solely like Sarah Palin (a conservative) because of her looks?

No. Nor did I say that. What I did say is that she uses her sexuality as an important part of her political toolkit. It's not unique to her. You use what you've got, and she's got it.

Quoting AemJeff: How is that an answer? Sarah Palin's sexuality has been a fully integrated part of her public persona since I became aware of her. There's little reason to believe it wasn't the case before she came to national prominence. You completely missed the reference to Rich Lowry's Starburst piece which came pretty damn pretty damned close to making all of the sexual semiotics about her explicit.

Palin's sexuality? Was integrated into her public persona? Wow, what a novel concept. She is a political genius. The older pictures I've seen of her seem wholesome, and honestly, a bit frumpy or matter-of-fact athletic. But how about Jeff and look do a little research and see if Palin was at any time acting the slut to gain political advantage.

Ukraine?
Tibet?

Quoting look: Palin's sexuality? Was integrated into her public persona? Wow, what a novel concept. She is a political genius.

The older pictures I've seen of her seem wholesome, and honestly, a bit frumpy or matter-of-fact athletic. But how about Jeff and look do a little research and see if Palin was at any time acting the slut to gain political advantage.

You're putting words into my mouth. You want to have a debate, fine. But don't debate with straw-Jeff.

I guess I don't see her using her sexuality. I think she dresses appropriately for a female politician. (The Newsweek photo was specifically for a running magazine, so she wore work out clothes.) I view the winks at the debate as shout outs, nothing more. I also think her make up is entirely appropriate for a female politician. I just don't see it.

Except by the war on terror. And then she wants a bold leader that will take action. Doesn't matter what that action is, just as long as it keeps her safe.

Quoting freedomforall: I guess I don't see her using her sexuality. I think she dresses appropriately for a female politician. (The Newsweek photo was specifically for a running magazine, so she wore work out clothes.) I view the winks at the debate as shout outs, nothing more. I also think her make up is entirely appropriate for a female politician. I just don't see it.

She's not Mary Carey running for California Governor on the "I'm a porn star, vote for me!" ticket. You're reading words like "inappropriate" into this that were never uttered or implied. You're devaluing the winks, which were, of course, calculated to work on as many levels as possible (even Lowry managed to acknowledge that.) She's a gifted politician, and this is what they do.

Quoting AemJeff: You're putting words into my mouth. You want to have a debate, fine. But don't debate with straw-Jeff.

What are you trying to say, then?

Quoting look: What are you trying to say, then?

Read my responses to freedomforall.

I'm not sure how to respond but to say that perhaps political analysts like Rich Lowry are reading too much into everything she does.

Quoting AemJeff: You're putting words into my mouth. You want to have a debate, fine. But don't debate with straw-Jeff.

Sorry, my bad. But I am interested in exploring her look and demeanor before entering the fray...when campaigning and debating in Alaska. (Is she hungary?
I don't know, alaska.)

So do you think the winks were really all that spontaneous? I have a hard time believing anyone could think that, regardless of their political beliefs.

I have no idea if it was spontaneous. It may not have been spontaneous. However, that doesn't mean it was meant to be a vixenesque moment and that is my only point.

Quoting Whatfur: Yeah, just choose "View Diavlog".

Snicker.

I disagree with Frum somewhat on that point, and I do think the picture Newsweek chose reveals some sexism on their part, but Mark Steyn sniping at David Frum from the NRO blog over Sarah Palin's honor reveals how bankrupt American conservatism has become. I don't agree with Frum much more than I do with the rest of them, but at least he has two brain cells to rub together.

Wait you just said that Frum was wrong. Why can't Mark Steyn point out Frum was wrong?

Does Althouse abuse laughing gas? I can't watch much more of this. She's scaring me.

Quoting kezboard: I disagree with Frum somewhat on that point, and I do think the picture Newsweek chose reveals some sexism on their part, but Mark Steyn sniping at David Frum from the NRO blog over Sarah Palin's honor reveals how bankrupt American conservatism has become. I don't agree with Frum much more than I do with the rest of them, but at least he has two brain cells to rub together.

I'd hate to use Steyn's behavior as an exemplar of of the state of American conservatism - his Canadian background notwithstanding. Steyn has always seemed intellectually bankrupt (not stupid, just cheap and dishonest.) Which isn't to say that bankruptcy isn't a valid view of the state of American conservatism, btw - just that generalizing from Steyn is and always has been a useless indicator.

Yea the rednecks love the sexuality presented in that picture of her holding up the head of the just killed Caribou. Me thinks some here think too much about too little.

So does Ann object because Obama played to identity in his book and that's schlocky, or because she is being a knee-jerk feminist and thinks his mother was short changed? I'm really asking because I want to know what people think. I haven't read either book, I will not read either book, etc. But, every other thing that comes out of Sarah Palin's mouth is about victimhood. I expect the book to be largely about victimhood. Obama talks about transcending victimhood. Or at least that's how I took parts of the Philadelphia speech. (However, I've been told before that I've got that shiat entirely wrong-o.)

Oh, he can. I'm just saying that it's sad for National Review that they ended up with Steyn instead of Frum.

Somewhat off topic, but I'm disappointed that the diavlog stills used on the main page have been so uncolorful lately. This diavlog afforded some particularly juicy opportunities, specifically when Althouse began inexplicably, repeatedly confronting the camera with Palin's book just before the 45 minute mark.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea the rednecks love the sexuality presented in that picture of her holding up the head of the just killed Caribou. Me thinks some here think too much about too little.

Yup, there's no sexual valence whatsoever in iconic Woman With a Gun imagery. Nothing to see, here.

I didn't even realize that both Frum and Steyn were Canadian, but I'm sure that's significant (somehow, or maybe not). I don't know, I wouldn't like to apply Steyn's particular brand of disreputableness to anyone else, but his death-of-the-West, the-Muslims-are-coming horseshit has gotten a lot of play, particularly lately.

Quoting Ocean: Perhaps. But I think that what we see is also due to her having her lawyer skills deep to the bone (am I making up that expression?). She takes pleasure in coming up with the most convincing and elaborated arguments that can prove the opposite point of view to her interlocutor's. Or you could say she is a contrarian. Her need for attention or recognition may be collateral.

Disclaimer: I haven't listened to this one yet, and may not. However, I pretty much agree with Jeff -- I find Ann irritating, but not because of her arguments (I like good conservative arguments). It's because she strikes me just as Jeff says -- disingenuous, vacuous, and all about Ann. It's kind of funny that the conservatives here seem to like her, as I actually do accept her claims not to be a conservative as true. Nothing she's ever said suggests to me that she has particular interest in politics on a policy level or follows them with any detail (which is why I find her arguments typically fall apart and end up based entirely on bluster and her willingness to say anything that she thinks will help

Adore Paglia, although I've found that in large doses, she becomes a grind.[/quote]
Yeah, she's pretty hard to take over long hauls. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Quoting Mary Swanda: Either they're going to have to get Ann a better suited opponent (how about a real conservative, and a true Palin supporter to argue against?

This is an excellent idea. I'm not interested in another "aren't we great" fest with a blogger with whom she is friends (like Instapundit), but an actual debate with someone more conservative or on issues on which she's on the record as holding more liberal views (a strong Palin supporter, an anti abortion person, maybe someone who is against our recent foreign policy from a conservative anti-intervention kind of view, I'm not sure). That could be interesting.

Shows once again what a closed-minded leftist she is. Some of her brilliant gems: 1) Intelligent people think Palin is "Dumb or evil"
2) The book reflects badly on Palin
3) Palin is good for the Democrats
4) Obama is Tolstoy, Palin not: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...8:50&out=10:00 5) She *Hearts* BHO because he's a "Cool Intellectual" http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:35&out=27:00 6) And the Winner; There is no liberal press bias: Reality is liberal: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:15&out=46:25

Quoting rcocean: Shows once again what a closed-minded leftist she is. Some of her brilliant gems:

1) Most intelligent people think Palin is "Dumb or evil"
2) The book reflects badly on Palin
3) Palin is good for the Democrats
4) Obama is Tolstoy, Palin not:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...8:50&out=10:00

5) She *Hearts* BHO because he's a "Cool Intellectual"

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:35&out=27:00

6) And the Winner; There is no liberal press bias: Reality is liberal:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:15&out=46:25

Most intelligent people think Palin significantly overestimates her own intelligence. The book does seem to reflect badly on Palin. That seems pretty certain. (Rod Dreher [of all people]: "It's like this: Palin spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views. ") Palin is way good for Democrats. Obama can write. Palin can't. What's wrong with being a "cool intellectual?" If you can say "liberal bias" unironically, you really ought to look up "confirmation bias."

Quoting rcocean: ...

6) And the Winner; There is no liberal press bias: Reality is liberal:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:15&out=46:25

At least on that last one she is honest about how she views the "bias." Most never say what they really think, that reality itself has a firmer hold on the left thinking side. To place ones reference frame anywhere else would be to go against all rational analysis, by definition, a liberal analysis.
In a way it is kind of refreshing. The problem admitted, brought to the surface like an open wound. And much easier to target and treat.

