I like the way the podcast works into the blog. Is this something you did yourselves, or is it available from TypePad or other SixApart companies?

Don't you guys read the NYT? They said this is a nonstarter. I don't have audio on the work comp, but there have to be better things for us to talk about in regards to Palin than her accent. Sometimes when I read this page, I wonder if your bloggers are just trying to meet quotas. You're getting to be worse than NPR with this fluff.

RE Mr Hush: You must have a very narrow field of interests if you let your reading/listening matter be guided by the NYT!? Anyway,I,myself, as a language major found Prof. Lakoff's analysis to be very interesting, esp. in her take on both presidential candidates and their vocal qualities & characterizations.

Really liked this. Also helps listeners of debates to avoid being lulled by a style or a tone of this or that candidate. We can compensate for those subtle back-door components which we might be UNCONCIOUSLY swayed by.

Fascinating. Truly adds to our understanding of what we are hearing in a political conversation.

Fascinating if not satisfying; perhaps not the ideal use of the PodCast medium. I thought at first we were going to get 'The Framing Guy', George Lakoff... then I'm thinking, "Sounds like Woody Allen's older brother": I'm hearing a stooped posture and extreme shyness successfully overcome, coming from a Russian-Jewish-thru-Brooklyn background... ironically right before the talk shifted to Barack's baritone, I'm thinking, "hasn't a Professor of Linguistics ever been advised to stand up straight and project from the diaphragm, not talk 'through the head'?" Then one of the Commenters identifies Robin as female! Whew! So... the professor's nonstandard speechpattern evidently works on a professional level as a distancing mechanism from which to comment upon the speechpattern of others. Am I happy that I'm spending time on this? Not really. This should've included soundclips to illustrate the points. I'd have been better served simply reading it.

Quite interesting. Surely you should have mentioned ways to tell when McCain is lying, oh....that would be everytime he talks. Seriously, nice podcast.

I was forced to bale out of that instructional session, it's a little 'TOO INSIDE THE MEAT INDUSTRY' for me, on a matter that is usually filed under 'General Esoterica.'

Mr. Hush, nice usename; are you trying to suggest something?

Really, it's funny how desperate the trolls are getting. Now they're citing the "Devil's Own" Paper Of Record, as "proof" that pointing out the failings of Palin's Uber-Populist rhetoric has no place in an informed choice at the polls.

Nice try, Hush.

This ties directly into Palin's self-salesmanship, and any legitimate comment is valuable here, if it shows what a manipulator she is (and she is!).

But I can see why a troll might think criticism of a candidate's good-ol'-boy twang is a non-issue -- because the typical lower- to middle-income Republican is (now) steeped in the mythology that simple roots lead to simple truths; thus giving the lie to anyone who points out the inherent complexities in the world, and glorifying those who run (and chase others) from real knowledge. (ten-to-one, the Rep-Dupes can't follow the plain logic of that sentence)

Which myth-of-simplicity -- handily for Republican propagandists -- leads to automatic distrust, whenever someone tries to actually explain something -- rather than rely on the tried and (dis-) proven ideological simplicities that underpin Neo-Conservative "thought" these days.

That's the simple equation that Republicans have descended to -- and that their teevee-programmed minions have accepted: That simple canned populist sentiments "equal" truth, and therefore that any explanation longer than a half-sentence soundbit is by definition not simple, ergo a lie of some kind.

This leads to a certain self-satisfied pride in ignorance, under which EVERY explanation of ANYTHING is distrusted, if it doesn't adhere to a "pre-known" jingo riff of some kind.

Around a third of the country has now been convinced that seeing the truth relies on avoiding knowledge (the Adam and Eve principle). Truth is lies, and lies are truth. Black is white, old is new, and informed dialog is traitorous rabble-rousing. Obama supporters with signs are "radical-left operatives," and the media shouldn't cover them because knowing their voices are heard might "encourage" their "treason."

And of course the best way to avoid knowledge is to keep well clear of intelligent people who aren't afraid to express themselves.

So, you Neo-Con tools, avoid intelligent commentary like the plague! Gravitate toward the newly-approved verbal marker of ignorance, the Joe-sixpack CW twang.

Note that having such an accent is not in itself a mark of ignorance. It's only when it is (1) sold to a target audience as the mark and arbiter of truth, and (2) accepted as such by the target audience, that such an accent marker assumes its false-flag deceptive tone.

Wow. Dan, you are certainly the truthiest poster here. I'll bet you never lose an argument. So, is there a good way to recognize propagandists of all stripes, or what?

To: ZACH
Er - it is BAIL OUT, not BALE OUT (bale of hay?? nice fodder for donkeys ahem). Seriosuly, after the unceasing talk about bailout the last 3 or 4 weeks, how on earth can anyone manage to misspell BAIL OUT at this stage of the, er, game??

To: myself (V da Vinci)
Oops - got caught in my own net. Misspelled seriously. Typo, I reckon...excuses, excuses.

It seems that for someone so well informed, the reasoning behind your decisions is ill-informed.
Conversely, if I said, "Yerr jus' not knowin' wut yerr talkin' 'about an' why yerr doin' yerr stuff," you probably would give less credit to the aforementioned statement. That is, of course, assuming you care at all about the "why" factor in the making of decisions.

Tell me, sir, are you, per chance, a gambler?