March 27, 2007
Hot Bloggingheads segments.
Since I'm getting so much attention today for a hot encounter on Bloggingheads, let me remind you of this old Bloggingheads encounter with Jonah Goldberg. Anyway, here's the question: Who do you think would be the ideal Bloggingheads counterpart for me? Things to keep in mind: 1. I hate to be boring. 2. I want to have fun and be stimulated into finding new ideas. 3. I like the subjects that I talk about on this blog. 4. I like a good argument with a lot of back and forth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
Um. Mortimer Brezny.
The battle o' the century: Paglia.
Let me beat Mort to the punch -- Me. ;)
Assuming we have to deal with the real (Scalia doesn't vlog, as far as we know) -- both of your diavlogs with Bob have been really good (from a listener's/viewer's standpoint, at least). How about prof. Bainbridge?
I don't know about you, but I would have fun watching a debate with Amanda Marcotte!
1. Hair, makeup, nails--especially. Set design.
2. Camille Paglia
3. Supply and demand will trump all, eventually.
4. Camille Paglia!
Unlike Althouse, Camille doesn't work for free. But, it's the one time, I would actually chip-in and pay to see Althouse have the nerve to go up against Paglia.
Peace, Maxine
Aha! Got to be quick off the draw to beat Mort.
Liberal Ann Althouse versus conservative Ann Althouse. With a pie fight at the end.
Andrew Sullivan.
Hugh Hewitt.
This conservative appreciates you, Ann, not because we disagree, but because you do so while treating everyone with respect and dignity.
Imagine our country's politics if it were run as an Althouse post . . .
LOL. Simon didn't beat Mortimer to the punch!
Ruth Anne: After she uninvited me from dinner? I don't think she'd do a head to head debate. It's not her style.
Re Scalia: He does go around putting himself on show, and he did share the stage with Breyer. Still, it would be weird. But Judge Posner has a blog, so why not a judge on Bloggingheads?
Re Amanda Marcotte and Ezra Klein: I wouldn't go with someone who has outright insulted me on their blog. And Ezra is younger than my younger son. I think the extreme age difference, especially since I'm a teacher, creates the stupid impression that I should be mentoring the young person. I want an even playing field, not something that undercuts my side.
Also, I'm thinking journalists aren't a good match.
Brian Leiter.
I agree it's not Paglia's style. But it would not be boring, it would be fun, you'd talk all artsy/feministy/lawish/pop-culture/fashion/psychology [all subjects you like] and you'd really have a lot of back and forth.
My second choice: RLC.
Key point that some are missing: I don't want a political opponent to fight with. I want someone with interesting ideas, someone to engage with. I don't want a boxing match. I want someone I'd enjoy hanging out with and talking to for an hour -- but who would be different enough from me that it's not a love fest.
Leonard Kaplan.
Michelle Malkin.
She is bright, articulate and fair.
She's already familiar with the blogging heads vid format via her own HotAir.
And the contrast between the two of you would reveal the difference between a right-wing Republican and a center-left Democrat.
And I will repeat my previous suggestion, the Honorable Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Independent thinker with a definite sense of humor, and the abilility and intellectual breadth & curiosity to engage in an unstructured conversation on a host of topics.
Ann Althouse said...
"I want someone I'd enjoy hanging out with and talking to for an hour -- but who would be different enough from me that it's not a love fest."
I flatter myself to refer back to my first suggestion. ;)
Ann Althouse said...
"LOL. Simon didn't beat Mortimer to the punch!"
No, but the funny thing is that even blind (i.e. with comment moderation on), he and I both got ourselves to the coral and had the shootout at the same time. ;)
Professor--
Anyway, you'll have to audition people, just as Roger Ebert did.
You'd ideally want someone very different from yourself (i.e. the priest and rabbi who write a newspaper column together) but whose "company" you enjoy, because, if it works, you'd be in business with that person, making money together.
I would not rush to work with another blogger. As good as, say, Mssrs. Sullivan and Hewitt are, they've got their own gig going. Ideally, you want to be the dominant partner (i.e. Ebert) with 51% of the biz.