Quoting stephanie: This is an excellent idea. I'm not interested in another "aren't we great" fest with a blogger with whom she is friends (like Instapundit), but an actual debate with someone more conservative or on issues on which she's on the record as holding more liberal views (a strong Palin supporter, an anti abortion person, maybe someone who is against our recent foreign policy from a conservative anti-intervention kind of view, I'm not sure). That could be interesting.

A debate between someone who is kind of a conservative and a pure conservative? What would that accomplish? Maybe you want to see Ann taken apart by a well thought out debater. Conservatives like John Fund, Mona Charen, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Andy McCarthy, John Batchelor, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire against the full of it lefties on this channel like Heather, Dan Drezner, David Corn and Robert Wright would be pretty good.

I think I owe AemJeff a beer for following this point up while I was away from the computer.

Quoting Don Zeko: I think I owe AemJeff a beer for following this point up while I was away from the computer.

It was a pleasure. But I'll take a Maker's, neat, any time.

Tries to bring Michelle back to Planet Earth: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/239...6:45&out=47:32

Quoting AemJeff: Yup, there's no sexual valence whatsoever in iconic Woman With a Gun imagery.

Please elaborate.

Quoting AemJeff: It was a pleasure. But I'll take a Maker's, neat, any time.

a man after my own liver. er, heart.

Quoting look: Please elaborate.

On what exactly? "Chick with a gun" is a pretty obvious male fantasy. Where do you think I'm not on solid ground here? We're not discussing the photoshops of her with a gun and a bikini (though their very existence seems to make my point), we're talking about the photo Pisc brought up. The semiotics of that are not all that well hidden, I think.

except team spirit and the inherent fun of finding ways to ridicule Ann and everything she brings to the table. I'm fascinated by the apparent contest among her commenters to find more and more over the top ways to declaim their loyalty and love for Mistress. The following comment on her site directly referencing this diavlog contains such a beautifully (and literally!) overheated metaphor, I can't resist repeating it here:

Now I know what an ant (MG) must feel like under an acetelyne torch (AA)...

and i'm going to let you finish, but Sarah Palin had one of the best memoirs of all time, of all time!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: A debate between someone who is kind of a conservative and a pure conservative? What would that accomplish?

About as much as 90 percent of the diavlogs on BHTV. since they mostly consist of discussions between: -A liberal and an even more left-wing liberal;
-Two inside the beltway Talking heads dispensing CW;
-A Libertarian Internationalists/free-trader vs. a Liberal internationalist free-trader;
-Those who think Obama perfect vs. Obama voters who have a criticism or two; and
-Those who worship St. Darwin vs. those who believe his critics are theocratic nuts intent on destroying "science".

Quoting osmium: So does Ann object because Obama played to identity in his book and that's schlocky, or because she is being a knee-jerk feminist and thinks his mother was short changed? I'm really asking because ]I want to know what people think.

Neither. I think she's challenging the pathos aspect Michelle refers to; Althouse is saying his first book was a recruiting tool aimed at white liberals, so it was limited to themes such a father abandonment and racism.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: A debate between someone who is kind of a conservative and a pure conservative? What would that accomplish?

You assume that I consider AA a conservative, and I don't. But I would consider a diavlog between 2 conservatives of interest. The variety of views under the conservative umbrella and the questions about where the conservative movement is going and what it is is one reason. For example, as I said recently elsewhere, I was interested in the diavlog between Heather McDonald and Ross Douthat, as I thought it would discuss the place of religion in conservatism and pros and cons and social conservatism and all that. Unfortunately, Heather wished to challenge the reasonability of religion, using arguments that I found old hat and Ross was Ross in answering, so it was instead dull. But I'd still be interested in a diavlogue along the lines I imagined, or a number of other diavlogues between conservatives. Of course, it appears from your list that you and I have different ideas about who the interesting conservatives are, but there are enough diavlogues so that we could have satisfy both of us, I'm sure.

Quoting AemJeff: On what exactly? "Chick with a gun" is a pretty obvious male fantasy.

Please elaborate.

Quoting stephanie: This is an excellent idea. I'm not interested in another "aren't we great" fest with a blogger with whom she is friends (like Instapundit), but an actual debate with someone more conservative or on issues on which she's on the record as holding more liberal views (a strong Palin supporter, an anti abortion person, maybe someone who is against our recent foreign policy from a conservative anti-intervention kind of view, I'm not sure). That could be interesting.

I agree with this--there was once a Jonah Goldberg / Ann Althouse diavlog, and they disagreed on so much. Michelle and Ann went exactly how I suspected. I don't get much from Michelle as a blogginghead. Ann sometimes, but after careful viewing over the years, I don't think Ann stands for anything so much as she's a button-pusher.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Conservatives like John Fund, Mona Charen, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Andy McCarthy, John Batchelor, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire against the full of it lefties on this channel like Heather, Dan Drezner, David Corn and Robert Wright would be pretty good.

Going on record saying I'd like to see John Derbyshire. As far as I can tell, he is the most horrible person on planet earth, and I would like to see it in action on bloggingheads.

Quoting look: Please elaborate.

You're kidding right? General reference
http://www.moviebadgirls.com/
http://www.chicksnguns.com/
http://www.realmanmag.com/chickswithguns_photos.html (nsfw) Specific to Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCmO5-wZt8
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/...ller-instinct/
How much of this do you need?

Quoting osmium: Going on record saying I'd like to see John Derbyshire. As far as I can tell, he is the most horrible person on planet earth, and I would like to see it in action on bloggingheads.

I've been asking for Derbyshire forever.

Quoting look: Neither. I think she's challenging the pathos aspect Michelle refers to; Althouse is saying his first book was a recruiting tool aimed at white liberals, so it was limited to themes such a father abandonment and racism.

Sure, I'm down with that. Although it might not be so calculated as a recruiting tool--if he truly believes race relations are the most salient problem for America, it might sincerely just come out that way. (I haven't read it, so I'm not claiming to know the ins and outs.) What I'm interested in is more the way Ann framed it, as in how he left out his mother. I think Ann takes absurd positions sometimes, as a tool to show how other people's assumptions are biased. So maybe just because she says something, that doesn't mean she believes it. However, I think she really, really believes in feminism. Nothing wrong with that. She's (I think) a woman who grew up in the 50s and 60s. So her analysis of Obama's book seemed (in the dinglink) motivated by perceived slight to Obama's mother. If that were the case, I don't think it's a fair criticism. I mean, if you write a book about your father, then it's not

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Conservatives like John Fund, Mona Charen, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Andy McCarthy, John Batchelor, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire against the full of it lefties on this channel like Heather, Dan Drezner, David Corn and Robert Wright would be pretty good.

I didn't notice this before, but if your definition of lefties includes Drezner, that seems like a weirdly skewed measure.

I actually registered to post a comment on this diavlog. Frankly Ms. Althouse is beyond contempt. She talks over people, shouts them down, won't let anyone respond to her ridiculous comments... really what value does she add to Bloggingheads. There are many staunch conservatives like David Frum who are interesting and thoughtful, but Althouse is not one of them.

Quoting stephanie: I didn't notice this before, but if your definition of lefties includes Drezner, that seems like a weirdly skewed measure.

I find him pretty annoying, so I threw him in with the group of people ( lefties ) whom I don't think make sense. I think there actually is a correlation between someones domestic and international political views. But I can't prove it.

Quoting TeresaK: I actually registered to post a comment on this diavlog. Frankly Ms. Althouse is beyond contempt. She talks over people, shouts them down, won't let anyone respond to her ridiculous comments... really what value does she add to Bloggingheads. There are many staunch conservatives like David Frum who are interesting and thoughtful, but Althouse is not one of them.

At no time did Althouse "shout down" Goldberg. Quite the opposite, she was calm, cool, - at times aggressive and confrontational. She was definitely the "thoughtful" one in this Diavlog. Goldberg needs some anger management. Twice she threatened to hang up because she was "bored", shouted, and was on the verge of tears. What is wrong with these lefty women? A little tough questioning and they act like little girls. If you can't stand the heat - stay out of the Althouse kitchen.

Quoting rcocean: ...If you can't stand the heat - stay out of the Althouse kitchen.

More (heated!) metaphors!

Yeah Michelle Goldberg is the picture of civility with all her cheap shots and hyperbole.

Quoting freedomforall: Yeah Michelle Goldberg is the picture of civility with all her cheap shots and hyperbole.

Links, man! Give us some examples.

Is there some kind of accepted term for people sufficiently far out of the mainstream that they can't tell the difference between anyone inside the mainstream?

If you want to see a train-wreck, Derbyshire would be good...but Andy McCarthy would be better.

Did u watch the first diavlog on Palin? Michelle couldn't hold in her contempt. She has said it would be joyous day when Dick Cheney dies.

Sorry she said Dick Cheney's death would be a "blessed day."
http://volokh.com/posts/1251879017.shtml

Quoting freedomforall: Did u watch the first diavlog on Palin? Michelle couldn't hold in her contempt. She has said it would be joyous day when Dick Cheney dies.

But this is this diavlog. So she upset you last time, what about now?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I find him pretty annoying, so I threw him in with the group of people ( lefties ) whom I don't think make sense.

