Nice diovlogue. They both listened respectfully and even the (few) interruptions were generally well done. It's valid to interrupt when someone is repeating himself, has stopped contributing substance, avoided a question or veered off on a tangent. But too often people interrupt too soon. I thought both did a good job of communicating.

Bob: I guess I owe you a little bit of an apology for my comments under your diavlog that aired yesterday. I'm not sure if Ari made the case better than you did or if I just needed to hear it from a different voice, but I concede the main point that I think you've been trying to drive home for your last half-dozen diavlogs with Mickey: Obama is going a little far on some things in his attempt to broaden his appeal. That said, I still think you're failing, both in your own diavlogs and in the overall selection of diavloggers, to take an adequate critical look at John McCain. It's all well and good to scrutinize Obama, and to criticize him when he deserves it, but not at the expense of completely neglecting the other candidate.

Does anyone know whether the wiretaps that Bush ordered the telecoms to do in the past would be illegal under the new bill to be passed? I have a hard time getting upset about immunity if the alleged telecom behavior would be *legal* under the new law. I see that as independent of whether the new law is appropriate or not. A lot depends on how the algorithmic vacuum works. If it automatically excludes from analysis all intra-US communication, then a vacuum is probably appropriate.

Quoting bjkeefe: Obama is going a little far on some things in his attempt to broaden his appeal.

"A little far"? Definitely one of the great understatements of the 2008 Presidential Election cycle. A more appropriate translation: "He's turned into a total whore, a mere empty suit, a man with no convictions." There is no principle so fundamental that he won't turn away from it for the sake of votes. There is no controversy so slight that he won't dump his spokesperson overboard and in essence endorse the distortions of the Republicans to distance himself from it. Yes, he represents "Change" (like a chameleon). And yes, he represents "Hope," cuz that's the only prayer Democrats have that Obama won't piss on them in quest of a half-dozen more right-wing votes. If he gets elected, I can't wait to see what his Health Care reform will look like. More than likely it will be co-authored by Managed Care and Medical Insurance Companies, sort of like Bush's bill on meds for seniors. Barack has already surpassed my most pessimistic imaginings about his character. How incredibly embarrassing for the new generation of wide-eyed Democratic idealists who were suckered into thinking Obama was out to change the status quo. Rolling on the floor, laughing,
EW

Quoting Eastwest: Barack has already surpassed my most pessimistic imaginings about his character. How incredibly embarrassing for the new generation of wide-eyed Democratic idealists who were suckered into thinking Obama was out to change the status quo.

Rolling on the floor, laughing,
EW

How magnanimous of you meditation man. Once again you're all-knowing. You were also the guy who was certain that he would be creamed in a landslide? You win either way huh?
F%$k hope... pessimism reigns.
Harsh? No... just keeping you honest.
Still only one man's opinion.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bob:

I guess I owe you a little bit of an apology for my comments under your diavlog that aired yesterday. I'm not sure if Ari made the case better than you did or if I just needed to hear it from a different voice, but I concede the main point that I think you've been trying to drive home for your last half-dozen diavlogs with Mickey: Obama is going a little far on some things in his attempt to broaden his appeal.

That said, I still think you're failing, both in your own diavlogs and in the overall selection of diavloggers, to take an adequate critical look at John McCain. It's all well and good to scrutinize Obama, and to criticize him when he deserves it, but not at the expense of completely neglecting the other candidate.

John McCain... who's that? Maybe your personal appeal, with the usual kindness and respect will get some results. He threw you half a bone yesterday. Two mentions of McCain that mickey chose to ignore and Bob failed to follow through. Totaling about five seconds. Just like Fox - fair and balanced. You decide. Bob references McCain and Mickey prays and

Good for you, Brendan, to reconsider your opinion. I agree that Bob and Mickey have been relatively easy on McBomb. Part of that is because on the big issues of war and peace it's hard to take McCain seriously at all. What's to debate? Is it really a good idea to bomb the fuck out of Iran or to stay in Iraq for another century? The other part is that Mickey stands to the right of McCain on some issues, notably immigration reform and perhaps also on Guantánamo and torture (depends which flip-flopin' McCain you listen to). Mickey will be a perpetual critic of Obama because no matter how centrist Obama becomes, Mickey will still be right of him. Mickey would only be happy with an Obama who beat up blacks (dump affirmative action) and Mexicans (no legalization for immigrant families).

