by RAULC, Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 08:40:14 AM EST
Slate has a beauty of a Hitchen's column. He says he is glad he voted for Bush because of 9-11. Unbelievable: condition subsequent to justify antecedent action. The rationalization of all rationalizations. Then he engages in rank and unsupported speculation that Gore would have been worse for civil liberties. Finally, he blames Saddam on Clinton (and not Bush 1) for allowing him to remain in power. First of all, the GOP, properly in my view, would have never authorized Clinton to go to war against Iraq Second, CH pays lip service to the possibly nearly million dead Iraqis (no one knows the real number but estimates range from 150,000 to 1,000,000). What a vanglorious self centered lying piece of scum human being. The reason CH voted for W and not Gore was his uncontrollable hatred of Clinton, nothing more, nothing less.
by canadian gal, Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM EDT
(cross posted at kickin it with cg)
In the ongoing series of blogs about the mediaFail™ there are two ripe, juicy examples ready to be plucked.
The first involves Joshua Green, senior editor at The Atlantic and author of the latest hit job on Hillary Clinton. Having worked for some serious publications, like the Washington Monthly and American Prospect, where he perpetuated lies such as: Al Gore is a serial exaggerator who said he invented the internet. Green suggests that his analysis of the Clinton memos is the "empirical truth" and was billed fantastically by fellow Altantic columnist Marc Ambinder as "the story of what really happened."
With clear disdain, Green also refers to Clinton's famed majority female staff as a "bitchy staff" which "proved to be her Achilles' heel." In spite of Hillary's bitchy staff, the vast majority of Green's piece focuses on the men in her campaign, most especially Mark Penn. Green complains that "the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia -- one day a shots-'n'-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom."
Next up is National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg. In his August 15 syndicated column, headlined "Nightmare on Dem Street," Goldberg wrote of former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton's appearances at the Democratic National Convention: "Bill and Hillary are back. And forever more, Barack Obama won't be able to take a shower without fear of that curtain snapping back, as a woman -- or is that a man? -- prepares to plunge the knife into his back." Another journalist suggesting that the Clintons would use violence against Obama and other political opponents.
As MediaMatters notes:
Goldberg also compared the Clintons to fictional horror movie characters Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Dracula, writing: "Freddy Krueger always comes back. Jason re-emerges from the pond one more time. Dracula had so many comebacks, nobody was surprised to see him hanging with Abbott and Costello." Additionally, Goldberg wrote: "If the monster-movie thing is too offensive for you Clinton voluptuaries out there, think of it like this: They're like Richard Gere in 'An Officer and a Gentleman' (who, coincidentally, is hounded by a charismatic black dude but never gives up)." He added:
They've got no place else to go. And I was right. The Clintons are back. The coffin lid has sprung open, the seal of the crypt has been broken, the mutant virus has escaped the lab. Both Clintons will speak at the Democratic convention, and Hillary will get her I-told-you-so's. In the horror flicks, it's not that the creatures are impervious to damage, it's that no matter how much you hack them up, they seem to come back again. And again. And again. The Clintons have been horribly damaged, but they press on.
Who the hell are these clowns?
by Politicalslave, Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:34:28 AM EDT
Which VP pick would make you feel so calm, so cool, and so collected that you would go on a 10 day vacation? Who can offer
this kind of confidence?
Are we to believe that Obama hasn't decided yet? Didn't he say this would be his biggest decision before reaching the White House?
Is Gore a Hybrid? By that I mean is Gore old and new? Would Gore
give the general public more confidence than Clinton? I use Clinton because I believe she is the "Gold Standard"
Is Gore more "change" than Clinton?
Does Gore bring more Unity within the party than Clinton?
I'm convinced the pick has to be a "star" who requires no introduction. The question is which star?
Wednesday Night will President Clinton be introducing his wife or
Gore as VP?
We are one week from the convention it's time to get EXCITED. We have a great candidate. It may be 8 years before we can pick another VP and we might not be as interested in the pick. So lets enjoy it because in one week or less we will know.
by bruh3, Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EDT
This is a quick breakdown for the Chicken Little amongst us to understand the state of the race compared to prior elections. This is based on the conservative pollster- Real Clear Politics.
The negative represents a deficit compared to the candidate's opponent, and plus indicates lead. Caveat- the numbers for Gore and Kerry were at the end of their campaigns, and the numbers for Obama are where he stands now.
by SevenStrings, Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:23:10 AM EDT
As you may have heard, Al Gore is calling for a transition to a renewable energy source within 10 years.
Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other climate-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.
He then goes on to praise both candidates...
The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global warming.
Al Gore is being overly generous in his praise... perhaps on purpose. We need to do all we can to move both candidates further on this issue. Both candidates, in my opinion, are woefully inadequate in their stated intentions.