Senator: When I express concern about Obama because I’m worried someone will take a shot at him, it doesn’t mean much of anything because I’m just some guy with a blog.
When YOU, on the other hand, say that anything can happen in June, and cite Bobby Kennedy’s assassination…not the same thing. That becomes problematic. That becomes a monumental case of foot-in-mouth.
Dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. And yes, I know you immediately said that you regretted it, but…jeez. Think, then speak, okay?
PAD
• 
Is Olberman ALWAYS this much of a blowhard?
Well, this should come as no surprise, but I don’t think he’s a blowhard at all.
If anything, I really like his ‘knock you upside your @#$%ing head’ approach for politicians with these comments. After all, it’s no less than most politicians deserve. 🙂
After my wife and I finished watching Olberman last night, she pointed out, “You know, he comes across a lot better when you read his rant the next day. Live, he’s kind of… frothing.” Though I do have to say that we pretty much agreed with the gist of what he was saying; I think you have to really stretch to say that she was just referencing the time of year.
Jerry Chandler,
“He’s fast becoming the Left’s Bill O”
I assume you mean Bill O’Reilly and I couldn’t disagree more. I truly don’t understand the left’s hatred of this man. The left hating Ann Coulter or Michael Savage I can understand. But O’Reilly? He’s bashed oil companies, believes in global warming, has supported Katie Couric and given Dan Rather the benefit of the doubt. But people will point to his infamous Geraldo confrontation (after which they both calmed down and talked about other subjects rationally. Neither was “out of control”) ot the taken-out-of-context “shut up” statement and portray him as an extreme conservative, when he most certainly is not.
Craig Ries,
Most politicians are heroes. More would likely do what was necessary if more of us – conservative and liberal – actually paid more attention and realized we can’t have everything. In the end, we get the government we deserve.
So, PAD, I don’t recall reading but were you as offended when Keith Olberman (who has a great “mancrush” on Barack Obama) suggested that some (male) superdelegate take Hillary into a room and only “he” should come out?
I’ve commented on this before. Basically, my take was that I can easily believe that Olbermann’s comment was not intended as misogynistic. The idea of “two men enter, one man leaves” isn’t new — the fact that one of the “men” is a woman *is* new, and another, potentially controversial, signal was accidentally sent. The same thing with an anti-Obama ad that that Clinton campaign broadcast earlier this year: The accusation was that the ad was racist because it made Obama’s skin darker and “blacker” in order to scare of white voters. The more likely reason is that attack ads frequently use darkened/desaturated images of opponents to make them appear sinister; the fact that this opponent is black accidentally sent another, potentially controversial, signal.
And Olberman was a Clinton fan, who after much thought, broke with them after the Ferraro flap I believe.
Obama is a Chicago politician. He’s slimy and just as awful as his fans declare Hillary to be. The man has NEVER faced a REAL political challenge until this year but his enthralled fans don’t seem to grasp that. (His opponent in 2004 for the US Senate seat was Alan Keyes of all people, a man RECRUITED by the Illinois GOP because they didn’t have anyone else. Amazingly, Keyes still got more than 20% of the vote.)
Being a politician from Chicago doesn’t automatically make one a “Chicago Politician” any more than being from Little China means you are a Kung Fu master. Of virtually all the front runners this season, he has the least slime that I’ve read about and seen.
Concerning his ability to deal with political challenges, he’s done a remarkable job against an opponent who, less than six months ago, was the de facto Democratic candidate. The guy gots skills. (And I’m sure you’ll agree that Hillary hasn’t really had a real battle until now either.) The fact that Keyes got 20%+ of the vote isn’t too significant when you consider that Bush still has higher numbers. (I refer you to the theory of Crazification Factor).
I have no intention of voting for Barack Obama this year. If he’s the Democratic nominee, I’ll be looking into a third party candidate. African-American firebrand, Cynthia McKinney, is running for the Green Party’s nomination, and while she may be considered a left-wing extremist, at least I KNOW where she stands; like Hillary, there’s not much we don’t already know about her.
Since 2000, GOP opposition researchers have turned over every dust particle of every rock looking for stuff on Hillary in anticipation of her inevitable presidential run. I suspect there is quite a bit more to find out about Mrs. Clinton.
In regards to Hillary, I think this is her last attempt at changing the superdelegates’ minds. I have run into an alarming number of people who say they are voting for Hillary because they fear Obama will be killed. I don’t think she thinks the supers will change their minds simply because of fears for his safety, but because if such a thing were to happen, it would tear apart the country like nothing else in our lifetimes. I think she is banking on them thinking, “Rather than go through that, I’ll votr for her” and they could use the fact she has won five of the last seven contests, has done better in swing states, has won most of the big states, etc. to justify what would be an extremely controversial decision to the public.