Annoying how?

I think there actually is a correlation between someones domestic and international political views. But I can't prove it.

Both parties are split on a variety of foreign policy and trade related issues, but I'm sure there are various views that tend to go together more often than not. Not sure what you are trying to say, however, so can't comment beyond that.

What is wrong with these lefty women? A little tough questioning and they act like little girls.

Can you give some examples of Althouse's "tough questioning"? One "question" I recall, delivered in a particularly excited tone, was why wouldn't Goldberg "own up" to Obama being a lousy writer, after Goldberg had just indicated that she doesn't think he's a lousy writer. Why wouldn't Goldberg "own up" to Althouse's opinion? Because she disagreed with it, I assume! Is that your idea of a tough question--"Admit that I'm right!" Otherwise, I think Althouse just had a protracted nervous breakdown over being cast as the right-winger in this diavlog. At least Kaus has a sense of humor about his frequent, similar predicament.

Quoting stephanie: I didn't notice this before, but if your definition of lefties includes Drezner, that seems like a weirdly skewed measure.

Yes, I thought Drezner was a libertarian, not a lefty.

Quoting stephanie: Annoying how?

I think Drezner is an opportunist by aligning himself with the center/left establishment view that the Iraq war was a mistake and the way the insurgency was fought was also mistaken. Saddam had to go. Saddam would have responded to the Iranian nuclear program with one of his own. A classic nuclear arms race would likely have followed. Without an enemy in Iraq, Iran has no justification for nuclear weapons. I don't think it is a coincedence that the democracy movement is gaining traction in Iran now that Iraq is no longer an enemy of Iran. The mullahs don't have an external threat to the country they can use to deflect internal criticism away from their regime. Once you accept that Saddam had to go, you have to accept that the insurgency would be brutally difficult. Once you accept how difficult it would be to defeat the insurgency you have to accept that the military would have to learn by trial and error how to be successful at it. I hear none of this from Heather and Dan and other center left critics of Bush/Cheney.

Quoting Toryentalist: Yes, I thought Drezner was a libertarian, not a lefty.

I could not begin to guess what the foreign policy views of a libertarian would be. The center and left are morphed together in my view. Both reject the free market as the path to a good life for people of all income levels.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think Drezner is an opportunist by aligning himself with the center/left establishment view that the Iraq war was a mistake and the way the insurgency was fought was also mistaken.

Saddam had to go. Saddam would have responded to the Iranian nuclear program with one of his own. A classic nuclear arms race would likely have followed. Without an enemy in Iraq, Iran has no justification for nuclear weapons. I don't think it is a coincedence that the democracy movement is gaining traction in Iran now that Iraq is no longer an enemy of Iran. The mullahs don't have an external threat to the country they can use to deflect internal criticism away from their regime.

Once you accept that Saddam had to go, you have to accept that the insurgency would be brutally difficult. Once you accept how difficult it would be to defeat the insurgency you have to accept that the military would have to learn by trial and error how to be successful at it.

I hear none of this from Heather and Dan and other center left critics of Bush/Cheney.

Clowns

Quoting Don Zeko: If you want to see a train-wreck, Derbyshire would be good...but Andy McCarthy would be better.

All those honestly stated and well thought out points of view. Cover your ears if they ever appear on this channel.

Quoting rcocean: At no time did Althouse "shout down" Goldberg.

you just lost any last bits of credibility that anyone may have thought you had.

Quoting popcorn_karate: you just lost any last bits of credibility that anyone may have thought you had.

PK = "anyone" Astounding. BTW, I wonder if JFC knows BJ Keefe?

Wow, what a train-wreck. I'm pretty sure Goldberg will not agree to do another diavlog with Althouse. Althouse is unbearable. I just wonder, who, between the two, actually reads more high literature? Here is a paradox. In refusing to grant that Obama's book has literary merit, or more literary merit than Palin's book, Althouse is probably succumbing to the very leveling of culture that she undoubtedly detests when she sees it in contemporary courses in literature in American universities. Althouse is a horrible poseur. I really, really, don't like her.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: All those honestly stated and well thought out points of view. Cover your ears if they ever appear on this channel.

I'm not being ironic--I really think he should be on. But, should he ever be on, I gotta tell you: I'm just going to rush the guy. Just rush him.

RC - go back and watch the DV. regardless of AA's merits, it is simply not factual to claim that she never shouted down michelle. whether she was justified etc. is a different question that we will probably never agree on - but it did happen. also JFC?

Quoting stephanie: This is an excellent idea. I'm not interested in another "aren't we great" fest with a blogger with whom she is friends (like Instapundit), but an actual debate with someone more conservative or on issues on which she's on the record as holding more liberal views (a strong Palin supporter, an anti abortion person, maybe someone who is against our recent foreign policy from a conservative anti-intervention kind of view, I'm not sure). That could be interesting.

Not sure Bobs circles include many religious/social conservatives. I know mine don't. But I could be wrong on the first.
There are already anti intervention conservatives that have been on. And I think the libertarians have anti interventionist leanings tattooed into their dna.
When Bob had Hugh Hewitt that was a more typical talk radio style social + foreign policy conservative. Medved would be the same if he ever came on.

'Wingnut'.

Quoting Don Zeko: If you want to see a train-wreck, Derbyshire would be good...but Andy McCarthy would be better.

I'd prefer to see Andrew Sullivan across from Sarah Palin

No more Ann Althouse for me. Very rude and arrogant, even after the shouting stopped. Michelle Goldberg should have hung up. No, I do not like Sarah Palin, but I like her more than Althouse. Della

no no no!! Obama did NOT just portray his grandparents only in racial terms!!! OMG did she even read the book! He DID talk about his mom. I got a picture of her, much better than I did of his dad. I really admired her. It could have been understated (his admiration) but it surely came through. Goodness, golly - did she even read the book?!!! Wow, Ann is so defensive that any slight to Sarah's book must be then deducted from Obama's ledger.

Quoting popcorn_karate: RC - go back and watch the DV.

regardless of AA's merits, it is simply not factual to claim that she never shouted down michelle.

whether she was justified etc. is a different question that we will probably never agree on - but it did happen.

also JFC?

Definition of "Shout Down" - To overwhelm or silence by shouting loudly.
So, no I don't think this happened. Did AA talk over MG? Yes. and vice-versa. Did AA raise her voice? Yes and vice-versa. Did she Shout? No. Did she Shout down MG? No. We may disagree, but our disagreement is not factual. I'm perfectly willing to admit wrong if you can post the link where AA shouts MG down - per the definition.

Quoting kezboard: 'Wingnut'.

And the question for $500 is: Who is "kezboard"?

When someone is this enamored with a government official, there isn't much cool-headed discourse to be had. The irony is that if McCain had won the elections and had gone on to oversee the many disasters of the current administration, Goldberg would be a litany of complaints about cash-4-clunkers, politically motivated stimulus, Afghanistan, TARP, etc etc...imagine the "maverick" McCain trying to push a bungled health-care reform, no matter what the shape or form, just to get the credit of "having done something", and all this during one of the worse recessions of recent memory, with all the economic havoc that is created by the uncertainty of congresspeople and senators trying to redesign a huge sector of the economy, gulp!

Ann, people who watch blogginheads are generally the type who are more interested in getting the correct answer (which generally involves a combination of points, often some made by each person in the discussion), than people who try to "win" by proving that their points are always right. If we want one side to "win" and completely discount any possible merit to the other aspects of the point being discussed, we've got cable news. What's interesting about issues is getting as close to truth as you can, not just spouting off as much as possible. Which requires some listening and looking for what may be true about what other people say.

10 minutes in. So far it's a shrieking match.

Quoting willmybasilgrow: no no no!! Obama did NOT just portray his grandparents only in racial terms!!! OMG did she even read the book! He DID talk about his mom. I got a picture of her, much better than I did of his dad. I really admired her. It could have been understated (his admiration) but it surely came through.

Goodness, golly - did she even read the book?!!!

Wow, Ann is so defensive that any slight to Sarah's book must be then deducted from Obama's ledger.

regarding the comparison between Obama's and Sarah's books, the ghostwriter angle has to be considered. The book on Obama that came out a few months ago stated that Obama was not making much progress on the book until he brought his notes to Bill Ayers. Did Palin write her book on her own?

I think the issue is that Althouse is simply so much more frightening than other people when she raises her voice, because she seems genuinely unhinged. You really don't even notice it with a lot of the Bloggingheads.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: A debate between someone who is kind of a conservative and a pure conservative? What would that accomplish? Maybe you want to see Ann taken apart by a well thought out debater.

Conservatives like John Fund, Mona Charen, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Andy McCarthy, John Batchelor, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire against the full of it lefties on this channel like Heather, Dan Drezner, David Corn and Robert Wright would be pretty good.

A debate between Jane Hamsher and Mona Charen would be good fun.
And I wish Christopher Hitchens would return for a diavlog with anybody.

Quoting rgajria: And I wish Christopher Hitchens would return for a diavlog with anybody.

