Ann Althouse and I did a
Bloggingheads yesterday on politics, internet trolls, and my ongoing battle with whatever hideous disease has kept me coughing for the last month. As the folks at Bloggingheads said, I'm still clearly under the weather, but Ann's in top form, so check it out.
Could be tuberculosis. Better get checked. And lay off the booze.
Treat this as ignorant internet advice, but one of my 30 something friends had whooping cough for months before figuring it out. Pertussis vaccines don't last forever.
As long as you're going vegan, have you ever tried juicing? mmm. Healthy.
WHO THE HELL IS THE OTHER 'TROLL BLOG'?
Wow. That was one of the best bloggingheads I've seen.
As the folks at Bloggingheads said, I'm still clearly under the weather, but Ann's in top form, so check it out.
Are you saying that Ann Althouse is an intellectual heavyweight? I hope you are joking.
JKc writes: "Are you saying that Ann Althouse is an intellectual heavyweight? I hope you are joking."
Althouse wrote one of the dumbest things I've ever read while discussing the beyond-bizarre and sickening treatment of Jose Padilla. She said of the isolation goggles he was forced to wear:
"Perhaps there is a fear that he will communicate in code by blinking."
And she wasn't kidding.
Just a request - could you shy away from commenting on electoral politics? It's not that I mind your support for Obama, it's that I think you don't know what you're talking about. In the video you make the argument that if Obama loses, Hillary will take the blame and she could never get the 2012 nomination. The only way it doesn't happen like that, you say, is if Obama has an affair or does something really dramatic that would unambiguously make the loss his fault. This just isn't so. There are about five narratives that people will run with if Obama loses before they blame Hillary. Obviously, people will say America's still too racist to elect a black President. They'll say he didn't run a tough enough campaign. That he spoke in vague generalities and failed to make clear contrasts between himself and McCain or make a simple case as to how he'd fix the economy. That he was too professorial. That he lost the debates - we don't know if that will happen yet, but he did badly lose at Saddleback. That, with the international scene looking dicy, America wasn't ready to pull the trigger on a guy so inexperienced. And so on. Blaming Hillary would make no sense. She (a) hasn't done anything to hurt his campaign since she conceded defeat, and (b) his erosion in the polls hasn't coincided with anything she's done or even with his failure to tab her for vice president; it has coincided with events in Georgia and McCain's attack ads. All she did was have the temerity to run against the guy. Moreover, if Obama loses this year, who's going to beat her in 2012? Edwards is gone, Obama couldn't get nominated again (though he might try) - could it be someone on Obama's veep shortlist? I just don't see how a Kaine, Bayh, or Sebelius would have a shot against Hillary. They're lightweights. She'd run a smarter campaign this time around, and she wouldn't have to face anyone with Obama's talents. Finally, look at how similar situations worked out in the past. In 1976, Reagan almost took out an incumbent President, Gerald Ford, in the primaries. Nearly got the nomination at the Republican convention. Ford went on to lose the election by a hair to Carter, who took the entire South - Reagan's base. A few people blamed the loss on Reagan, but four years later, he cakewalked his way to the nomination and beat Carter.
Asher writes: "That he lost the debates - we don't know if that will happen yet, but he did badly lose at Saddleback."
Saddleback wasn't a debate. It was a performance in front of a wingnut audience that will go at least 80% Republican, run by a guy who is in the tank for McCain.
Obama did fine there. He'll do fine when the debates start. Of course halfwits who prefer two-word sentences to thoughtful responses will always prefer McCain.
It's always refreshing to see a real intellectual in action.
"Of course halfwits who prefer two-word sentences to thoughtful responses will always prefer McCain."
We live in a halfwit nation. And Saddleback, biased moderator aside, was a lot more informative and substantive than your typical Russert-helmed debate - a forum in which I don't recall Obama doing too well either.
Megan, I sincerely hope you get well soon. One thing that always makes me feel better is trolling for sympathy - you might give that a try.
Asher writes: "We live in a halfwit nation. And Saddleback, biased moderator aside, was a lot more informative and substantive than your typical Russert-helmed debate - a forum in which I don't recall Obama doing too well either."
If I'm not mistaken, your previous posts indicate that you're a fringe wingnut of the Gary Bauer/Pat Buchanan variety. So your opinions and recollections should be evaluated in that light.