She is playing on what she feels are latent fears. Will it work? Doubt it. But that’s what I think she is thinking.
I’ve rolled this over in my head several times. Normally, I’d imagine that Hillary’s comment was simply an outsized gaffe, but considering that she recently made pretty much made those comments verbatim before, I have to conclude that her wording was intentional (either that or she is one of the most tin-eared politicians in recent memory). So what was the purpose?
The most logical conclusion I come up with is that she wanted to say something outrageous in the hope that the Obama campaign would lash out with a response that she could try and leverage into a hard takedown. Unfortunately for her, the bait wasn’t taken and now Clinton is left looking like a fool.
believes in global warming
Which is rather like believing in gravity. Your main point aside (as I haven’t seen enough of O’Reilly to have an informed opinion), the phrasing here is somewhat questionable.
TWL
@Luigi Novi: “Bill, I was unaware of her earlier reference to the assassination. Thanks.”
You’re welcome.
By the by, I learned that fact by watching Washington Week in Review on PBS. I love the program because it’s informative, the panelists don’t yell at or talk over each other, and they’re interested in being objective journalists rather than ideological windbags. Plus it’s hosted by Gwenn Ifill, one of the finest journalists in the business.
@Tim Lynch: “Which is rather like believing in gravity…”
It depends on how you use the phrase “Global Warming.” If you mean the simple fact that the mean temperature of our planet is on the increase, then, yes, it is an indisputable fact. “Global Warming,” however, is often used to refer to the hypothesis that human activity is causing the effect. While I would agree that there is a great deal of persuasive scientific evidence to that effect, the idea hasn’t been proven the way gravity has been. Gravity is considered a law of science, of which there are very few because the bar is set very high.
Heh… Considering I have a unique talent for getting my foot in my mouth, I tend to believe that she was referencing the time-of-year rather than the assassination and chose the wrong words.
What I do find really interesting is how this has become a big deal now if she said something similar a couple of months back. Why the hoopla now instead of then? I think the timing is suspect.
Frankly (and I really hope I am wrong) I think both she and Obama are both at risk for an attempt. There are way too many crazies out there who don’t want anyone for president who doesn’t fit the usual criteria – male, white, and Protestant.
Tim Lynch,
You are right, as far as my phrasing goes. As Bill Myers has eloquently stated above, I mean the idea that humans are largely responsible for it, in proportion to other factors. Many journalists have simply used the phrase “global warming” to imply such activity is linked to human activity. Yes, there is evidence to support such a theory, but there is also plenty to counter it, which doesn’t seem to ever get voiced.
When Time Magazine says “the debate is over” on it’s cover, that strikes me as curious – and just leads me to believe they don’t WANT an authentic debate. they’ve made up their minds. The thing I like about O’Reilly is that he has people who disagree with him on his show and contrary to popular opinion actually lets them speak of they are responding to questions and not reciting talking points. This contrdicts the behavior of many pundits (and even alleged reporters) who rarely seem to have people on the air or in stories who disagree with them or their point of view. For example, I love to listen to Sean Hannity but I wouldn’t for a moment pretend he actually listens to others with differing views. O’Reilly does.
Fair enough, Jerome. That’s something of a knee-jerk reaction on my part: particularly when dealing with creationists who always ask if I “believe in evolution” or “am an evolutionist” (a term steeped in idiocy if there ever was one), I have little to no patience with phrasing indicating that a scientific phenomenon is something that needs to be “believed” like an item of religious faith. (My students get more of a pass in this regard, since they’re only teenagers, but adults should know better.)
I will, however, take you at your word that that’s not what you meant.
TWL
Alan Coil: Somewhere above, it was suggested that Hillary Clinton witnessed the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Did she actually witness it, or was that just a phrase saying that she had lived through it and seen footage of it?
Luigi Novi: Knowing Hillary, she’d probably say that she was dodging Sirhan’s bullets at the time. 🙂
Bill, what’s with the @ signs used in front of the names of people you’re addressing?
As for Olberman, I’ve never gotten the sense that he’s a blowhard. The fact that there is substance in what he says validates him, even if he’s a bit emotive in his pieces.
@Luigi Novi: “Bill, what’s with the @ signs used in front of the names of people you’re addressing?”
I dunno, it’s something I picked up in some other blogs that seems to make it easier to distinguish between my words and someone else’s. Even if it doesn’t, I don’t think it’s making anything more difficult or hurting anyone.