Please no. He's a more "eloquent" Althouse. (or, perhaps, Althouse with an accent?) All empty rhetoric, chea pshots, and filibustering...or, perhaps, filiblustering?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The book on Obama that came out a few months ago stated that Obama was not making much progress on the book until he brought his notes to Bill Ayers. Did Palin write her book on her own?

But Bill Ayers blew up Obama's notes! Smithereens! Yes; Palin did write her book on her own. Little known fact: Palin wrote her book on the verso of her lab notes from her fruit fly experiments.

Quoting Ray: But Bill Ayers blew up Obama's notes! Smithereens!

Yes; Palin did write her book on her own.

Little known fact: Palin wrote her book on the verso of her lab notes from her fruit fly experiments.

Did you take a funny pill today?

I think this Althouse woman doesn't realize how unattractive hate is.

Quoting benjy: Ann, people who watch blogginheads are generally the type who are more interested in getting the correct answer (which generally involves a combination of points, often some made by each person in the discussion), than people who try to "win" by proving that their points are always right. If we want one side to "win" and completely discount any possible merit to the other aspects of the point being discussed, we've got cable news. What's interesting about issues is getting as close to truth as you can, not just spouting off as much as possible. Which requires some listening and looking for what may be true about what other people say.

Really? bjkeefe!

Ann, You do realize that Dreams From My Father was written before Obama entered politics, right? How can you say it's "equivalent" to Going Rogue, then? Or...were you just trying to be "provocative" ?

Quoting nikkibong: Ann,

You do realize that Dreams From My Father was written before Obama entered politics, right?

How can you say it's "equivalent" to Going Rogue, then?

Or...were you just trying to be "provocative" ?

Yep, it was published the year before he was elected to the Illinois Senate. Good catch.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: regarding the comparison between Obama's and Sarah's books, the ghostwriter angle has to be considered. The book on Obama that came out a few months ago stated that Obama was not making much progress on the book until he brought his notes to Bill Ayers. Did Palin write her book on her own?

I've heard the Ayers ghost writing angle before. Someone took a section from his book and cross referenced it with one of Ayers books to check for a similar writing style. Apparently there is more to it than just eyeballing it. You can create algorithms to seek out similar tendencies and word choice. Reports were that it was more than a nothing connection, but you can never truly know.
And in the end it does not matter. Peoples respect and admiration and support has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Obama or Palin wrote their books. Does anyone think for a minute that if it was shown that Obama wrote none of his books that Michelles support for him would diminish? She, like most liberals, love him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU And even place their

Yes, good catch. And Palin's was written one or two months after she abandoned her job as governor.

Quoting nikkibong: Ann,

You do realize that Dreams From My Father was written before Obama entered politics, right?

How can you say it's "equivalent" to Going Rogue, then?

Or...were you just trying to be "provocative" ?

Come on Bong, the comparision was not about when they were written?...but if that is the route you wish to take...maybe this IS about Sarah now REALLY entering politics...I mean you and yours quite often glossed over her governorship and painted her as the lowly mayor of some podunk town in Alaska...I mean...isn't that pretty much the same thing as being a community organizer.

After Ann's Bill O'Reilly impersonation, I am SORELY tempted to say something that would get me banned from the site.
I'm sorry, from the point of view of rational discussion, Ann Althouse is less than worthless. She brings no substance to the debate -- only volume. She does not engage with people on the other side; she simply tells them to "come off it" -- of course they couldn't really see things any differently.
She doesn't even seem to think it necessary to explain her positiion. Why does she think Obama is such a terrible president? Is that in comparison with the literal incompetency of Bush? I don't even begin to see where she's coming from on that. If she had actually thought out her position and were willing to explain it, she might have something more on her side than the argument from rudeness. Maybe she explains it all later, but her rudeness (and her sheer cluelessness about how other people see the world) make it most unlikely that I'll find out.
Ann is worthless as a Blogginghead (because she can't even conceive of how someone could disagree with her and doesn't

It occurs to me that the problem with Althouse is really that she essentially games the choice of interlocutors. Either you match her with someone patient and nice -- and she walks all over them, or you match her more fairly with someone who will actually take her down -- I bet Eric Alterman could shred her into a million little pieces. But I don't think she'd be willing to do a diavlog with someone who would really fight back, and if she were willing, the diavlog would just be a shouting match and Ann would storm off the set.
If you're not going to dump her outright, please give her the option of talking with someone who can clean her clock in the kind of all-in fight she prefers or not talking on BHtv at all!

She probaby didn't realize it, nikkibong. She isn't stupid, but she certainly is ignorant.

Quoting AemJeff: You're kidding right?

General reference
http://www.moviebadgirls.com/
http://www.chicksnguns.com/
http://www.realmanmag.com/chickswithguns_photos.html (nsfw)

Specific to Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCmO5-wZt8
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/...ller-instinct/

How much of this do you need?

Jeff, please use your words.

Althouse or Nut-house? I pick the latter. If I hadn't seen Ann previously, it would be hard to imagine some one making a Hannity-style defense of Sarah Palin. Her legal training gives her the ability to take any side of a debate, however, her arguments are often ludicrous just for the sake of disagreement. In the final analysis, she acts like a person who's starved for attention of any kind, positive or negative. This takes a real toll on manners.

Quoting look: Jeff, please use your words.

Look, why don't you really tell us how you really feel about uncivil takedowns of your ideological opponents? You've given a shout-out to Ann of Ann Arbor and want so much to further explore the richness that is Sarah Palin. Go ahead... start the debate. Don't you as a feminist -like Michelle- have some thoughts on "chicks with guns" or Sarah as role-model?

Quoting osmium: Sure, I'm down with that. Although it might not be so calculated as a recruiting tool--if he truly believes race relations are the most salient problem for America, it might sincerely just come out that way. (I haven't read it, so I'm not claiming to know the ins and outs.)

What I'm interested in is more the way Ann framed it, as in how he left out his mother.

I think Ann takes absurd positions sometimes, as a tool to show how other people's assumptions are biased. So maybe just because she says something, that doesn't mean she believes it.

However, I think she really, really believes in feminism. Nothing wrong with that. She's (I think) a woman who grew up in the 50s and 60s.

So her analysis of Obama's book seemed (in the dinglink) motivated by perceived slight to Obama's mother. If that were the case, I don't think it's a fair criticism. I mean, if you write a book about your father, then it's not about your mother.

I could be over-reading of course. She did also mention his grandparents. Consider this post performance art.

First, I haven't read it, though of course I should have by now. So I feel ridiculous. Willmybasil grow reports downthread that he did

Quoting nikkibong: Ann,

You do realize that Dreams From My Father was written before Obama entered politics, right?

How can you say it's "equivalent" to Going Rogue, then?

Or...were you just trying to be "provocative" ?

I think he had political aspirations before he wrote the book. In fact, I wonder exactly how the book editor who invited Obama to write the book, as he was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, first came to his notice.

Quoting look: Jeff, please use your words.

Why? You're trying hard, as far as I can tell, to turn this to some secondary thing onto which you can apply some personal agenda. Either you believe what I've asserted is true, or you don't. If you don't, then tell me why. I said it before: if you want to have a debate then I'm here for it. If you have an argument with some particular set of views (as opposed to those I actually hold, and about which I try to be fairly frank and open), then I'm not interested.

I'd prefer to see Andrew Sullivan across from Ann Althouse. That would be hilarious.

Quoting kezboard: I'd prefer to see Andrew Sullivan across from Ann Althouse. That would be hilarious.

[Literally laughing out loud.] It's a genius idea. I doubt Althouse would accept, Sullivan is far too sure of himself. But the clash of egos would be something to behold.

Quoting AemJeff: I doubt Althouse would accept, Sullivan is far too sure of himself.

Amazingly, I think you're right about Sullivan's confidence. Which is all the more bewildering given his meandering track record over the last nine years. I guess he takes Forrest Griffin's approach to fighting and applies it to blogging: "you've got to be like the defensive back, you get burned for an 80-yard touchdown, you've got to go out there like you're still the man — fast legs and a short memory."

Quoting Bobby G: Amazingly, I think you're right about Sullivan's confidence. Which is all the more bewildering given his meandering track record over the last nine years.

I guess he takes Forrest Griffin's approach to fighting and applies it to blogging: "you've got to be like the defensive back, you get burned for an 80-yard touchdown, you've got to go out there like you're still the man — fast legs and a short memory."

I ought to point out that I'm definitely not on the Sully is great bandwagon. I almost never read his blog, although I usually like his appearances on Chris Matthews' Sunday show. Nevertheless, I would anticipate a matchup with Althouse with enormous pleasure.

I've often thought that it's fitting that Ann hates Sullivan so much, because she plays the same role on the right that he does on the left. Neither of them are trustworthy. Both of them are crazy. At least Sullivan gets paid for his performance-artistry.

Althouse reveals that the GOP is still obsessed with winning the news cycle rather than governing. Palin stole the air out of Obama's China trip. Yes the President went to China for press coverage.

Quoting kilgore trout: Althouse reveals that the GOP is still obsessed with winning the news cycle rather than governing.

Palin stole the air out of Obama's China trip. Yes the President went to China for press coverage.