Since you guys didn't mention a few of the Obama moves rightward, here's the top ten I posted yesterday, plus two. 1) Telecom immunity
2) Death penalty
3) Timeline for withdrawal from Iraq
4) One-on-one talks with "Axis-of-evil" leaders
5) AIPAC suckup on Israel
6) Support for the SC right-wing on guns
7) Support for faith-based initiatives
8) Sporting of flag pin and speechifying on nationalism
9) Maneuvering for bragging rights on welfare reform
10) Just kidding about NAFTA
11) " " about campaign finance reform
12) We need a bigger army (Yes, we can have your MoveOn baby after all)

Quoting Wonderment:
Mickey will be a perpetual critic of Obama because no matter how centrist Obama becomes, Mickey will still be right of him. Mickey would only be happy with an Obama who beat up blacks (dump affirmative action) and Mexicans (no legalization for immigrant families).

How outrageous!!! I dareth you to substantiate your hyperbole.

Wonderment: January already rebutted the first ten pretty well. I'd say to your added two:

11) [Just kidding] about campaign finance reform

The only thing here that bothers me is that I wish he'd made a less definitive statement early on. As far as I'm concerned about the change of mind on this, I have no other problems with it. In fact, I was rooting for him to do exactly what he did before he did it. Somewhere on this forum, there's a comment or two of mine to that effect, I'm pretty sure. Idealistically, he's getting a ton of small donations, which says a lot about the spirit of public financing. Pragmatically, I am completely happy that he can build a war chest to combat the next bunch of fat-cat-financed wingnut 527s that are sure to arise later in the campaign.

12) We need a bigger army (Yes, we can have your MoveOn baby after all)

I don't want to occupy Iraq for the next 100 years, but I do, in general, think we need a bigger army. We can't have the National Guard stretched the way it has been, and I loathe the movement towards mercenaries and other privatization. I'd also like those in active

EW: You completely undermine your point of view with your exaggerations. You can inflate trivialities all you want, but you're missing the two most important points: Obama remains a way better choice than McCain, and he'd never win if he ran as the darling of the netroots. It's more on your head than his that he isn't some sin-free magical progressive pony. He never claimed to be. And, as graz has already noted, your personality doesn't help your case, either. Grow up a little, will ya?

Quoting Wonderment: I agree that Bob and Mickey have been relatively easy on McBomb.

Part of that is because on the big issues of war and peace it's hard to take McCain seriously at all. What's to debate? Is it really a good idea to bomb the fuck out of Iran or to stay in Iraq for another century?

Yeah, I see that. I think I alluded to this in speculating last week about the possible reasons that Bob never discusses McCain. Still, though, there are things to talk about that come out about McCain, week after week. And hard as this might be to believe, there is even other news that doesn't involve one of the two candidates. I look to BH.tv to talk about something other than what leads the MSM coverage.

January already rebutted the first ten pretty well.

My point is not to necessarily take sides on all these issues. For example, on faith-based initiatives, I probably agree with Obama. The impoverished community here in my county did get a lot of new money from Bush that went to good programs run by churches. Also, I think free trade agreements are important and NAFTA can be retooled. What I'm wondering, however, is why we are learning all these new things now. Didn't we just have months and months of interviews, debates, speeches, forums and papers to clarify positions and to underscore differences among the primary candidates? Didn't we used to disparage flag pins? Didn't we used to flaunt our anti-death penalty credentials? Didn't we used to hold a firm line on abortion rights for women (#13)? Didn't we used to have a non-Scalia view of handguns? I'm not saying the dirty dozen list suggests a radical change, or that Obama can't make a case for each and every item on it. The cumulative effect, however, is a unmistakable shift rightward. I'm disappointed. I think I've made it clear on a number of occasions that I will campaign for Obama and