Doris Kearns Goodwin? The poet Billy Collins (?!?)Peggy Noonan? James Grant? Kevin Kelly? Paul Johnson? JC Watts? Considering the international nature of the medium, maybe someone from the UK, Israel, or India.
Probably you want to find someone younger, male, and a fresh face on the way up. Hey, like me!
Not Camille Paglia. She'd eat you alive.
"I want someone with interesting ideas, someone to engage with."
I think Paglia actually fits the bill here.
Key points that she shares with Ann:
- cultural critic with tastes both high and low
- an asthetic sense of the world
- passionate without being too doctrinaire
- academic careers
- of a certain age (similar amounts of, uh, armor gotten from experience, shall we say?)
In sum, no one will play the "no fair to hit a girl" card simply because of age or inexperience, etc.
On the other hand, Paglia has dropped off the radar for the last few years and she might have gone off the deep end a la A. Sullivan.
Uncle Jimbo if he showed up as Jim Hansen instead of the Uncle Jimbo persona.
Dahlia Lithwick if the "journalists aren't a good match" isn't set in stone.
Andrew Sullivan might be interesting if civil.
Amba
Megan McArdle
"After she uninvited me from dinner? I don't think she'd do a head to head debate. It's not her style."---Althouse
If there's enough money involved, she'll do it.
It would be like Nancy Karrigan/Tonya Harding.
Fran Leibowitz, Janeane Garofalo, Leo Buscaglia-dead or alive?, Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, Sean Penn, Susan Faludi, Mort Sahl--dead or alive?, Shulasmith Firestone, Maxine Waters--that loudmouth Black Congresswoman!
Had Althouse ever had Black opponents? That might be fun.
Peace, Maxine
I think a conversation between you and La Shawn Barber would be quite interesting. Two strong personalities with some clear areas of agreement and clear areas of distinction. Definitely two different worldviews.
An intelligent social and religious conservative would be quite an interesting conversation partner for you. Talk about religion. Talk about politics. Talk about things mundane and deep. It'd be fascinating and maybe draw out some different thoughts from you not always shown.
My guess is you two could argue with both passion and politeness.
It'd be a fun show. Libertarians and journalists get all the blog press these days.
Re Posner - my suggestion of Scalia was kind of tongue in cheek (it'd be fantastic if it happened, but it'd never happen), but while Posner is a serious idea - I thought about him, too - the problem of getting him to do it is that I can imagine blogging judges having to be very careful about what they say, and the problem with BHTV - as you said in the podcast - is that you don't have control over the final product. If Posner writes a blog post, re-reads it and thinks "actually, I can't publish that," then he still has control over it, while in the BHTV format, he'd have to be very careful not to say anything he regrets later. A fortiori Scalia, who has several times been targetted with frivolous recusal requests.
I think Malkin would be a good choice to demonstrate that you are not a right-wing hack. Sullivan would be interesting as both you and he have shown greater disdain for those on "your own" side of the aisle, so to speak.
As for me, I can't seem to figure out what plug-in I need to view bloggingheads, so I'm missing the fun. MacBook, running 10.4.9.
Peter: My MacBook works with Bloggingheads. I suggest you try clicking on the other player: real/wm. You might be missing a plug in. Another suggestion is to use Firefox instead of Safari. That often solves problems.
A conversation between Althouse and Glenn Greenwald would be amusing and enlightening for any number of reasons.
Peter - I'm glad you got the 10.4.9 update done okay! It absolutely shredded my powerbook. It was comatose, wouldn't boot at all. Some people seem to have gotten lucky, but I've seen a lot of reports from people saying they've had problems.
Here's another key point: I don't enjoy a partisan political debate. I'm interested in ideas and insights, not sides. I won't fight for either side, so I'm mismatched with anyone who is into doing that.
Not to repeat myself but Spencer Ackerman and David Lat would be really good choices.
Ackerman is a pretty interesting guy who knows a lot about music, cooking (Top Chef!) and Iraq and there could be interesting convesation there.
Lat would be really interesting too, although it might be too law heavy. Still he has a lot of other interests about culture that would be cool to hear about.