Did anybody link to this yet? James Fallows notes media FAIL on Obama's China trip:

"Even through a veil of censorship and propaganda, the Chinese people managed a clearer view of Obama's visit than the US media did." ...

Judis says the FT is alright though:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/ob...m-foreign-news

Althouse doesn't hate Andrew Sullivan... she doesn't agree with him on every issue and finds (like just about everyone else, Goldberg included) that he is out of his mind on the whole Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby conspiracy. Calling Althouse crazy is also nonsensical.

How many of you actually listened to the two of the to figure out if what they actually said was valid? There's a lot of cheerleading going on here. Some points: 1. Althouse is not a supporter of Palin, but is trying to serve as a cruelly neutral honest broker.
2. Goldberg's mind is made up, so there really was no need for her to read the book - she could have just said "I don't like that retard Palin" & that would be the summary of her refutation of the book.
3. It was HILARIOUS of Goldberg to compare Obama to Tolstoy. HILARIOUS. Re-read the opening paragraph of "Dreams of My Father" again and see if you can seriously defend this claim of majesty.
4. Palin has no official power, no office, and no function - and yet she has nearly stopped in the tracks the President of the United States simply by using Facebook. As much as some may not like her (and a lot of unthinkingly reflexive liberals here do not), you had to squarely admit this fact that she is able to accomplish more with a keyboard than the president with

Quoting steve.miller: How many of you actually listened to the two of the to figure out if what they actually said was valid? There's a lot of cheerleading going on here.

Some points:

1. Althouse is not a supporter of Palin, but is trying to serve as a cruelly neutral honest broker.
2. Goldberg's mind is made up, so there really was no need for her to read the book - she could have just said "I don't like that retard Palin" & that would be the summary of her refutation of the book.
3. It was HILARIOUS of Goldberg to compare Obama to Tolstoy. HILARIOUS. Re-read the opening paragraph of "Dreams of My Father" again and see if you can seriously defend this claim of majesty.
4. Palin has no official power, no office, and no function - and yet she has nearly stopped in the tracks the President of the United States simply by using Facebook. As much as some may not like her (and a lot of unthinkingly reflexive liberals here do not), you had to squarely admit this fact that she is able to accomplish more with a keyboard than the president with

Quoting JoeK: Ann Althouse cult - where do I sign in?!

I believe you spelled one of those words wrong by a single letter. And you left out the words 'is' and 'a'

Quoting Fat Steve: I believe you spelled one of those words wrong by a single letter. And you left out the words 'is' and 'a'

Kinda like you left out the word "head" from your user name?

I don't get it (didn't watch the whole thing, just the excerpt at Andrew Sullivan's blog).

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: After Ann's Bill O'Reilly impersonation, I am SORELY tempted to say something that would get me banned from the site.
I'm sorry, from the point of view of rational discussion, Ann Althouse is less than worthless. She brings no substance to the debate -- only volume. She does not engage with people on the other side; she simply tells them to "come off it" -- of course they couldn't really see things any differently.
She doesn't even seem to think it necessary to explain her positiion. Why does she think Obama is such a terrible president? Is that in comparison with the literal incompetency of Bush? I don't even begin to see where she's coming from on that. If she had actually thought out her position and were willing to explain it, she might have something more on her side than the argument from rudeness. Maybe she explains it all later, but her rudeness (and her sheer cluelessness about how other people see the world) make it most unlikely that I'll find out.
Ann is worthless as a Blogginghead (because she can't even conceive of how someone could disagree with her and doesn't

Quoting AemJeff: Why? You're trying hard, as far as I can tell, to turn this to some secondary thing onto which you can apply some personal agenda. Either you believe what I've asserted is true, or you don't. If you don't, then tell me why.

I said it before: if you want to have a debate then I'm here for it. If you have an argument with some particular set of views (as opposed to those I actually hold, and about which I try to be fairly frank and open), then I'm not interested.

Before I reply, will you please post the picture you and pisc were talking about:

Please elaborate.

On what exactly? "Chick with a gun" is a pretty obvious male fantasy. Where do you think I'm not on solid ground here? We're not discussing the photoshops of her with a gun and a bikini (though their very existence seems to make my point), we're talking about the photo Pisc brought up. The semiotics of that are not all that well hidden, I think.

Quoting look: Before I reply, will you please post the picture you and pisc were talking about:

I did. It's the first image you see at this link:
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/...ller-instinct/ Added - it also shows up here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYCmO5-wZt8

Does Ann Althouse not know when Dreams for my Father was written and published? He wasn't a political figure when he wrote it, even if he aspired to be one in the future. She's really letting Palin off the hook if she thinks that a book written by a former governor/vice-presidential candidate should be compared to one written by a recent law school graduate.

Thanks.

piscivorous
Yea the rednecks love the sexuality presented in that picture of her holding up the head of the just killed Caribou. Me thinks some here think too much about too little.

Jeff
Yup, there's no sexual valence whatsoever in iconic Woman With a Gun imagery. Nothing to see, here.

look
Please elaborate.

Jeff
On what exactly? "Chick with a gun" is a pretty obvious male fantasy. Where do you think I'm not on solid ground here? We're not discussing the photoshops of her with a gun and a bikini (though their very existence seems to make my point), we're talking about the photo Pisc brought up. The semiotics of that are not all that well hidden, I think.

Yes, she's quite the tart there...but I see no rifle.

Quoting look: Thanks.

Yes, she's quite the tart there...but I see no rifle.

Ok. Now please identify the post in which I called her a "tart."

Quoting AemJeff: Ok. Now please identify the post in which I called her a "tart."

Thanks for the interesting conversation, Jeff.

Quoting look: Thanks for the interesting conversation, Jeff.

Ditto.

Quoting AemJeff: Ditto.

Unlike Obama, shirtless on the beach photo-op, this is just another picture of probably dozens Palin has that are spontaneious and similar and just part of her life in Alaska and many women lead similar lives. Just because the only thing you ever hunted for was your bus pass doesn't make this that extraordinary. A boy from Philly being blown away by it says more about the boy from Philly than it does Sarah Palin.

Quoting Whatfur: Unlike Obama, shirtless on the beach photo-op, this is just another picture of probably dozens Palin has that are spontaneious and similar and just part of her life in Alaska and many women lead similar lives. Just because the only thing you ever hunted for was your bus pass doesn't make this that extraordinary. A boy from Philly being blown away by it says more about the boy from Philly than it does Sarah Palin.

You haven't understood a word of this, have you? At least look, even if she was sure I was advancing a hidden agenda, bothered to try to parse what I was saying.

Quoting AemJeff: You haven't understood a word of this, have you? At least look, even if she was sure I was advancing a hidden agenda, bothered to try to parse what I was saying.

Hmmm....maybe you are correct, following your little back and forth was a bit tedious. So you were not implying that Palin deserves the sexist attitude thrust on her by you and yours because you cannot believe she happens to live a certain lifestyle...and because you cannot relate to it you feel it is contrived somehow? Provide clarity and I will apologize if I was off base.

Quoting Whatfur: Hmmm....maybe you are correct, following your little back and forth was a bit tedious. So you were not implying that Palin deserves the sexist attitude thrust on her by you and yours because you cannot believe she happens to live a certain lifestyle...and because you cannot relate to it you feel it is contrived somehow?

Provide clarity and I will apologize if I was off base.

You're trying to Althouse him: Putting words in his mouth, cheap insult and feigned desire for resolution. It was easy wasn't it? Maybe you'll get a snicker from look... maybe not even.

Quoting ChoadNamath: ... a book written by a former governor/vice-presidential candidate should be compared to one written by a recent law school graduate.

Compared and at a great disadvantage. That summarizes it well.

Quoting Whatfur: Hmmm....maybe you are correct, following your little back and forth was a bit tedious. So you were not implying that Palin deserves the sexist attitude thrust on her by you and yours because you cannot believe she happens to live a certain lifestyle...and because you cannot relate to it you feel it is contrived somehow?

Provide clarity and I will apologize if I was off base.

I said she uses what she's got, like every other talented politician; and I said the "Chick with a gun" imagery is potent symbolism, and that she benefits from it. Agree or disagree to your heart's content. You can imagine my chagrin if you disapprove.

Quoting Ocean: Compared and at a great disadvantage. That summarizes it well.

Huh? Great disadvantage? I thought one was like Tolstoy? (Who I personally think spent 1/2 of his books pounding the same points over and over and over again...leaving me always wanting to yell LEO I get it!!!) Pretty sure Althouse was just comparing them for what they tried to be...both trying to describe how the two got to where they were/are. Pretty simple.

Quoting Whatfur: Huh? Great disadvantage? I thought one was like Tolstoy?

Michelle didn't make any direct comparison between Obama's book and Tolstoy. She used hyperbole to express her opinion that there was a great difference in literary quality between Obama's book and Palin's.

(Who I personally think spent 1/2 of his books pounding the same points over and over and over again...leaving me always wanting to yell LEO I get it!!!)

Why didn't you?

Pretty sure Althouse was just comparing them for what they tried to be...both trying to describe how the two got to where they were/are. Pretty simple.

On the one hand the books are alike in this way, on the other hand the books are different in that other way. You pick one aspect, someone else picks another. Pretty simple indeed.