Wonderment: I take your point, and thank you for continuing to reaffirm at the end of your itemized complaints where you stand in the end. I'm not particularly thrilled about some of the specifics, either. I can only hope that Obama and his campaign strategists see these things as necessary to win the campaign. To that end, though, I'll repeat my wish that the uber-progressives and ultra-liberals tone down their griping. It's one thing to make a strong case about a specific important issue, as Ari did on the telecom immunity vote. It's quite another thing to keep rehashing every little personal complaint ad nauseam. There gets to be a point where we have to recognize that the primary process showed that even Democrats don't want the most progressive/liberal candidate for their nominee, that the country as a whole certainly won't vote for such a person, and that incessant carping ends up doing nothing but hurting our own guy. I watched it happen with Gore and I watched it happen with Kerry. And I certainly watched what happened as a result: complete and utter disaster, aka eight years of George Bush. You up for

Quoting Wonderment: My point is not to necessarily take sides on all these issues. For example, on faith-based initiatives, I probably agree with Obama. The impoverished community here in my county did get a lot of new money from Bush that went to good programs run by churches. Also, I think free trade agreements are important and NAFTA can be retooled.

What I'm wondering, however, is why we are learning all these new things now. Didn't we just have months and months of interviews, debates, speeches, forums and papers to clarify positions and to underscore differences among the primary candidates? Didn't we used to disparage flag pins? Didn't we used to flaunt our anti-death penalty credentials? Didn't we used to hold a firm line on abortion rights for women (#13)? Didn't we used to have a non-Scalia view of handguns?

I'm not saying the dirty dozen list suggests a radical change, or that Obama can't make a case for each and every item on it. The cumulative effect, however, is a unmistakable shift rightward. I'm disappointed.

I think I've made it clear on a number of occasions that I will campaign for Obama and for everyone who can grab his coattails. It

AemJeff:

There isn't a damn thing wrong with trying to hold Obama's feet to the flame, as long as we don't go so far as to elect McCain.

Exactly right. My point is, though, that it's hard to know where that line is. I'm convinced that the only way Obama loses this year is if the Democrats repeat their fondness for self-immolation amid the media's eagerness to fan the flames. Given recent history, I am far more worried about that possibility than I am about Obama turning into the next George Bush. And, to reiterate what I said to Wonderment, I'd probably have added my voice to the complaints about Obama's vote on the telecom bill had the netroots been a little more selective in the battles they picked. I'm convinced that with each additional item added to the list, the likelihood that any single one of them gets acknowledged drops accordingly. I think the last funny skit I ever saw on Saturday Night Live, years ago, was a fake protest march. It started out as people marching against one paramount issue. Might have been the invasion of Iraq. Quickly, though, everyone who got a camera pointed

Quoting graz: You were also the guy who was certain that he would be creamed in a landslide?

Graz, I never said this, nor did I even infer it. You are making things up. If you don't want to confront the realities of Obama's character or lack of it (to me sort of a contradiction in terms, like "Military Intelligence"), that's fine, but please do not impute to me things I never said. EW

Quoting Eastwest: Graz,

I never said this, nor did I even infer it.

You are making things up.

You should be a little more careful in your attempts to deny history when we have the Google. One quick pass over this site using the search terms "eastwest landslide" returned, among others, the following excerpts (all bolding and underlining original).

Quoting Eastwest: Sad as it may be, Pinkerton is correct about the likelihood of a McCain win and the reasons for its virtual inevitability.

Quoting Eastwest: ... this when Obama, still stuck with his Rev. Wright ball-and-chain has just proven beyond a doubt that he's a general election loser.

Quoting Eastwest: The Dem insiders are frightened at the prospect of pissing off the large tide of Blackberry-jockeys and blacks enthusiastic about Barack and so really don't mind saying, "Oh, what the hell," going ahead and nominating him even knowing full well it means a general-election loss.

Quoting Eastwest: Hillary bit Obama's butt in Indiana, territory he was claiming as his own territory till only recently. Votes from Florida and Michigan have not yet been counted.

