The Table: Why We Blog

Andrew Sullivan and I converse on an array of topics. We start with the meat and potatoes -- Andrew's article in the November Atlantic.

Comments

You had me at ELO, Ambers.

Posted by jeet | October 21, 2008 7:05 PM

Ambinder is clearly disconcerted in this video. He has a deep, dark secret. He has a skeleton in his closet. It is about Barack Obama. He knows about the latter's mistress being scuttled off to a tin-pot dictatorship by Michelle. FESS UP, AMBINDER! You'll feel a whole lot better!

Posted by Craig | October 21, 2008 7:10 PM

great Table, i think the best one yet.

thanks to both of you.

Posted by raft | October 21, 2008 7:24 PM

sadly, I am one of those readers that refresh on a constant rate....

perhaps a 12 step program for Ambinder/Sullivan blogaholics?

Posted by brady | October 21, 2008 7:30 PM

Glad to have The Table back. Where has it been? I miss Matt and Ross.

Posted by blaine | October 21, 2008 7:43 PM

That was a great discussion.

In particular, Sully's breakdown of the differences between blogging and reporting is important. Blogging presents reporting to readers with the blogger's POV about what it means to them. So, in this sense, bloggers are considered trusted friends that pass information along to those who otherwise wouldn't have encountered it.

Given that, Sully's readers are using him in much the same way you and I use Google reader. Well, at least I hope you use Google reader. :-)

Again, loved this. More like this please.

Posted by Justin Gardner | October 21, 2008 7:59 PM

More like this please.

Posted by TDE | October 21, 2008 8:07 PM

And yet you ask questions about white men without answering them. Then, you wonder why we get obsessed. What about the white men? Are they suddenly hating America and voting McCain? What gives?

Posted by slag | October 21, 2008 8:13 PM

I take Andrew's point -- he does air views not in sync with his own, to a point. But for example, at the slightest whisper of a Clinton slight toward Obama, he leads into it headstrong, with comments like, "well, they share the same enemy, right??" Days later, when Bill and Hillary give unassailable, full throat support to that campaign, by all observers, there's radio silence from Andrew... If he's going to take up the issue, then at least attempt to be fair.

He is also very bitter. Howard Kurtz did wrong him - no question. But Andrew has used no fewer that 8, 10 opportunities in unrelated areas to try to smear Kurtz. He needs a thicker skin.

BTW, his blog is great, I read it daily, but I don't think he knows what he thinks he's trying to achieve, or at least doesn't know how to gauge it. You're great too, Marc!

Posted by dk | October 21, 2008 8:27 PM

I was going to write Andrew a letter about taking a breather---sometimes I think this does cloud his judgment.

Alas, he writes an article about it. So it's good to know he's self-aware.

P.S. Can anyone tell me why comments are allowed on some Atlantic blogs and not on others. I've been trying to find out for months...(literally)

Posted by AKBY | October 21, 2008 8:35 PM

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL AMERICANS, WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP? ONCE YOU PUT O’BAMA IN, THE AMERICAN AS YOU KNOW IT WILL BE GONE WITHIN 1 YEAR. WE WILL BE AT WAR ON AMERICAN SOIL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OVER 200 YEARS. GOD HELP US ALL IF HE MAKES PRESIDENT. PRAYING TO MY GOD FOR THIS NOT TO HAPPEN. REMEMBER THE ENEMY SAID THEY WILL GET US WITHIN AND HE IS THERE MAN!!!! SINCE HE WON'T HELP ONCE THIS HAPPENS (O'BAMA). WILL NATO? THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

Posted by Gigekt | October 21, 2008 9:36 PM

I was surprised that you didn't ask Andrew for his reaction to Marc Salter's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, posted on Jeffrey's blog. Why didn't you?

Posted by Lynne | October 21, 2008 9:39 PM

Its very comforting to know that I'm not the only one who can't solidify my opinion about anything until I've heard what Andrew thinks, and that my boyfriend and I almost daily ask each other "What did Andrew say about ____?"

Posted by Allison Kupfer | October 21, 2008 9:53 PM

I thought it was a very interesting discussion, but what happened in the last 30 seconds where Andrew went off into 'the next ten years are the most important in the history of the human race, the universe is in peril, life as we know it is about to end!!!! territory?

Is it just me, or is he unconsciously making his point about being a little too close to the whatever's happening NOW IS THE BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER nature of blogging? I think the type of serious, calm reflection he discusses might help him put these issues in better perspective.

Posted by rab | October 21, 2008 10:09 PM

Gigekt, all the American citizens who think as you do? You are the ones within who make possible a victory by Al Qaeda. It is you all who want to turn us into Al Qaeda's mirror image. You already have come closer to destroying the Constitution than any generation previous to us has ever done. In so doing you have done Al Qaeda's bidding very, very well.

Think about that............

Posted by oddjob | October 21, 2008 10:36 PM

I notice Marc sipped only from the McCain cup during the actual piece. Totally in the tank.

Posted by void_pelican | October 22, 2008 1:26 AM

Gigekt, you should remove your finger from the Caps button, mate.
I loved the dialogue, it is important to critique blogging as a form of journalism, and theorize on the impact it has on its writers and audience.

I am a late arrival at these blogs, I started reading them mainly out of curiosity about the American electoral system. This has grown into a bit of an obsession. But thats because the blogs here on this site are so well written.

Andrews mid-Atlantic accent sounded a bit disconcerting, to my European ear at least.

Posted by Daphne | October 22, 2008 6:25 PM