After reading the transcript, Digby needs to work on the excessive use of the phrase, "you know". It makes Digby sound less like a thoughtful analyst, and more like a professional basketball player. Perhaps Digby was nervous and a little out of the comfort zone.

I think I counted SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND "You knows" in that brief conversation by Digby.

Please don't get me wrong, the content was great, and I thoroughly enjoy you both ALL the time, but let the Digster know that that space-filler needs to be given the ol' heave ho post haste!

(I have a degree in speech communications, so perhaps I'm a wee bit sensitive about it, but sheez!)

[quote]Clark is just not fast enough on his feet. In fact, Barack is the only candidate out there who, when off script, speaks clearly, intelligently and as if he's addressing grownups. May he bring that art back into fashion.[/quote]

I wondering, having read this statement, if you've ever observed him speaking extemporaneously. Obama, off autocue, it, at best, a weak and faltering speaker whose temporising with umms and errs takes up as much time as his actual words, and, at worst, is given to talking absolute nonsense because he can't think of anything else to say - his grandfather liberating Auschwitz, the silliness about Americans and their tyres last week, his claim to be a member of Banking Committee etc.

This is Obama handling slightly hostile questioning - a rather embarrassing site for those who praise his 'quickness' and verbal eloquence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E40ixwFXbZU&eurl=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021139.php

People should stop deluding themselves that the man is quick on his feet. He's anything but.

The other thing I really admire about Wesley Clark is that he doesn't just speak in terms of positions and generalities of purpose; he speaks in terms of solutions, actions and plans. His military background has, thankfully, not made him a crazy warmonger -- but it has made him an excellent planner with a healthy dose of practicality.

If that doesn't "balance the ticket", I don't know what does.

Having ready about 20 different blog and op-ed pieces over the past month on who would make the best VP pick for either McCain or Obama, I am continually amazed that the primary qualifications for the job are so seldom mentioned. You don't pick a VP to get elected but you pick one to do the job -- and, should the occasion arise, to do the job of President. Way too many of the other supposed candidates for the position are being touted for their electoral balance and ability to swing or assuage this group or that. Yes, I get that you have to win to be able to govern. But, forgive me for saying so, it's actually more important that, once you've won, you have to be able to govern.

The past elections have pretty much shown that the choice of VP didn't amount to much in terms of people's overall choice in the voting booth -- but, in 7 of the past 42 presidencies, it very much mattered who was able to take the job of president.

BTW, the other thing that really attracts me to this man as a leader, is that he seems to embody alpha male without resorting to being a prick. As a gay man who's studied the consequences of the threatened straight male on the world stage, it's refreshing to see someone who is capable of strength AND compassion, decisiveness AND rational thinking -- and doesn't seem to have much to prove to other men. He's comfortable in his skin.

At least she did not say "like you know". Her 'you knows' were equal to Glenn's "right". It a substitute for "Ah".

However how many of you could do well on air?

Obama doesn't. It's really that simple. If you wanted Clark as the VP, the way to do it would be to start a petition titled "Anyone but Clark for VP," get every member at Kos to sign it, have Moveon take out a full page ad in a major daily promoting the campaign, and then threaten Obama with the withholding of donations if he selected Clark. Obama would then pick Clark faster than a pissed off New Yorker could say "Fuck you."

... in the primary season.

Within that discussion, I was glad to hear Digby raise the topic of the lost media critique.

These are matters that, as you know, are very near and dear over at Correntewire.

I will say that in the discussion that precedes that topic, the lack of reference to Obama's myriad capitulations to the Right and his fundamental frame (post-partisanship) that all but promises such capitulations, felt like a bit of an elephant in the room. Naturally, you can't touch on every topic, but the sturdiness of his candidacy or lack thereof strikes me as a foundational topic when discussing how fair or unfair GOP and media attacks on him are.

Also, you both touched on the "aspirational" and "transcendence" memes without noting that running such a campaign makes him vulnerable to GOP claims about a lack of substance... because a campaign based on such vaporous things, well, lacks substance.

When you run on "hope" for "change" via a vaguely-defined "movement," and you cave on countless important issues (despite broad public support for your party's natural position on them), the GOP doesn't have to "transform" that into a weakness of Obama's. They merely need to call attention to it (not that they don't crave those capitulations).

That said, I much appreciate the opportunity to be a fly on the wall for a discussion between two leading lights of the blogosphere.

P.S. I still like Maureen Dowd. Her commentary on Obama keeps us grounded....

For more on why many here don't like MoDo, go to:

http://dailyhowler.com

and put her name into the search window (or search "modo" at Eschaton or Digby's blog).

... Besides you must view her commentary from a sarcastic point of view.

What she's doing isn't sarcasm (and believe me, I know sarcasm). It's vapid, insipid, and stoopid, all rolled into one.

Cheers,