Primary reason for Obama's winning big in NC was just racial-loyalty voting (98% of blacks). Black racial loyalty voting won't be so pivotal

it's hard to know where that line is.

And that's an interesting question isn't it? To a certain extent I think the leverage available leftwards is limited this cycle. We definitely need to pick our battles with the thought in mind that the candidate is going to have to pick his pretty carefully. The flip side is that some pressure ought to be brought to bear ideologically, or as a political force the left is nullified. Negotiating this thicket could make for an interesting conversation. I've named what's most important to me in the near term (privacy) anybody else care to share their short list?

Quoting bjkeefe: EW:

You completely undermine your point of view with your exaggerations. You can inflate trivialities all you want...

BJkeefe's "trivialities": 1) Obama's support for death penalty (death row is mostly black, btw);
2) Obama's support for wedding theistic religions to US government;
3) Obama's abandonment of the Iraq-withdrawal imperative through which he cheated himself to the nomination;
4) Obama's support for citizen wire-tapping;
5, etc.) Obama's flips on campaign finance reform, even minimal gun-regulation, etc. This is good, BJ, that you now reveal for all to observe what a clone you are of Obama. No principle is too important to compromise on so long as you can eek out a few more votes by shrugging, smirking, and turning your back on it. And if somebody dares to challenge you on it, then just attribute their concerns to "immaturity." Just tell them to "grow up." Pardon me if I don't feel inclined to take your counsel on what constitutes the ideal personality. Intellectual and moral prostitution don't impress me much. Quite fitting that you ink your commitment to this on the 4th of July. What a patriot! EW

AemJeff:

The flip side is that some pressure ought to be brought to bear ideologically, or as a political force the left is nullified.

Again, I think this is true only up to a point. Go beyond that, and the clout is diminished -- a Democrat running in the general election finds it all too easy to run away from a horde bearing a thousand-item long list of demands. As for your short list request, I share your views on the telecom vote, as I already noted. I can't think of any others that come close. Personally, of course, I'd like him to turn down the Jesus talk; to have said, "Wes Clark is entitled to express his opinion, and by the way, he's right;" and to make one campaign appearance wearing a suit made entirely of flag lapel pins. But I understand what's involved with getting elected in this country full of yahoos.

EW: You completely undermine your point of view with your excessive use of boldface. Grow up a little, will ya? And if you expect me to engage you seriously, you might come back to Earth. Your points 1-5 are so overstated that they might as well be lies. As for your snippy little closing remark regarding today's date, well, you know what Dr. Johnson said. Not to mention Mr. Bierce and Mr. Mencken. (cf. penultimate paragraph here)

Quoting bjkeefe: You should be a little more careful in your attempts to deny history when we have the Google. One quick pass over this site using the search terms "eastwest landslide" returned, among others, the following excerpts (all bolding and underlining original).

What a con-artist you are BJ. There is nothing in there that suggests anything about "a landslide." I stand by all of those earlier statements. I still do not think that Obama can win, but again, I never suggested an idiot like McCain would win by a landslide. Just another example of your disinterest in holding yourself to truthful statements: You knew damn well when you hit the "Submit Reply" on this post that it was a dishonest allegation and yet you posted it anyway knowing full well the unobservant reader would not notice your digital slight-of-hand. EW

Quoting Eastwest: What a con-artist you are BJ. There is nothing in there that suggests anything about "a landslide."

[...]

Just another example of your disinterest in holding yourself to truthful statements: You knew damn well when you hit the "Submit Reply" on this post that it was a dishonest allegation and yet you posted it anyway knowing full well the unobservant reader would not notice your digital slight-of-hand.

Yes, wasn't it dishonest of me? To cut and paste your words exactly? With links pointing to the original source, in each case? And didn't I just pile on with my digital sleight of hand by saying this?

All right, so the exact word "landslide" does not appear in these excerpts. Funny what did show up, though, isn't it? And I remind you of your assertion:

I never said this, nor did I even infer it.

