i'm in full agreement with the above post; i pop in to bloggingheads.tv every day hoping for a loury/mcwhorter appearance.

Loury seems to assume that things would have been better with his girl Clinton. Who herself was just as much a product of image vs. substance. (her alleged foreign policy "experience" consisted of a variety of trips as first lady).

thoughtful commentary. My current question: How come the identification of Obama as 'mixed race' is so underplayed. With his history and background, it is more accurate as a point in fact. This framing of Obama as "black" seems so....20th century, and limits the discussion to a backward looking context of black-only aspirations. this is a loss to the multi-cultural reality that is America 2008. Perhaps it also plays to 'ground' the perceptual argument, and to tamp down the post-race definition that polled so well in the primaries.

I was thinking the same thing. He is infatuated with Clinton and his anger towards Obama is obvious every diavlog. I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn. Also, Clarence Thomas is a horrible justice. He has not asked a question in over two years, who is an ideologue.

And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

Quoting miceelf: And the whole notion that Hillary Clinton would have been having the kind of high-minded disputation about the meaning of evil in taht forum is just laughable. He really doesn't seem to see how unfair and arbitrarily high a standard he is holding Obama to, relative to her.

I'm happy to have Obama be himself, miceelf.

I agree one minute - disagree the next. I see both sides - I see neither side. No matter - these two are the best. Bloggingheads. ever.

"The candidacy is so freighted..." Unlike Hillary's ? Glenn. Get fucking real.

Quoting sp3akthetruth: I I find it funny that I agree with John more often than Glenn when my politics are more inline with Glenn.

I can't fully fathom where Glenn stands politically. Knowing a little about his history and have read some of his work and listening to him on bhtv leaves me unsure? He is clearly focused on the meaning of politics. Not only does he find Obama's approach to politics suspect, if not bankrupt, he admires McCain's saber rattling (Georgia) and Joe Scarborough's regular guy shtik.
I sense a return to his earlier conservative roots, that he is not owning completely.
I think that he shares with John, but for different reasons, a desire to transcend racial politics. But, he can't be any clearer about his resentment of the "Hyde Parkness" that the Obama's represent to him.
He clearly thinks Mccain is "Presidential" enough. And when prompted by John to denounce the likely result of McCain's ascendancy... Nothing but crickets.
Maybe I do fathom his politics, after all.

Mr. Loury mentioned Andrew Bacevich as a prominent critic of the Global War on Terror. He has a new book out and would be a fantastic "get" for Bloggingheads. He's an impressive guy. Powers That Be, please consider approaching him to do a diavlog. Loury and McWhorter are two of my favorite Bloggingheads, and it is always a pleasure to watch them. McWhorter gives me real hope about a potential Obama presidency, in contrast to many of the other pro-Obama Bloggingheads. In this diavlog, however, Loury's point about the Clarence Thomas remark seems dead on. That seems like the last thing Obama would want to raise. Likewise, the whole "cone of silence" thing seems like the petty response of a campaign surprised by the strength of its opponent. Is it too much of a stretch to compare that to the reaction of the Clinton campaign when Obama emerged as a strong challenger? Maybe it is. A brief word on Star Wars... I don't consider myself to be quite the Stuff White People Like type, but if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up

Loury's reactions remind me of some Jewish friends back in 2000 with Lieberman. I remember them saying stuff like, "Who needs the trouble?", "Leave us Jews out of it," and "This is going to hurt us in the end." And I totally understand it. But Obama has too much going for him.

Fantastic. Great to be back in the wonderful world of high quality Bloggingheads discussion. I should've counted to ten yesterday and waited for my BhTV universe to be restored to its proper equilibrium once the pros came back. I take back what I said yesterday--you don't need people from both sides of the spectrum necessarily, just really smart, curious, engaged, thoughtful people. That's it. Smart people equals great discussions, and John and Glenn are at the top of the list. Its such a pleasure to listen to discourse like this--the ideas are the ones that really matter, and the use of language is word perfect. Thanks guys. I don't have literally all day to type out a response to the various arguments and points made, so a general lauding will have to do Alright, can't resist a couple things though First, that maybe John was a little harsh on Herbert--of course the guy is and knows he's smart, way smarter than the average person. Maybe on some level John has something, but I can't imagine Herbert or other African-Americans that are that smart actually thinking they're worse than others. I guess John is saying on some deep-seated psychological

Obama's fitness for the Presidency = Clarence Thomas' fitness for the Supreme Court. No, Glenn. I don't think so. If that made any sense at all, he'd already be toast and you'd be able to vote for your girl in November and wouldn't be harboring this bullshit bitterness toward Barack.

