Still infatuated with Glenn, I see. I really wanted to address this in that other thread, but seeing as that's actually turning into something worthwhile despite your efforts, I'll address it here. It's funny you mentioned the 1/2 chickenhawk concept. There certainly were a lot of questionable medical deferments. No trouble there for Clark, though, if he can just get that damn Shelton to shut his yap.

Carnell also says that Moore's message is in "support of Wesley Clark" when Moore stated explicitly in both emails that he hasn't endorsed Clark (or anyone else for that matter and has critical comments about almost all the candidates).

This constant referencing to Glenn Reynolds is really boring.

Let's see here, Brian. You criticize Instapundit for linking to someone who wrote "Clark originally implied that the call came from the White House" because, you believe, that is a "clearly false statement."

But that is exactly what Paul Krugman believed (assuming, of course, one thinks Krugman actually believes what he writes) when he wrote his July 15 column (entitled "Pattern of Corruption"). Krugman then wrote:

"Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from 'people around the White House' urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein."

Krugman's column, of course, prompted Clark to clarify his Meet the Press remarks. Clark thus wrote the following to the New York Times on July 18, 2003:

"I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on 'Meet the Press,' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about 'people around the White House' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein."

"I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11." (See http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00001512.htm)

Fair enough, so far. Just a misunderstanding by Krugman (and certainly others), right? Certainly not a "clearly false statement" though.

But then you assert that the following is another "clearly false statement": Clark "later maintained it [i.e., the call] was from a Middle Eastern think tank in Canada." Huh? That's exactly what Clark said in his letter to the New York Times. How is that clearly false?

In any event, then comes along Michael Moore, who wrote the following on Sept. 23, 2003:

"My wife and I [i.e, Michael Moore] were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was 'involved' in the attacks." (See michaelmoore.com)

So who is lying here? Was Clark lying to Michael Moore, his wife and their neighbors at that cozy little gathering? That would mean he was also lying to the readers of the New York Times when he wrote his letter of clarification. And, of course, that would mean Krugman was right all along (a dubious notion). Or, rather, is Michael Moore just making the whole thing up?

Interesting.

Pundit envy?

Pundit envy?

Actually, not all of us.

But Natalie, you are practically otherworldly, so it's not fair to apply the same principles to the rest of us :)

Otherworldly? I like that, given my loathing for the state of this one. Most people just call me (rightly, I suspect) weird.

Must we refer to InstaStupid as a pundit? The word implies thinking. Glenn Reynolds is a fast typist and prolific linker. But, he is no thinker. (Let's not confuse the two words because they rhyme.) What Reynolds does in place of thinking is echo Rightwing kant while pretending to be a moderate. The more his hypocrisy is exposed the better in my opinion.

Reynolds didn't fall out of bed into his position on the Blogosphere. Definite pundit envy.

Glenn Reynolds is in the position of foremost blogger for these reasons: he is very smart, very knowledgable, and very curious; he is exceptionally energetic; he is a very fine writer who knows the meaning of economy - when he writes longer he does that well also; his links reveal the way he thinks just as much as his original writing does, and are just as carefully chosen; he is genuinely a nice guy who enjoys helping others; he has a sense of humor and doesn't take himself too seriously.

That's why he has 75,000 readers a day, most of whom don't even look at other blogs.

"His position."

"Foremost blogger."

"75,000 readers."

Nothing personal against the guy, but BFD. He is no different from or better than any other blogger, IMO. That stuff is all meaningless to me. Then again, this whole "blogosphere"/"blogiverse" rot is all too amusing. It's like high school all over again. Down with cliques, I say, and popularity means nothing useful or worthwhile.

I am thinking about someone, a good friend of mine -- now -- who was a very popular class officer in high school. We weren't friends in high school because I wasn't part of the "popular" crowd and I was just as weird then as now. Anyhoo, when we reconnected as middle-aged people, it was funny and strange to have her tell me that all the popular folks were so insecure over their status -- no matter what, their "cool" factor had to be maintained and improved upon. And that sounds just like this "blogsphere" crap. Ugh.