Quoting Ocean: Michelle didn't make any direct comparison between Obama's book and Tolstoy. She used hyperbole to express her opinion that there was a great difference in literary quality between Obama's book and Palin's.

Granted.
I have not read Palin's...yet. I have read both of Obama's. Neither are great literary achievements. But then neither was PT109. Althouse was more on track when, in HER hyperbole, said something about a college creative writing class. That is the feel I remember.

Quoting Ocean: Why didn't you?

I very possibly may have...I also waited for 20 years after WnP before reading Anna Karenina (which I enjoyed more but it had the same problem ;o) )

Quoting Ocean: On the one hand the books are alike in this way, on the other hand the books are different in that other way. You pick one aspect, someone else picks another. Pretty simple indeed.

With the difference being that Althouse stipulated the former and that is the point here right?

Quoting Whatfur: With the difference being that Althouse stipulated the former and that is the point here right?

Not really. The point here is that I'm supporting the latter.

Ah, both books are memoirs. You must have totally missed Althouse's point.

Quoting Ocean: Not really. The point here is that I'm supporting the latter.

Sorry, I thought people were upset that Althouse was putting the two books on the same "how I got to where I am" scale. The "latter" seems to take the position that they should not be compared. Is that what you are supporting? I am not sure I can make either case without reading Palin's book first...so I personally won't. I do not find Choad's argument all that compelling, however. Night.

Quoting Whatfur: Sorry, I thought people were upset that Althouse was putting the two books on the same "how I got to where I am" scale. The "latter" seems to take the position that they should not be compared. Is that what you are supporting? I am not sure I can make either case without reading Palin's book first...so I personally won't. I do not find Choad's argument all that compelling, however.

Night.

I support the hypothesis that the differences between the two books outweigh the similarities. I liked the wording in Choad's argument. It captured some of the criticism that those of us who don't have Palin in high regard may share. Good night.

Has anybody noticed that Ann Althouse often brings some grudge to the diavlog and manages to bring it in to the conversation? This time she was getting back at Michelle Goldberg for the last diavlog. Ann said herself that she was too patient in the last one, and now she was going to give it to Michelle. It seems like she nurses these grudges, and then brings up the episode on bloggingheads, portraying herself as the victim and verbally mauling the accused party. Having a victim mentality is unhealthy. She should just be like Gandhi or the Buddha and let it go. She's going to have a heart attack focusing on the negative, and she's making all our lives worse taking up bloggingheads days with screaming when we could be getting civil conversation. Nothing personal. P.S. If Bloggingheads is keeping Ann on the site because fireworks and females produce hits, why not team her up with Jane Hamisher? That would be pretty explosive.

Hamsher would just laugh at her.

Quoting AemJeff: I've been asking for Derbyshire forever.

Derbyshire claims to be a terrible debater. I imagine he's a very calm, intelligent person who thinks deeply but is not so quick on his feet - not the best for a diavlog. It might work better if you found an appropriate interlocutor. I'd be interested to hear him talk to a really perceptive black guy like John McWhorter about race.

Quoting Ideophile: Derbyshire claims to be a terrible debater. I imagine he's a very calm, intelligent person who thinks deeply but is not so quick on his feet - not the best for a diavlog. It might work better if you found an appropriate interlocutor.

I'd be interested to hear him talk to a really perceptive black guy like John McWhorter about race.

He has a dry, sarcastic wit that appeals to me. He holds some opinions that I think are indefensible; but often, whether or not I happen to agree with him, he has an argument worthy of consideration. I think a pairing with McWhorter would be interesting; all the more so since the latter's encounter with Behe.

How about pairing Jesse Ventura with Ann Althouse. That I would watch. Both use about the same playbook. It could be a battle of the boors.

Quoting Ideophile: Derbyshire claims to be a terrible debater. I imagine he's a very calm, intelligent person who thinks deeply but is not so quick on his feet - not the best for a diavlog. It might work better if you found an appropriate interlocutor.

I'd be interested to hear him talk to a really perceptive black guy like John McWhorter about race.

Absolutely. I think it'd go a little something like this: Derbyshire: The blacks are inferior, gays are icky, and asian ladies give me a boner because they all look underage to me.
McWhorter: Fascinating! Forget Behe, I want to drop out of whatever it is I do now instead of linguistics and study pretentious Tory racial theory!

I agree with Goldberg on most points and think Althouse made some perfectly reasonable arguments as well (I bought and loved Dreams and will wait to get Rogue from the library). Don't know what all the fuss is about with this diavlog--aren't we used to people arguing/yelling past each other by this point? Is it just that they're women? The thing I find distracting (whenever she participates in a bloggingheads debate) is Goldberg's mugging for the camera. It's like watching someone from the back of a mirror. A shallow criticism, I guess, but... for me it distracts from experiencing the thing as a regular debate. I have to struggle to listen to what she's saying while thinking, what's she looking at? Her reflection on the monitor? Am I the only one?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Please, BhTV, never let Christopher Hitchens on this site.

Was wondering the same thing myself, seemed very odd.

Did Michelle actually say that she thought Palin was better looking than she is, and that she wished she looked like Sarah Palin? Because Michelle is very cute indeed.

Quoting browncat: I agree with Goldberg on most points and think Althouse made some perfectly reasonable arguments as well (I bought and loved Dreams and will wait to get Rogue from the library). Don't know what all the fuss is about with this diavlog--aren't we used to people arguing/yelling past each other by this point? Is it just that they're women?

The thing I find distracting (whenever she participates in a bloggingheads debate) is Goldberg's mugging for the camera. It's like watching someone from the back of a mirror. A shallow criticism, I guess, but... for me it distracts from experiencing the thing as a regular debate. I have to struggle to listen to what she's saying while thinking, what's she looking at? Her reflection on the monitor?

Am I the only one?

No you are not and I find the rest of what you had to say "reasonable" also. I didn't love Dreams but it wasn't horrible.

Ms. Goldberg my be delusional about Obama's successes but... Saturday Night Live is surprisingly not.

That was precisely what I was getting at. I like b-heads that come in ready to tangle on an intellectual level (Bob Wright and Bob Kagan, Heather and Eli, Corn and Pinkerton etc.) but with Ann it seems like the vindictive aspect is far more important than the actual ideas that are being discussed. As a consequence I never get much of substance out of her appearances. The pro wrestler analogy, mentioned by another commenter, is pretty apt.

Quoting AemJeff: You haven't understood a word of this, have you? At least look, even if she was sure I was advancing a hidden agenda, bothered to try to parse what I was saying.

Jeff dear, I in no way thought you were advancing a hidden agenda, or any agenda at all. We're all openly discussing our views on Palin and Obama here. I would like everyone here to proceed in the spirit of sincere analysis and collegial good will. If everyone will assume that everyone else is not taking liberties with the facts, but conveying honest, good faith assessments, I think it will be a credit to bhtv.

Quoting Ideophile: Derbyshire claims to be a terrible debater. I imagine he's a very calm, intelligent person who thinks deeply but is not so quick on his feet - not the best for a diavlog. It might work better if you found an appropriate interlocutor.

I'd be interested to hear him talk to a really perceptive black guy like John McWhorter about race.

I'd rather see him debate Loury.

Quoting AemJeff: I said she uses what she's got, like every other talented politician; and I said the "Chick with a gun" imagery is potent symbolism, and that she benefits from it. Agree or disagree to your heart's content. You can imagine my chagrin if you disapprove.

I can agree. Thanks for the clarification. If you are the not accusing her of contriving "what she's got", then yes, sorry, I jumped the "gun".

Quoting look: Jeff dear, I in no way thought you were advancing a hidden agenda, or any agenda at all. We're all openly discussing our views on Palin and Obama here. I would like everyone here to proceed in the spirit of sincere analysis and collegial good will. If everyone will assume that everyone else is not taking liberties with the facts, but conveying honest, good faith assessments, I think it will be a credit to bhtv.

I'm glad you feel that way.

Quoting look: I'd rather see him debate Loury.

McWhorter or Derbyshire?

Quoting Whatfur: I can agree. Thanks for the clarification. If you are the not accusing her of contriving "what she's got", then yes, sorry, I jumped the "gun".

Thanks.

Quoting browncat: Don't know what all the fuss is about with this diavlog--aren't we used to people arguing/yelling past each other by this point? Is it just that they're women?

I think it's more to do with the perception by some that Althouse is acting shrewishly toward a defenseless young woman who needs protecting. Like McWhorter, she's a public intellectual; is evisceration permitted only by the commenters?

Quoting AemJeff: McWhorter or Derbyshire?

Derb.

Quoting otto: Did Michelle actually say that she thought Palin was better looking than she is, and that she wished she looked like Sarah Palin?

Because Michelle is very cute indeed.

Very.

Quoting look: Derb.

It would be interesting to see if this pair of very inward, contemplative, slow talkers could draw each other out sufficiently. I think the irony quotient in that encounter might approach critical mass.

Quoting Ideophile:
P.S. If Bloggingheads is keeping Ann on the site because fireworks and females produce hits, why not team her up with Jane Hamisher? That would be pretty explosive.