Apparently Glenn's subscription to the Atlantic has run out, or he'd be embarrassed by his persistent Clintonphilia. The funny thing about so much of this discourse is that it's predicated on the notion that Hillary was the smart pol and Obama was an idealistic naif. This turned out to be total bullshit - Hillary couldn't manage a goddam presidential political campaign, i.e. couldn't handle those 3am phone calls in the course of her quest, but Glenn still thinks she was the solution to whatever problems Democrats face. And I have to say that the discussion of Bob Herbert was unbelievably arrogant and guttersniping on the part of both of these guys.

On the "evil" thing - Obama was in a religious forum and he answered the question precisely as any Niebuhrian Christian would answer it in that context. Even Rick Warren, who's a lightweight theologically, "got it." McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons. But for "smart guys", both McWhorter and Loury are showing a certain cluelessness here.

These two are one of the best pairings on BHTV. Well, yes, one might indeed be pessimistic about Obama's chances. (I've been so for over a year now.) What's nice here is to get an airing of the realism underlying the pessimism, one which is not simply stuck in the themes unique to the Primary battle. (Nice to see McWhorter being so out-front about it.) (BTW, fair number of folks here are still stuck in trash-HRC mode. Get over it. The Primary's over, and, no, that's not where Glenn is coming from here, so why slander him with that? Weren't you listening? He's just a realist who like many of us, refused to swig the kool-aid.) In spite of my pessimism about Obama, I hope he chooses Biden as VP (my original Primary preference who could have taken McCain to the cleaners, no problem), gets off his arrogance-and-artifice hobby-horse, and learns how to shoot real bullets. Otherwise, he's as good as dead meat and bound to be the great shame of the Democratic party for decades to come for pulling the big con with no real juice to back it up. Thanks to both. Looking forward to the promised post-convention DV by these two. EW

I am far more over the primary than Loury appears to be. While it's impossible to know the heart of another, he stated he was supporting Clinton earlier numerous times, and his disproportionate bitterness must be coming from SOMEWHERE. I repeat. He's holding Obama to a standard he would not have had for any other politician, and certainly one that Clinton would never live up to. On one hand, he's upset that Obama didn't expositate on the deeper meanings underlying what we mean when we say evil, on the other hand, he admires John McCain's "straight talk" one line answers that contain nothing of substance whatsoever. I'm not a big fan of either of these guys, but Loury was always more sympathetic to me, even during the primaries. But this is getting old. The only way Obama matches Clarence Thomas is if one assumes everything that Clinton (and now McCain) said about him was true. Given that even she didn't believe half of what she was saying, Loury may be the only one who believes that.

if you had asked me about my reaction to Star Wars Episode 1 shortly after I saw it, I might have brought up the Jar Jar Binks thing, as well as the other broad ethnic stereotyping

At the danger of getting a little off topic, my first reaction would have been irritation that Anakin destroys the enemy virtually by accident (same with Jar Jar on the ground). Second probably would have been that Jar Jar was just annoying. If we talked at length about it then we might get the racial stuff. So I have to agree with what John was saying. You might notice it, but to have it be the first thing you mention when someone asks you is a little much. BTW I'm a sucker for horns in music so I like the link you provided.

Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads. Check this out: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html Amy Suilivan is about as non-hysterical as you can find among pundits who follow these things. But she makes a clear-cut case for exactly the type of subliminal shit Herbert was talking about. This is Advertising 101 and to assume McCain's ad guys aren't deep into this is willfuly ignorant. McCain's team are playing ALL of the cards. Scoff at your peril.

Dear My Friends, Here's some straight talk: First off, McWhorter and Loury are both Muslims. Not Islamofascists, but more like Malcolm X types. Race this, race this. That's all they can talk about. It's divisive as heck, my friends. Un-American. My Friends, we are beyond so-called "race" in these UNITED States of America. My whole cabinet might be black. Or white maybe. Or purple. I'm color blind. (And a little hard of hearing, but no signs of dementia. Clean bill of health from my gerontologist.) I am glad these two did take Bob Herbert to task on my Britney/Paris ad. The ad had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, much less miscegenation, which, incidentally, I do not think should be illegal. How many times do I have to say that photomontages of B. Hussein Obama with young blonde sluts who are famous for oral sex porn tapes and/or getting photographed with their legs spread without panties are completely unrelated to black men and sex? Now, as for you, my friend Bcruds,

McCaiin answered it the way a hubristic moron would tackle it. Which also obviously had a certain appeal for "Pastor Rick" for the usual unfortunate reasons.