The truth is, Eastwest, you have been predicting for months now that Obama could not win, had no way of winning, could not possibly win, would certainly lose, etc. The links to the full posts are attached to the excerpts. Readers can judge for themselves if your remarks infer a "landslide." My sense is that they do. Just admit it. You got busted.

Quoting bjkeefe: EW:

You completely undermine your point of view with your excessive use of boldface.

Grow up a little, will ya?

And if you expect me to engage you seriously, you might come back to Earth. Your points 1-5 are so overstated that they might as well be lies.

Typical for you BJ, that lacking the intellectual equipment or stock of facts by which you might refute the statements, you retreat into knit-picking over issues of digital typography while attributing perfectly valid concerns over Obama's huge about-faces on issues to supposed immaturity on the part of the challenger. Did you learn this line of argumentation from Bill O'Reilly or was it Rush Limbaugh? You've got a great future ahead of you BJ. Maybe when you go off to college you can become editor of the Campus Republican Zine. EW

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, wasn't it dishonest of me? To cut and paste your words exactly? With links pointing to the original source, in each case?

And didn't I just pile on with my digital sleight of hand by saying this?

The truth is, Eastwest, you have been predicting for months now that Obama could not win, had no way of winning, could not possibly win, would certainly lose, etc. The links to the full posts are attached to the excerpts. Readers can judge for themselves if your remarks infer a "landslide." My sense is that they do.

Just admit it. You got busted.

Again, you know people will not read the full posts so that there's no danger that anyone will notice you're deliberately lying. Again, I stick by my statements, none of which suggested anything like a landslide. Admit it. You're doing what liars always do: Lying to cover up a lie. EW

Quoting Eastwest: Typical for you BJ, that lacking the intellectual equipment or stock of facts by which you might refute the statements, you retreat into knit-picking over issues of digital typography ...

Typical of you, Eastwest, that your brain is so dominated by pomposity that you can't recognize a joke. I have already explained why I won't engage with you on your claims. Since you seem to have missed it the first time around, I'll repeat it: You have shown no evidence of reason on anything to do with Obama, for months now. All you want to is preen about your predictions and bloviate about doomsday scenarios. You're too far gone to take seriously.

Quoting Eastwest: Graz,

I never said this, nor did I even infer it.

You are making things up.

If you don't want to confront the realities of Obama's character or lack of it (to me sort of a contradiction in terms, like "Military Intelligence"), that's fine, but please do not impute to me things I never said.

EW

My apologies, I did overstate. But the point remains. I was working from memory... and it failed - partially. Is it really a stretch to say that you were foretelling his doom (electorally), even if you didn't specify the differential? The character issue is hardly one that I could pretend to be expert about. We both have our opinions or intuitions, but your over-baked examples of his exact compass points on those issues is highly subjective and overstated. I think that you are determined to realize your thesis of plasticity of personality. Maybe you're stretching too far to to find validation? I just thought that your insults should be checked. Especially, since I usually respect your reasoning. Beyond that, I think we are political allies, that would like to realize similar ends.

Quoting Eastwest: Again, you know people will not read the full posts so that there's no danger that anyone will notice you're deliberately lying.

Thanks for attributing the power of omnipotence to me, but (better sit down for this) I think you're wrong. Anyone who has sympathy for your point of view will certainly follow at least a couple of links, to see if they can catch me in having quoted you out of context. You could even do this yourself.

Admit it. You're doing what liars always do: Lying to cover up a lie.

Don't see how I was lying. I quoted your words exactly as you typed them, I concluded by acknowledging that the exact word "landslide" did not appear in the excerpts, and then I expressed an opinion that the words that you did use nevertheless amounted to saying exactly that. Unless you're trying to claim that your many predictions of certain victory for McCain all should have been understood to read "certain [narrow] victory," you don't have a case. And if you're going to try to make that claim, you'll probably just get laughed at. Whoops. There goes that omnipotence thing again.

...you BJ...retreat into knit-picking over issues of digital typography while attributing perfectly valid concerns over Obama's huge about-faces on issues to supposed immaturity on the part of the challenger.

I would like to submit my ent