I honestly didn't notice that she said it even once, let alone an unusual number of times. I'd bet people noticing this are reading the transcript but not listening to the discussion. I think what's unusual is not anything Digby said, but that the person who does the transcripts is so meticulous for accuracy that he inserts every verbal tic, whereas most transcribers don't.

You want to know why this election isn't understandable from a purely political perspective? (I agree it's usually the case, but in this one it's blatant.)

You wonder why Obama's numbers aren't off the chart?

You wonder why the media is "taking a back seat" not pressing him--waiting it out--giving him a chance?

These are the questions to be asking now. I'm disappointed in both Greenwald and Digby. My position is that this election is a cultural referendum more than a political race. It is reductionist to not bring it into the conversation.

If it is because you think the nation has heard enough given the primary--you are dumbing down. If you think the primary was "nasty" and offended your sensibilities you are naive.

I think both of you are adapting too narrow a perspective and need to look more outside the convention analysis.

As for the future of blogging: since it is the least compromised media presently there is the opportunity to expand the dialogue and to present some "new" thinking, but as time goes by that is being lost.

Walsh touched on it in "Who's Playing the Race Card," but that's only the beginning.

I disagree with Greenwald's assumptions and have made it clear in the past, and in numerous entries that present another perspective entirely.

please accept my apologies for the nearly unintelligible speaking in this interview. I was very nervous and it shows with the constant hemming, hawing and "you knowing." Clearly, it's something of which I desperately need to be more conscious. ugh.

If you can listen to the audio rather than read the transcript it's not quite as painful, but that's not saying much,

Sorry folks, that's why I'm a writer, not an entertainer.

Could be worse: Cheney's "if you will..," comes to mind.

I have to say, having listened to the whole show (and doesn't Glenn have a voice made for blogging), I find it incredible that two people can spend an entire half hour 'radio show' complaining about the lack of substance in the media's discussion of the election and the campaign itself, without ever mentioning or exploring a single substantive political issue - Obama's tax plans, the current debate over drilling for oil, the specifics of each candidate's Iraq policy etc. Instead they complain about the lack of substance, producing material of an even greater lack of substance, trotting out the same memes they've posted over and over for the last four years.

There are specifics out there concerning aspects of each man's platform, and neither Greenwald nor Digby know anything about them or, truth be told, are even that interested in them. Their critique of the media is laughable - if the campaigns did suddenly turn in to a policy-wonk-level discussion, neither of these two would have anything to say.

There are few more parasitical professions than media and political punditry, but when the media and political pundits talk like they are staking out some higher ground whilst conspicuously refusing to discuss anything above sea level, you know you are in the presence of a couple of arch poseurs.

I have to say, having listened to the whole show (and doesn't Glenn have a voice made for blogging), I find it incredible that two people can spend an entire half hour 'radio show' complaining about the lack of substance in the media's discussion of the election and the campaign itself, without ever mentioning or exploring a single substantive political issue - Obama's tax plans, the current debate over drilling for oil, the specifics of each candidate's Iraq policy etc. Instead they complain about the lack of substance, producing material of an even greater lack of substance, trotting out the same memes they've posted over and over for the last four years.

.

There are specifics out there concerning aspects of each man's platform, and neither Greenwald nor Digby know anything about them or, truth be told, are even that interested in them. Their critique of the media is laughable - if the campaigns did suddenly turn in to a policy-wonk-level discussion, neither of these two would have anything to say.

There are few more parasitical professions than media and political punditry, but when the media and political pundits talk like they are staking out some higher ground whilst conspicuously refusing to discuss anything above sea level, you know you are in the presence of a couple of arch poseurs.

Interesting. And you must be an arch "arch poseur," what with you here "complain[ing] about [Glenn and Digby's] lack of substance, producing material of an even greater lack of substance."

And then you vanished in a puff of self-paradox.

...ignore the critiques of verbal tics.

Everyone has them. Probably including those who are critical of the transcript.

We read you because your blog is weighty with substance.

Hopefully, this interview was just the first of many such conversations between you and Glenn.

This was an interesting -- and substantive -- discussion; sorry I had to listen to it in pieces, had to get up several times, sometimes for quite a while, to take care of other things), but nevertheless it seemed "pick-up-able" without too much difficulty.

Topics were germane and clearly important to both of you. There was no indication this was a forced discussion at all.

And Digby, you are a very articulate speaker. If you're really concerned about the "you knows," they're apparently fairly easy to train away. But they actually add a little authenticity to your commentary, and I wouldn't fret too much about it.

Glenn dogs his issues, even with a friendly respondent, but it was obvious that Digby is more than able to handle his doggedness and take the discussion in other directions.

So, yeah, I'd look forward to more Digby Talks episodes. Much as the writing the two of you do helps a lot of folks muddle through the contemporary puzzle, so your discussions help to illuminate what's going on.