I don't know what "hubristic" means in Mexican or whatever, but I am no moron. I didn't talk to Pastor Rick in complicated phraseologies and

Quoting brucds: Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads.

Check this out:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html

Amy Suilivan is about as non-hysterical as you can find among pundits who follow these things. But she makes a clear-cut case for exactly the type of subliminal shit Herbert was talking about. This is Advertising 101 and to assume McCain's ad guys aren't deep into this is willfuly ignorant. McCain's team are playing ALL of the cards. Scoff at your peril.

Glenn and John didn't even make a case against the subliminal implications of the imagery 101. What they expressed was their hang-ups about the implications of the complaint by a black man, and the further assosciation made by whites. They are more than smart enough to understand it, they just choose not to examine it and contend with it.
It will not be read by all people the same way. And no single interpretation is definitive. But to deny the possibility of effect of the subtext is willful ignorance for such esteemed observers.

For my good friend East West: Since I've sworn off the Kool-Aid, I've come to the realization tht I want more of those Progressive Democratic campaigns run by hyper-competent professional lobbyists for paragons of decency like Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. Also, we need more highly visible surrogates like Lanny Davis, who supported Joe Lieberman AFTER he lost the primary to Ned Lamont. I feel so much better now that I'm aligned with the serious progressives.

What a fantastic diavlog!!! Canīt wait for the sequel....

Five minutes in... Gosh, I don't think I've seen Glenn so happy in a long time. He seems positively ecstatic that Obama's prospects appear to be dwindling. I used to have a lot of respect for Glenn. Now he giggles with delight at the horrible fate that will befall the nation and the world when McCain -- who Glenn has been helping into the White House -- wins the election. I used to like Glenn. Hopefully Glenn shows some appropriate concern for the impending McCain administration in the remaining 50 minutes of this diavlog. Maybe after Glenn's efforts to destroy America's best chance to pull out of this 8 year nose dive succeeds, he will feel some remorse for his role in making it happen. Or maybe he'll just be more delighted.

Incidentally, both John and Glenn display incredible naivete in their claims about how off-the-hook Bob Herbert was in discussing subtexts and imagery in McCain's ads.

Check this out:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...830590,00.html

First off, let's get a little context. Here's the clip Glenn is talking about. I was watching Morning Joe when it came on too. Bob Herbert goes much farther than just the white women, black man claim and asserts that the tower is a phallic symbol and that it is the Tower of Pisa and the Washington Monument when it's actually the Victory Column that Obama gave a speech at in Berlin. And that made him look ridiculous. By the way, why did you link to an article about a different McCain ad? I assume that you are arguing that if he did it in one ad, he did it in this one, but you don't really make that clear. Besides couldn't the "crying wolf" argument be made here? It might be better to ignore the ad about which a rather tenuous argument could be made and focus on the one which a better argument could be made.

The more I consider the context of polling, the demonstrated competence of the respective campaigns, the ingrained qualities of the candidates and the competing ground games being put into place, the more I'm convinced that John McCain has an rendevous with Destiny come November. He's going to be the Greatest Spokesman Ever for Viagra.

I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch. What I do know that it's unlikely any image in these ads is accidental. Sullivan's article makes what I consider a compelling case that the people doing McCain's ads are tapping deep in the gutter of gross pathologies that afflict various and sundry of the GOP base. "We are operating on many levels here."

Quoting brucds: I didn't see Herbert - Morning Joe is way too stupid a "news" show to bother with - so it's not my biz to defend or demean him. Given the obvious attempt to link Obama to white sluts, the phallic stuff isn't much of a stretch.

What I do know that it's unlikely any image in these ads is accidental. Sullivan's article makes what I consider a compelling case that the people doing McCain's ads are tapping deep in the gutter of gross pathologies that afflict various and sundry of the GOP base. "We are operating on many levels here."

Personally, I found Herbert's case reasonable. There's no way to prove what was in the mind of the scummy Republicans who made it, but as you say, these are Republicans we're talking about; they would be perfectly happy to inject subliminal racism into the campaign. Racism is the lifeblood of the Republican Party.