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.

I didn't even notice it. Myself, when speaking publicly I employ far too many "wells," particularly at the start of each sentence. (I've learned to prune my writing of that tic.)

You and I do not even agree on all -- I do not identify as a "progressive" per se -- but, well, trivial criticisms are just that. Which, well, come to think of it, was, well the bulk of the point of the interview.

Well.

The critique/analysis of the blogosphere during the primary, the notion of personal identification with a candidate (you mean they're not white males this time?), and Digby's caution about the media post convention (eg, Bill Clinton) was worth the price of admission. Great analysis. This was so helpful.

It really makes sense of my own experience as I watched the list of blogs I was willing to read get exponentially smaller as the primary went on. As one blog after another seemed to stake out this candidate's territory (as opposed to the other) - and it accelerated near the end - I found my online world shrinking to a handful of blogs - and then eventually to a small handful of writers; you two being at the top of the list. I can't tell you how much I appreciated having a place to go where I felt I find an even-handed look at the array of candidates - on the Republican side as well as the Democratic.

The caution about the media post convention, and post election is absolutely the one to make. And, blogs can fill many of the gaps. That distance you both maintain, is valuable. For as often as some argue Glenn should replace Kith Olbermann, or I argue Digby should replace Maureen Dowd, your separateness for that insulated world serves me very well. I can imagine that someday, one of the print or broadcast media may tease you on board. I wouldn't deny either of you the security or the comfort of such a gig, but please train your replacements before you go. Okay?

I'm not sure the media trivializes or dumbs down the narrative - as prompted by the right wing - I'd argue they infantilize it. To me, that's worse. It's condescending. It's off-putting. And, if the listeners/viewers/readers acclimate to it, it's dangerous. It not only tells them they shouldn't fret their pretty little heads about some issue, it internalizes for them that they can't. They're not only conditioned to be unwilling to think analytically, they're conditioned to be unable.

About his 2004 book What's the Matter of Kansas? and why people vote Republican against their best economic interests - talks about how the subject of class in America is being discussed as cultural issues (like abortion) rather than what is economically best for them.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08012008/profile3.html

So the Republicans want to make this about culture rather than economics.

[quote]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.[quote]

You obviously missed the point. I expect that happens a lot.

You obviously missed the point. I expect that happens a lot.
-- Andrew Todd

There was a point?

When someone spends several paragraphs complaining in a self-aggrandizing manner that a discussion of campaign coverage wasn't a discussion of the campaigns, I don't see any point to it but self-aggrandizement.

This was carefully pointed out to you, but you obviously missed the point. I expect that happens a lot.

"When someone spends several paragraphs complaining in a self-aggrandizing manner that a discussion of campaign coverage wasn't a discussion of the campaigns, I don't see any point to it but self-aggrandizement"

Actually, it was a discussion of the campaigns AND the campaign coverage. It didn't, however, touch, in any substantial way, on a single actual issue, much less explore it. Ironic considering both are telling us the campaign should be about the issues, not the froth - and yet this all they can and will discuss.

I'm not making any prescriptions about what the campaign should or shouldn't be about, which is why the point you think you are making is such a waste of time for you, me and anyone else unfortunate enough to read it. Please consider our valuable time before you type anything further and risk wasting it again.

Digby "you Knows"

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 noticed it while listening to the discussion. I haven't read the transcript. Don't misunderstand, please, I'm not criticizing her for it, it's a habit that many of us have a hard time breaking. I knew when I was listening that she would later hear it herself and choose to work on it.

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.

I didn't know that.

Please consider our valuable time before you type anything further and risk wasting it again.

Speak for yourself. I presume you have something far better to do than slum with the Glenn Fans. Best get to it. Time's a-wastin'...

Actually, it was a discussion of the campaigns AND the campaign coverage. It didn't, however, touch, in any substantial way, on a single actual issue, much less explore it.

any honest critique of the campaigns and their media coverage of issue would necessitate an acknowledgement of how 'in the tank' the media was for Obama (and how much of it remains obsessed with the Obama personality cult.) But criticism of THE ONE is verboten (Digby practically genuflects each time she mentions his name).

And Greenwald still can't bring himself to acknowledge the sexism of the Obamasphere during the primaries -- for him, its just a natural extension of the "passions" that a primary election can bring out.

But its not. The gaffe-o-mania of both sides (e.g. "Bosnian spiners" and "bitter/cling") is one thing -- the promulgation, acceptance, and acquiescence to the outright bigotry displayed toward Hillary Clinton as a woman is a completely different phenomenon -- and while there was certainly some racism among the Clintonista fringe, sexism and misogyny was mainstreamed in what was once the "progressive" blogosphere.