You should talk with Mark Steyn or Victor Davis Hanson.
btw -- I just watched the diavlog with what's her face. I must say your anger is a tempest in a teapot -- meaning you were justified in being pissed, but it's not like spittle was flying and f-bombs were being dropped. The temptation to reach through the cable and throttle her was there -- but alas, would not be good or conservative. She really has the stereotypical Buffy and Muffy voice -- clinched, ivy league -- superior. Thurston Howell III.
Liberal line toeing... 10% wrong might as well be 100% wrong -- that's the way most religion is.
Why not Orin Kerr or Eugene Volokh? I thought the interplay with Dr. Helen was good on the Glen Reynold's diavlog. Maybe Dr. Helen. Jean Bethke Elshtain could be interesting. Or Ken Taylor from PhilosophyTalk. Oh, I know:
Kate Litvak.
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=kvl64
I still think it should be Ron Silliman.
http://www.ronsilliman.blogspot.com
I have his email address, but it's also on his blog.
He is brainy, about your age, but is a socialist. He likes Jefferson, though, rather than Marx.
He's a poet, but has been interested in legal issues and has helped inmates not get creamed in the California Prison system.
But most importantly you need a topic in common. His intellectual interests run to poetry and then politics, and yours run to law, and then politics, and then the arts, in an order that is hard to determine.
What exactly do you want to debate?
I think you should debate on a topic. I'd hate to see you in a boxing match with a brute like Paglia. You have a kinder style, and aren't given to going for the jugular. The points you make aren't for the guttersnipes who are looking for blood. Therefore, I'd hate to have you have to deal with a snarky knowitall like Berube, or a convinced self-righteous twit of any kind from that camp (Marcotte, who seems to think that Christians should be exterminated).
A mature person would be nice. There aren't very many of those. I think Ron Silliman is the only mature leftist around. He can get into a snit, too, but he'd be more careful with a woman. Leftists in general just want the government to be everybody's mom.
I'd rather hear you talk about an arts issue that has something clearly to do with law. But it would also have to have a broad appeal. Perhaps with Ron Silliman you could discuss Bob Dylan, for instance, and his role in the culture over the last forty years?
I really like Patrick Buchanan. He's pretty far to the right, but he's civil and affable.
On the other hand -- what about Stanley Fish? He's a lawyer, but has deep interests in the arts. He's probably 15 years old than you or more -- but I think he can manage to be civil and I think you'd really like each other.
He actually said in a talk last year that he thought that Bush was a much better speaker than Kerry, even though he was for Kerry. He actually is open-minded like that.
Most leftists just start screeching that Bush is Hitler, etc.
I vote for Stanley Fish.
and I think you should talk about the issue of academia and the leftist domination thereof.
Andrew Sullivan
Why is everyone missing the obvious?
Althouse vs. Valenti.
Andrew Sullivan
I prefer it when you monologue right into the very midstream of your intriguing stream of consciousness.
So a mirror would do.
If there has to be another then let it be Nic Kidman, but only on condition you get her mobile number.
Or - serious one here - Christina Odone. And don't say who? Former Editor of the Catholic Herald, now with the New Statesman. Also the sister of the late Lorenzo - see myelin.org
Witty, bright, thoughtful, strong - so that's a good pairing.
Bob Dylan.
I'm getting tired of this political crap.
"Troy said...
...She really has the stereotypical Buffy and Muffy voice -- clinched, ivy league -- superior. Thurston Howell III...."
LOL! I said much the same thing on the earlier post. It's the bored name-dropping Ivy League drawl combined with the nasal, subdued Ira Glass/Sarah Vowell passive-aggressive superiority. Ugh.
althouse vs. valenti would be all is feminist is not back and forth. Boring.
The difficulty in arriving at a good match-up highlights, I think, the unusual nature of this blog. Are there any similar blogs? Who runs them? That would be a good counter to Ann A.
Who do I think would be your ideal Blogginheads counterpart?
Nobody, Ann, nobody. I sincerely hope Bob Wright chooses not to invite you back. I found your Saturday outburst disrespectful, abusive and wildly out of proportion. If I had treated a peer that way -- publicly, no less -- I would have posted a humble apology on my blog within a matter of hours.