They were teamed up in September: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/14176

Quoting AemJeff: It would be interesting to see if this pair of very inward, contemplative, slow talkers could draw each other out sufficiently. I think the irony quotient in that encounter might approach critical mass.

Bingo. You said it better than I had even thought it out. I was thinking mainly of Loury's age, experience, and presence being a better foil to Derb.

Watch the first two and last two sections of the last Althouse/Goldberg vlog, or if you're pressed for time, the last section: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20965

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: It occurs to me that the problem with Althouse is really that she essentially games the choice of interlocutors. Either you match her with someone patient and nice -- and she walks all over them, or you match her more fairly with someone who will actually take her down -- I bet Eric Alterman could shred her into a million little pieces. But I don't think she'd be willing to do a diavlog with someone who would really fight back, and if she were willing, the diavlog would just be a shouting match and Ann would storm off the set.
If you're not going to dump her outright, please give her the option of talking with someone who can clean her clock in the kind of all-in fight she prefers or not talking on BHtv at all!

Greetings, Sir Noggin. I think that in the exception of very rare cases, Althouse is a civil head, and does not walk all over patient and nice partners. I think she would more than hold her own against Alterman.

Quoting look: Watch the first two and last two sections of the last Althouse/Goldberg vlog, or if you're pressed for time, the last section:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20965

Why are you suggesting that? If there's something that you find particularly meaningful in those sections, letting us know could help.

Quoting Ocean: Why are you suggesting that? If there's something that you find particularly meaningful in those sections, letting us know could help.

I was supplying it as a reference to Althouse's statement that she had reviewed this vlog, felt she had been too patient, and had decided to give more push-back this time.

Quoting look: I was supplying it as a reference to Althouse's statement that she had reviewed this vlog, felt she had been too patient, and had decided to give more push-back this time.

I would hesitate to get into another lengthy exchange about this topic as I have already expressed my opinion in other comments. However, I would ask you, what do you think "too patient" means in this context? And specifically, how is that considered a flaw that has to be corrected?

Quoting look:

Quoting AemJeff: On what exactly? "Chick with a gun" is a pretty obvious male fantasy.

Please elaborate.

53 The attached image (click thumbnail to embiggen) shows some of the designs available on T-shirts currently for sale at Conservative Paradise (via). And I think this site pretty much speaks for itself. [Added] See also this "Arsenal Gun Babe of the Day."

Quoting Ocean: I would hesitate to get into another lengthy exchange about this topic as I have already expressed my opinion in other comments. However, I would ask you, what do you think "too patient" means in this context? And specifically, how is that considered a flaw that has to be corrected?

As I said, I posted it to give a reference point to Althouse's statement, so each could make their own evaluation. Perhaps by 'too patient' she meant she allowed herself to be interrupted too frequently and allowed Goldberg to emote too much about her feeling about Palin without exploring her underlying motivations. Or perhaps any motivations Goldberg revealed to us, Althouse wanted her to defend.

Quoting look: As I said, I posted it to give a reference point to Althouse's statement, so each could make their own evaluation. Perhaps by 'too patient' she meant she allowed herself to be interrupted too frequently and allowed Goldberg to emote too much about her feeling about Palin without exploring her underlying motivations. Or perhaps any motivations Goldberg revealed to us, Althouse wanted her to defend.

Thank you for your clarification. I see what you're trying to point out. However, I'm not too interested in following diavloggers quarrels. I do find it interesting (although sometimes it can become unpleasant) to observe their styles of argumentation and interaction.

Quoting claymisher: Did anybody link to this yet? James Fallows notes media FAIL on Obama's China trip:

Turns out (via Chuck Todd's new #1 non-fan) Fallows has a four-parter up on this (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4), the second of which you linked to. Also, Fallows is interviewed on this week's On The Media, discussing the same topic. [Added] The page for the whole show for this week is here. Stream or download. [Added2] On another topic, but also from this week's OTM, see here.

Right, she needs to be paired with someone who does not push her buttons. At least, many of us are getting tired of the de-bunking the prevailing liberal whatever dynamic. We get it already. Let us - finally - move on to adult level conversations that wander in a bit further into the intellectual forest.

I don't know about that. Alterman usually brings alot more data and history (and substance) to his arguments than Althouse. They both may have strong personalities that make them effective at arguing, that's about all they have in common. Besides apparently his invitation has already been refused by her.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I don't know about that. Alterman usually brings alot more data and history (and substance) to his arguments than Althouse. They both may have strong personalities that make them effective at arguing, that's about all they have in common. Besides apparently his invitation has already been refused by her.

O/T, but if you follow Twin's link to Eric's full post, after he finishes discussing Althouse, there's a link to a 2007 Michael Bérubé post on CT (repeated here) that's worth reading.

Michelle has nothing to apologize vis-a-vis her looks vrs. Sarah Palin. Enjoy.

Quoting bjkeefe: O/T, but if you follow Twin's link to Eric's full post, after he finishes discussing Althouse, there's a link to a 2007 Michael Bérubé post on CT (repeated here) that's worth reading.

I think I'd missed that when it first appeared. Good read. dsquared in the comments is interesting too. BTW, in that post Berube mentions a book he's writing. It came out just last week! I'm going to order it right now. http://www.amazon.com/Left-War-Cultu.../dp/0814799841

Quoting claymisher: I think I'd missed that when it first appeared. Good read. dsquared in the comments is interesting too.

BTW, in that post Berube mentions a book he's writing. It came out just last week! I'm going to order it right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Left-War-Cultu.../dp/0814799841

Thanks for pointing that out. I had neglected to skim the comments. Thanks also for the reminder about MB's new book. Yeah, I'd like to read that, too.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I don't know about that. Alterman usually brings alot more data and history (and substance) to his arguments than Althouse. They both may have strong personalities that make them effective at arguing, that's about all they have in common. Besides apparently his invitation has already been refused by her.

Hi, Eb. It's good to see those old Phorum pages. This is from the original article:

A few months ago, Bob Wright asked me to do a BHTV with Ms. Althouse. I knew nothing about her at all, except that she accused a female liberal blogger who met with Bill Clinton of having breasts ... or something. I never could figure out what it was really. I said "OK," with the caveat that I wanted her to talk about why she, as a woman, thought it appropriate to call attention to the fact that another woman standing near Clinton happen to have breasts. I mean, my daughter will have breasts one day, and I want to be able to prepare her in case she needs to apologize for them. When Althouse emailed me to discuss potential topics, I said what I said to Bob, which was that we could talk about anything, as long as it included that topic. She

Quoting look: All that said, I'm not taking sides on the JVBC. I thought someone in the 'Meet Mrs. Meade' thread alleged that Althouse ultimately admitted to stirring up the controversy hurt to the Clintons, although no supporting link was provided. But I can't find it now.

Yeah, that was me. Althouse has said on her blog more than once that she generated distracting controversies (onion rings and carrots, the breast controversy, the subliminal "******" on the child's pajamas, etc.) with the specific intent of harming the Clintons, particularly to undermine Hillary Clinton's efforts to win the Democratic nomination. She was quite honest about it. The first time she admitted this was sometime in the days following the Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy. The next time was following one of the stunts she pulled during the Democratic primaries -- probably either the carrots/onion rings event, or the "******" event, although there may have been some other manufactured controversy I've now forgotten. The second time she was honest about why she was stirring up trouble for the Clintons on false pretenses, she expressed disappointment that it hadn't gone as well as she hoped, and in fact had backfired on her (people

Quoting TwinSwords: ...
And no, I don't have any links for you. I read both posts at the time they were posted and have absolutely zero interest in plowing through her archives looking for the evidence. Feel free to believe I'm making it all up.

Ok...then I freely think you are full of chit and what you are doing here is no different than what you accused AA of.

Quoting Whatfur: Ok...then I freely think you are full of chit and what you are doing here is no different than what you accused AA of.

You can probably guess how much I care.

Quoting TwinSwords: You can probably guess how much I care.

Enough to respond, I "guess".

Quoting Whatfur: Enough to respond, I "guess".

Sometimes I think you vastly overestimate the importance of making, or the energy required to compose, a short reply. And as jolly as you seem to become when folks do respond to you, you sure seem to spend a lot your own time and energy reacting to other people's posts.

Quoting AemJeff: Sometimes I think you vastly overestimate the importance of making, or the energy required to compose, a short reply. And as jolly as you seem to become when folks do respond to you, you sure seem to spend a lot your own time and energy reacting to other people's posts.

Actually, in spite of you playing into the same hand, you are incorrect on all counts. I responded to TwinSwords for exactly the reason I wrote, to point out the fact that he was working, without bothering to provide validation, to dishonor Althouse in the same manner he was accusing her of dishonoring Clinton. If he had provided links and proved that what he was saying was something more than caustic rumor then I would not have responded at all. I was not fishing for a snotty comeback, just so I could return one (and get a bonus pile-on from you). I was actually fishing for him to back up his bullshit. If he did so and it actually matched his innuendo I would have apologized. If he just did not reply it would have ended there with him knowing that there are some here

Quoting Whatfur: If he just did not reply it would have ended there with him knowing that there are some here who are not going to let him get away with that kind of bullshit.