I write my blog; if people read and like it, fine. If not, that's their right. Do I promote it? Sure. No one wants to perform to an empty auditorium. But bowing and scraping to someone because he or she gets Tom Tomorrow- or Andrew Sullivan-sized hits? Not me. Milli Vanilli sold a lot of records (I think I said this before), but it didn't make them good or talented in any way. Drudge is always boasting about how popular his site is, but so what?

Just my less than dos centavos.

Apropros of nothing, try to say

"Right-wing Wurlitzer" ten times fast.

Can't do it, can you?

I couldn't find the right-wing model in their catalog, but they do have a cool website. I recommend the museum and the jukebox hits links.

And I think of Natalie as ethereal as opposed to otherworldly.

Pshaw! Glenn Reynolds is in his position because he was the first blogger to gain widespread recognition. That's it.

Natalie is on to something. But, if she wasn't being seduced by a certain clique, I would take her more seriously.

Since Natalie brought 'em up:

So, what are you doing back?

Well, I sat back down and thought about all the things we used to do and they really meant a lot to me, you mean a lot to me.

I really mean that much to you?

Girl, you know it's true.

deja vu all over again

MD, actually it was Andrew Sullivan who was the first blogger to gain mainstream recognition, and he had the huge advantage of a legit media reputation and track record. He was already established before he started blogging - Glenn was just some law professor.

Yet Glenn has surpassed Andrew Sullivan who had all the advantages going in, AND was there first. Why?

For all the reasons I wrote above about Glenn, and the fact that Andrew doesn't wear very well. In addition to being a sometimes brilliant writer and superior thinker, Sullivan is an insufferable, egomaniacal, insecure, insincere, untrustworthy preening little prick. Hence their relative standing.

I dunno, Eric. Do you think there is still enough bias against gays to explain why Sullivan did not become as popular as he might have?

Sullivan pissed it all away by being sloppy. I hold no court with the various Sully Watch sites out there, I think it's silly, but they did the damage. From the Left.

No, not in his case: he is the conservative's "good gay" (which makes them feel all magnanimous and whatnot), and his liberal views on civil liberties, legalized drugs, gay rights make him average out to the "middle." I've neve rheard even a hint of "I don't like him because he's gay." I think the prejudice works much more against gays who are "stereotypical" in their gayness. As Andrew himself puts it: he's "almost normal."

Sullivan is highly opinionated and therefore appeals to a certain crowd (those who either agree with him much of the time or like the provocation). But he can grow old because he wears out his pet topics -- gay and church issues (and perhaps the war for some). Nevertheless, he's great.

Reynolds lies somewhere between Sullivan and Drudge. He offers less in your face analysis than a guy like Sullivan (though he does give you a terse idea of what he is thinking), but is constantly linking to (apparently what many believe to be) interesting things. Thus, he is less likely than Sullivan to wear on you, while being a great source for information.
For me, they are currently the two most useful out there.

Joe: Ethereal... ooh.

Spousal Unit says I'm a misfit and a motormouth, which works for me. Of course, SU says I'm the prettiest girl in the world, too. (Proof that my spouse is wonderfully insane.)

MD: Someone's trying to seduce me? That's news to me. Who? And why, for heaven's sake? Did I say this all sounds like high school? Consider me unseduceable.

In general, I think the "blogiverse" elite has no clue that my site exists, and that's OK by me. I just try to make my creation the best it can be and I read the blogs I find interesting. In talking with people, I try to get along with everyone as best I can while remaining true to my beliefs. I am my own person and speak my own mind. If you want to grant me less credibility, for whatever reason, oh well.

Chris: I have a quarter-century of radio experience, and I can't spit out "Right-Wing Wurlitzer" even once. But I'm really good at saying "Hellspawn Halliburton."