Now you're casually referring to it as a “hot encounter” (you were the only one who was hot, Ann; Garance admirably kept her cool in the face of your rage) and merrily, with an undertone of self-congratulations, soliciting thoughts on who you should tangle with next? Please.
The Anchoress, NeoNeocon, Annie at Ambivablog, or Lileks. I repeat my request for RLC. Any of these folks would do.
Mort - Kate Litvak would be legendary.
Maxine.
Maxine Weiss, I mean, not Maxine Waters.
Other than that, I second the vote for Megan McArdle.
Sorry for the double posts of "andrew sullivan"-didn't see the moderation thing.
How about you and Margaret Cho?
That could be kind of fun.
The gays would tune in for that big time. Lots of drama!
Paul Reubens
Michelle Malkin. She is bright, articulate and fair.
What??
Take out bright and add snarky and one-sided.
Anyway how Kirsten Powers? She's friendly and liberal.
BTW I'm not sure why you label the left as all 'vicious and ugly'. I've read really bad stuff from the Right Wing blogosphere but I don't think that means every right winger is vicious.
I think a great partner would be Charles Krauthammer. The Professor & the Shrink.
Andrew Sullivan
The conservative the right loves to hate against the left's least favorite liberal.
Both more than capable of giving as good as they get. Both Bloggingheads vets.
Hi Ann,
James Lileks.
dbp
Things to keep in mind: 1. I hate to be boring. 2. I want to have fun and be stimulated into finding new ideas. 3. I like the subjects that I talk about on this blog. 4. I like a good argument with a lot of back and forth.
Some more things to keep in mind:
1. You've already failed on that account.
2. "Fun" for you appears to involve the very things you complain about in others. As for "new ideas," you don't appear to have had one in years (if ever).
3. No kidding. You like to talk about yourself, so why not just focus on that?
4. No, you obviously don't.
Finally: I dare you to match up with Camille Paglia. After she cuts you to ribbons, we can sweep away the pieces and forget you ever were.
Suggested heads with which to diavlog:
No Impact Man
Ken Jennings
Cory Kennedy
Neo-Neocon
Amba
and last but not least (no I'm not going to say myself, I don't think anonymity and diavlogging mix)
.
The
.
One
.
The
.
Only
.
The
.
Manolo
If I were you, I'd ditch bloggingheads altogether. I've only seen a half dozen segments, including 1 or 2 of yours, but it's rather unnerving to see two people in separate places talking past each other. The format reminds me of video conferencing -- an experience calculated to set everyone's teeth on edge.
Your time is better spent relaxing by the listenting to The Kinks...or re-watching "Glenn Gould,"
Sounds like you need to debate yourself. That way it could all be about you!
As we share the same last name, I have been aware of your blog for quite some time. Often my hit counter reveals the search term "althouse" and I'll get a hit in which the inquiring party has not found what he (or she) is looking for and moves on to the correct "althouse," probably you.
Occasionally I'll hit the link to the search engine du jour just to see what my (our) name brings up. Usually it's a little of this and a little of that - a little me, a little you and a smattering of other "althouse" references. Today, however, it was all you.
Out of curiosity, I decided to see what all the attention was about. In the course of doing so, I became a little more informed about your ideology. Although I had a cursory knowledge of your background, it was rather superficial. It's a wonder how a little controversy will stir interest where the was none.
We share a number of ideological beliefs. Labels are not important to me and, of course, everything is issue dependent. Additionally, I agree in principle to some of your observations regarding the behavior of the left - although there are plenty of equally extreme examples of the same on the right. Unfortunately, it would appear that you started a feeding frenzy of the politically active - and vocal - left sided bloggers.
Substance and tactics are often a balancing act. Perhaps I would have chosen a different tact. Maybe in retrospect you would have as well. Regardless, what's done is done. Don't let the vocal minority shout you down. I have this terrible character defect - I like to think for myself - for that I need all sides... not just the loudest. Although the attention you have garnered in the blogosphere might appear to be negative - it has gained you at least one more reader.