Hey, that's perfectly fair. I don't expect you to take my word for it. I think there might be some people here in the forum who will take my word for it, based on the fact that I've established relationships with them, but I certainly would not expect you to be one of them. I'm well aware that the highest standard for forum conduct is to support every claim with evidence. But, again, to be perfectly honest, I just don't give enough of a damn to spend the time necessary to do that in this case. So you'll have to take the advice I gave in my first reply to Look: Decide for yourself if you want to believe me. I will tell people what I know, and it's up to them to believe or not believe me. I actually did try once, in a different discussion about her, to find the posts I referred to. But because Althouse posts so much material and because

Quoting TwinSwords: Hey, that's perfectly fair...

Thank you. Then I can only suggest that you think twice before producing libelous statements when you are not willing to back them up with the facts...that, IMHO, is not "fair". The memory is a funny thing when prejudice is involved.

Quoting Whatfur: Thank you.

Then I can only suggest that you think twice before producing libelous statements when you are not willing to back them up with the facts...that, IMHO, is not "fair". The memory is a funny thing when prejudice is involved.

LOL. If I get sued for libel, I'll be quite happy to back them up.

Quoting Whatfur:

Quoting TwinSwords: Hey, that's perfectly fair...

Thank you.

Then I can only suggest that you think twice before producing libelous statements when you are not willing to back them up with the facts...that, IMHO, is not "fair". The memory is a funny thing when prejudice is involved.

Give a wingnut an inch, he thinks he has the right to sue you for mentioning the metric system.

Quoting bjkeefe: Give a wingnut an inch, he thinks he has the right to sue you for mentioning the metric system.

Sometimes I think you vastly overestimate the importance of making, or the energy required to compose, a short reply. And as jolly as you seem to become when folks do respond to you, you sure seem to spend a lot your own time and energy reacting to other people's posts.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)

Quoting Whatfur: Sometimes I think you vastly overestimate the importance of making, or the energy required to compose, a short reply. And as jolly as you seem to become when folks do respond to you, you sure seem to spend a lot your own time and energy reacting to other people's posts.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)

If you're going to fake the logo, at least include the link!

Quoting bjkeefe: Turns out (via Chuck Todd's new #1 non-fan) Fallows has a four-parter up on this (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4), the second of which you linked to. [...]

DougJ calls attention to part 4, as follows:

Dirty Chinese-wannabe hippie

James Fallows responds here to Chuck Todd’s claim that Fallows and other Asia-based journalists should stop whining about NBC’s shitty coverage of the president’s Asia trip. Fallows shows altogether too much tact and restraint for my tastes, but it’s worth reading.

When Glenn Beck complains that the press didn’t pay enough attention to a video of college students dressed up as pimps and hos, the Washington Post and New York Times performed acts of contrition and assigned reporter to keep track of whatever Beck was saying in the future. When an acclaimed journalist (and one even working for an Official Publication in this case) criticizes coverage of meetings between the United States and the most populous nation on earth, that is politically-motivated whining that should be mocked and ignored.

That’s where we’re at as a country right now.

And a follow-up, of sorts, here: "Afflicting the comfortable."

Quoting bjkeefe: Turns out (via Chuck Todd's new #1 non-fan) Fallows has a four-parter up on this (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4), the second of which you linked to.

And now available: part 5 and part 6. (h/t: Anne Laurie)

god ann althouse is soo stupid...obama is not a man of action and just thinks????...what!....Look at all the crap obama has done that has got conservatives up in a bunch...stimulus package, bank bailouts, healthcare bill moving through congress...looks to me like ann althouse is becoming a right wing radio lemming instead of thinking for herself.

Yes the stimulus has worked so well the politicians are discussing the dire need for another one but they daren't cal it stimulus because the current one is not recognized, by the ignorant redneck rubes, as has having preformed the task it was supposed to have achieved. And that bank bailout has worked so well that the FDIC is now running in the red from the record number of bank failures, but the big boys, at the largest banking institutions, are getting their bonuses except where the banking Czar has made it illegal and once again it is ignorant redneck rubes that haven't been able to see the brilliance of it. Not to mention the mounting negative support that the health care reform effort is currently experiencing, because those ignorant redneck rubes are not willing to support the debt level, it will require, the additional cost that they think they will accrue and further intrusion of government into their health care. Other than that I think you hit the nail on the head.

Quoting bjkeefe: And now available: part 5 and part 6.

(h/t: Anne Laurie)

More Fallows on Obama in China:

But remember the moment when Obama turned to Ambassador Jon Huntsman and said more or less, "Jon, did any questions come in via the internet?" I now have heard from enough different informed sources to be comfortable saying that the Chinese government did not know this was coming, and that the ensuing discussion about the Great Firewall was not at all according to their script. Jeremy Goldkorn adds a note about that question -- whose answer, as I mentioned earlier, has the potential to resonate within China. Goldkorn says:
"The Great FireWall question at the Shanghai town hall came directly from the blogger briefing arranged by the Embassy and consulates in Shanghai and Guangzhou.

"I attended the briefing and live tweeted it. The bloggers included Anti and Bei Feng, two of the loudest voices calling for open media in China at the moment, but also Rao Jin from AntiCNN.com. The most common question, asked several times by different bloggers, was if Obama knew about the Great FireWall and if he would do something about it."

Most Americans don't know about

While I notice that you provided a link to an opinion piece that places great significance on the interview and the paper of choice but the interview itself is not linked. I see no particular brilliance or great act of subtlety in trying to reach the largest audience possible, that is what all politicians strive for, and to believe that there is no government control over the content is naive. Because it has been allowed to peruse stories of graft and corruption, that makes it no less a tool of the government than the People's Daily or CCTV, as one of Hu Jintao's pet projects is his anti corruption campaign. Of course this is not the first time China has gone on an anti-corruption campaign and as long as it serves the purposes of the leadership the paper will be allowed to pursue stories that further the leaders purpose. Yet there are boundaries within which the paper has leeway to do this and I'm sure the editors are fairly sure where those boundaries are and know better than to cross

Obama answer to the fire wall question

AMBASSADOR HUNTSMAN: That's right. And not surprisingly, "in a country with 350 million Internet users and 60 million bloggers, do you know of the firewall?" And second, "should we be able to use Twitter freely" -- is the question.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I noticed that young people -- they're very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone.

But I am a big believer in technology and I'm a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves.That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity.
And so I've always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I'm a big supporter of non-censorship. This is part of the tradition of the United States that I discussed before, and I recognize that different countries have different traditions. I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet -- or unrestricted Internet

Quoting piscivorous: So it took President Obama what 9 paragraphs to say freedom of speech is a good thing while President Bush did it in two sentences and threw in freedom of religion to boot.

If the names were reversed, you'd be saying, "Look how great Bush is for expounding and expanding on an idea, showing by his detailed and thoughtful answer how much importance he places on this belief. And look how Obama shows he doesn't care with a tossed-off two sentence answer -- what a lame."

Quoting piscivorous: I personally like the little personal antidotes, but to hail this as unprecedented seems to be a stretch.

And how did you feel about the anecdotes?

Actually a statement of supporting freedom of speech is a statement about supporting the freedom of speech whether it is a couple of sentences or 10 pages long. I do believe that we have had the discussion before about verbiage before so that you know that I tend to prefer concise over verbose but that is just my tastes and others will prefer the latter. As for the antidotes I believe I said that I liked them so I must conclude that your comprehension skills are lacking, which I don't, or there is something else behind your question and with enough time and space you will get around to asking it.

It's amazing to me how one sided this whole discussion was. Basically, Obama is the Messiah, and Palin is the Devil. On the one hand, you have Ann who is no SP lover saying "Let's be level headed in our assessment," on the other you have a liberal who feels she has to say nothing in defense of her position. The idea of being even handed is not necessary, as was pointed out multiple times by Ann. Seems like the AGW debate to me. You have people who feel it is righteous to shut down the opposition. Who knows, maybe the leftists are right, but let's see the whole scientific picture, including all the data and how the models work and their assumptions. Finally, I do want to say to both Michelle and Ann, you are both beautiful women.

is vacuity the core of the endless left/right, east-west elite/fly-over people flip-flop/culture-war machine. the gad-fly has stung again, now i know that reality has a liberal bias! ouch!! obama is the wind beneath palin's wings!! the most eloquent reasoning on a false dichotomy,however nuanced,is high sounding nonsense. i repeat:
if there is nothing so uncommon as common-sense, then,what must be common is uncommon-sense! uncommon-sense opens the door for incredible unintended consequences by seemingly intelligent people. depending upon how an argument is framed, neither party has to be right or wrong! nuance for nuance sake is just intellectual masturbation, the sacred cow of intellectual elite's. the power elite's consolidate their power, while their minions wallow in their cognitive fog, clinging tightly to their relative positions in the sub-power-elite pecking order, forever divided, forever conquered !!!!

women and men(both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn't they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain
(from some e e cummings poem I used to know...seemed to fit)

Quoting Whatfur: women and men(both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn't they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain

(from some e e cummings poem I used to know...seemed to fit)

I read that poem today...I've been reading it lately.