Mike
A Hermit said...
"Althouse vs. Valenti would be perfect ... If Professor Althouse could manage to keep it civil it might even clear the air a little."
If Althouse could manage to keep it civil? Seems to me that by far the worst of the the vitriol has come from the critics. Compare the parallel universe reaction at LGM - the veritable Sistine Chapel of anti-Althousiana - to this latest event with Ann's reaction here. If Valenti and fellow-travellers were capable of civilly debating the criticisms raised against her, this whole mess would never have happened. So you be careful who you're pointing that finger at.
Also, your comment goes to convince me further that the critics of Ann's reaction are laboring under the misapprehension that bhtv participants can see one another. Not so. Body language doesn't provide cues when you can't see your interlocutor.
A Hermit said...
...if Anne could...
I am always amazed at how so many people can misspell a name as simple as ‘Ann’. I could understand if you’ve only heard the name. But this is a blog. The name is spelled out at the top of the page. How does this happen?
Michelle Malkin.
She is bright, articulate and fair.
I'll be laughing at this comment for days.
Ann, my suggestion for a good vlog partner for you is Dennis Miller. In my opinion, the two of you are very similar in the way you view yourselves and in the way you address people with whom you disagree.
Ann Coulter $$$$ !
Art Buchwald
Jimmy Breslin
Norman Mailer
Gore Vidal
Gay Talese
Herb Caen
Andy Rooney
Larry Flynt? (Recruitment)
Peace, Maxine
Maxine,
Either you've discovered time travel or else you think Ann would enjoy chatting with a dead guy (Buchwald). But as long as we're now considering the departed, how about Schopenhauer or Weininger?
This is all turning into 'Fight Club', though lacking Helena Bonham-Carter which is always a shame.
I had a pollster phone me tonight asking me if I felt x about y or y about x, then going on to ask whether if I did feel x about y, would I only express this opinion if asked by another to do so, or whether I would volunteer my beliefs without prompting.
Crazy boy! What could I reply other than that if I started accosting complete strangers in the street, a la Ancient Mariner, and giving my opinions unasked for on the state of public transport in London I would and should be locked up as a basket case.
Don't think his programme allowed for such depth of views, but leaving such polls' design validity aside - aren't we all a bit in danger of researching too much our own recta here?
What is blogging other than just some people writing stuff and other people reading - or not as to taste - the stuff we write?
Blogging to live cam is fine for two consenting adults, but what on earth or beyond are we doing giving it for others to view and comment on?!
If Ann or anyone lost her rag with - or got her kit off for - some other person, then that's standard webcam behaviour and of no frigging interest to others.
Well it shouldn't be. So there! ;-)
Announcing the start of the "Campaign for Really Unremarkable and Unremarked Blogging. We Used to Call it Conversation, Which Either you were Part of at the Time, or You Weren't."
Key point that some are missing: I don't want a political opponent to fight with. I want someone with interesting ideas, someone to engage with. I don't want a boxing match. I want someone I'd enjoy hanging out with and talking to for an hour -- but who would be different enough from me that it's not a love fest.
In that case . . .
Me!
I am constantly being told that I am a fascinating conversationalist. Humility keeps me from saying it about myself.
Kinky Friedman.
I'm extremely liberal, and I love you! You were absolutely great.
Cyrus Pinkerton: Don't knock it; dead men tell no tales. And, they pull no punches either. A dead Buchwald might be a lot easier to handle than a live one. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.
Peace, Maxine
Ace from Ace of Spades or Eric from Classical Values.
Sacha Baron Cohen doing Borat? Maybe not. BTW, really enjoyed your exchange with Garance on the limits which law or the culture ought to impose on speech directed at women in the blogosphere. It's an inescapable fact -- henceforth to be known as McDermott's Law --that (almost all? most? some?) men, when confronted with images (or the presence of, or merely thinking of) of women they find attractive, will have sexual thoughts directed at said images and the women they represent. Now, the gentlemenly or appropriate thing to do when those thoughts arise, is keep them to oneself, unless the context permits expressing them (in a gentlemenly manner of course). Of course, that context ALWAYS includes the object of said sexual thoughts desire, or lack thereof, to hear such thoughts expressed, which in turn relies mostly on whether said object finds the speaker attractive. There was a grest sketch, on SNL I think, spoofing an instructional video on avoiding workplace sexual harrassment. The gag was that the two example men in the video, one handsome and virile looking, one short and plain, did and said exactly the same things; asking female co-workers out, commenting on their appearance, etc. In each case, the handsome guy's advances were embraced and the plain guy's rebuffed -- and the narrator explained that the plain guy was committing harrassment. I did find your notions on this, particularly your flat statement that commenting on someone's appearance was clearly protected speech, congruent with my own. I also must say that Garance was a little predictable in her objecting to anyone ever considering or commenting on her appearance, though her online stalker experience makes that understandable. In another era, her father or brothers would have dissuaded the unwlecome attention of the creep without the necessity of involving law enforcement. Oh, and you're quite cute when angry.
I suggest Charlie Gordon.
I picked up on this story after watching Bob Wright's BloggingHeads TV site.
Probably spent more time that I should have winding through all the internet links to the story and its exhibits.
I can't believe so many people got so worked up about it.
I think that if people (other than the person originally criticized) could get all worked up over a law professors' remarks---when so much other serious stuff is going on in the nation, and world---well . . .
Don't mind me for saying, the blogosphere looks like it has become infotainment AND reality programming, to replace television.
THAT'S going to be the 21st century??
I was on some daytime women's talk show once with Paglia, so I'll pass on the advice she gave me: jump in! interrupt! Verbally overpower your companions/ rivals! It was generous of her to give me this advice. You will need it if you go up against/with her!
Here's the answer to your question, Ann:
You should debate someone you respect. I was just rewatching your first diavlog with Bob; I needed to extract an exact quote from Bob's statement about human cognition at 10:17.
But it made me realize: You would never verbally tounge-lash Bob the way you did Garance, because you respect Bob (apparently).
I think you have either contempt for or indifference towards Garance, which is what made your treatment of her possible.
There must be a lot of people you respect, and if you limit your diavlogs to those people, you'll do fine.
You made a whole slew of excellent points in that diavlog with Bob, such as your highly useful point that "more free speech" does not equal censorship or curtailment of free speech. (Watch around 18:00 for the entire diavlog, or advance the link below to about the 8:00 point.)
Bob and Ann Diavlog
Men:
-Mark Steyn would be a great match.
-Charles Murray very interesting, but pretty serious.
-James Lileks would be very good.
Women:
-Michelle Malkin
-Doris Kearns Goodwin
-Christina Hoff Sommers
-Maureen Dowd
ASX: I didn't disrespect Garance when I agreed to do the diavlog, but I was wary of her from the revelations about journalists' techniques that I transcribe in the post. She talks about acting naive and lying in wait to get the interviewee. I didn't think and do not think that she introduced that old subject without knowing what she was doing. I react to exactly that.
ASX,
Re Ann's 9:53 PM comment - there are twe specific techniques Garance advances at the start of this episide as ways she gets interlocutors to her desired result: being “incredibly awkward,” and playing coy. At the beginning of the section at issue here, Garance makes the plainly leading claim that “I don’t get this from your blog, per se, but I understand that you’re apparently a conservative?” (i.e. being “incredibly awkward) and subsequently plays coy about the Valenti mess, provoking Ann's response. So you can listen to the segment and hear her using exactly the techniques to prod Ann that she describes at the start of the episode as being good ways that she uses to prod interviewees.
Mort - Kate Litvak would be legendary.
Yeah, I'm glad someone concurs on that. (And knows who Kate Litvak is.) I'd really push for that if I had any power in the matter.
Christopher Hitchens
Of all the people named, I've got to say that the one person I'd be afraid to talk to is Christopher Hitchens. I like his writing and I enjoy watching him, but I think it would be scary to be in any sort of a debate with him. And not fun in any way! He always seems angry... plus he knows a lot of facts...
Me.
It's got to be Valenti, surely.
And once you have challenged her intellectually, viewers should then vote on whoich of you actually has the best tits. Precise format of contest to be determined by mutual consent, of course ;)
It would confirm you are a good sport. And remember, there's NO SUCH THING as bad publicity.
Ann, I realize this is a different topic, but will you explain why you have a Rudy Giuliani ad on your website?
Ann, I hope you don't mind one further comment about the Bloggingheads segment. I reread your blog entitled "Clinton on Fox News Sunday" (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/clinton-on-fox-news-sunday.html) about Clinton's reaction to one of Chris Wallace's interview questions. What I'm curious about is how you compare your reaction to the "Jessica Valenti breast controversy" comment to Clinton's reaction to what he obviously considered an ambush by Wallace. More to the point, can you explain why you feel your reaction was appropriate and Clinton's was not?
Let me second Cyrus Pinkerton's request above. I, too, am having difficulty in distinguishing between Mr. Clinton's response to Mr. Wallace's questions and Prof. Althouse's response to Ms. Franke-Ruta's questions.
Some clarification of the differences would be appreciated.
Cyrus Pinkerton: Ann, I realize this is a different topic, but will you explain why you have a Rudy Giuliani ad on your website?
Same reason the Powerline boys have Hillary Clinton ads on their site. Its not under her/their control.
Hoofin: I can't believe so many people got so worked up about it.
Yah, there's a crowd out there on the Left that hates Althouse for engaging in conversation with radical-brownshirt-rightwing-exremists like me. So they're like Buzzards, waiting waiting waiting for Ann to stumble.
Same reason the Powerline boys have Hillary Clinton ads on their site. Its not under her/their control.
Except the Power Line blog has a Rudy Guiliani ad, not a Hillary Clinton ad.
Anyway, if you're trying to tell me that the blog host is responsible for putting objectionable ads on a blog site, then I'd suggest getting a different host for the blog.
Except the Power Line blog has a Rudy Guiliani ad, not a Hillary Clinton ad.
This was back in Jan when the Clinton camp made a huge buy:
"There's been a fair amount of commentary on Hillary Clinton's initial decision to place ads on a few conservative blogs including Power Line...At Power Line, we'll run ads by just about anyone. At various times, the Dixie Chicks, Keith Olbermann's show, the New York Times, and the Democratic National Committee have all bought space."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016598.php
William Beutler has more detailed info:
"To the Clinton team, it made sense to get attention from the right when the focus was on the webcast, but now that the ads are inviting people to submit guest posts to her site, inviting the “winguts” would indeed be a waste of time.
But here’s the interesting thing: Blogads buys are one-week minimum commitments, though advertisers can change the specific ad as many times as they want — or remove it entirely. This is just what they’ve done: In order to stick to the plan, they have no choice but to pay Power Line and the rest not to run the ad, at least for a few more days..."
http://www.blogpi.net/hillary-in-blogistan-on-blogads-the-netroots-and-peter-daou
Pinkerton asked a great question. I made a new post about it. Go here.
Glenn Greenwald would be entirely enjoyable (for us listening, probably not so much for you, he he).
And the contrast between the two of you would reveal the difference between a right-wing Republican and a center-left Democrat.
Well, then who are you getting to be the center-left Democrat? And wouldn't that make it head-to-head-to-head rather than head-to-head?
But the idea of intellectual menage a trois is intriguing. So long as Michelle wouldn't feel too left out of the intellectual stuff.
I'm sorry, but are your drunk? Your response to my comment makes no sense.
I don't want anyone who's been distinctly nasty to me in print, which clearly includes Greenwald. In any event, he's no one that I'm interested in talking to. He seems completely boring. Some lawyer who writes a lot of words. Who cares?
And I realize I should clarify that I don't actually think that at this point liberals should be nice to me. I've obviously been mocking them for years. They are justified in being pissed at me and I fully intend to give them more reason to be such, on a daily basis if I can. The fact that I am also a liberal is just one more way for me to piss them off. I'm not crying out for affirmation from them. That would be silly.
Has anyone suggest Stephen Colbert? What a get that would be.
Post a Comment