Alan Coil: I said Clinton had witnessed “the horror of 1968” – meaning all the horrors of that year, from assassinations to civil unrest and riots to war.
I have never heard that she was literally in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel that night in June. If she were, I’m sure she’d mention it incessantly. So I really doubt she was.
Alan Coil: I said Clinton had witnessed “the horror of 1968” – meaning all the horrors of that year, from assassinations to civil unrest and riots to war.
I have never heard that she was literally in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel that night in June. If she were, I’m sure she’d mention it incessantly. So I really doubt she was.
“I don’t think it’s making anything more difficult or hurting anyone.”
It looks pretentious 🙂
Christine –
Why the hoopla now instead of then?
Well, FWIW, when Olbermann pointed out the first time Clinton said this, I immediately pointed out to my wife the fact that the *way* she said it the first time around wasn’t (at least imo) as easy to construe in a poor way as it was this time. Either way, she never had to reference RKF’s assassination; she simply could have said the ’68 nomination ran into June. Or mentioned a Republican one more recent (I think people have said Reagan in ’80).
Jerome Maida
The thing I like about O’Reilly is that he has people who disagree with him on his show and contrary to popular opinion actually lets them speak of they are responding to questions and not reciting talking points.
Hmm. You must be talking about another Bill O’Reillys then, because this most certainly does NOT describe the one on Fox News.
Every time I have the misfortune of seeing him, he’s interrupting his guests – those that are of a different viewpoint than him – and not letting them finish their thoughts, cutting them off, etc.
Maybe I’ll have to go find some of the wonderful examples of popular opinion, where O’Reilly’s guests have to put him in his place since he won’t let them speak. 😉
Bill Myers: I dunno, it’s something I picked up in some other blogs that seems to make it easier to distinguish between my words and someone else’s. Even if it doesn’t, I don’t think it’s making anything more difficult or hurting anyone.
Luigi Novi: Oh yeah? Well that last @ sign DONE MURDERED MY PA!!!
I believe I need to speak with my @lawyer.
The idea of “two men enter, one man leaves” isn’t new — the fact that one of the “men” is a woman *is* new, and another, potentially controversial, signal was accidentally sent.
that’s an entirely fair assessment but Olberman seems far less willing to do that for thers. His anti-Hillary rant was pretty extreme for a guy who has experienced his own words having the worst possible meaning assigned to them.
What I do find really interesting is how this has become a big deal now if she said something similar a couple of months back. Why the hoopla now instead of then? I think the timing is suspect.
good question. I’d say because it’s now on TV (and youtube) as opposed to just an interview, people are looking for a reason to get her to get out of the race so any mistake she makes becomes amplified, the possibility of Obama being the nominee is now all but reality, and…it’s a 3 day weekend, we need something for the pundits to talk about. It would have been McCain’s medical records but the man got lucky.
Re global warming:
I don’t think she thinks the supers will change their minds simply because of fears for his safety, but because if such a thing were to happen, it would tear apart the country like nothing else in our lifetimes.
Huh. That’s an ineteresting point…vote for her because of what might happen to Obama afterwards if they don’t. Hadn’t thought of that angle.
But if anything, God forbid, were to happen to Obama and it wasn’t on the order of a lightning bolt or mega-tsunami that takes out the entire eastern seaboard, she is going to be the one who many many people will blame. Even if it defies all logic. Especially after her ill chosen words.
Wow, I have no idea how I just did that post…somehow I cut and pasted the beginning to the end…
Anyhoo, while I don’t want to jump the rails too far, this whole global warming issue is really pìššìņg me off. I hate when science gets shoved aside for the politics of convienence and there’s so much of this on both sides of the issue.
Is the earth getting warmer? certainly. Is it due in part to human activity? Almost certainly, it’s hard to see how an artificial change in the atmospheric makeup won’t have some effect. Are the changes we see due mostly to human activity. Ah, that’s not so clear.
Now, I would argue that it doesn’t matter since there are many good reasons to get off of the hydrocarbon burning habit even if it turns out that every single aspect of global warming is due to the sun. I would argue though that the scare tactics of too many on the global warming issue are going to nake this less likely. Scaring people with talk of how we only have 10 years to “save” the Earth (the Earth will go merrily on its way, with or without us), more and worse hurricanes (the latest estimate is that there will be fewer and less harmful…subject to change, of course, only a crazy person thinks we understand the weather enough to make those kinds of valid predictions), etc etc, will only come back to haunt us when they fail ot come true.
Since the last year has been cool you’ll see more and more people say “climate change” instead of global warming. yes, it’s dopey to take 1 or 2 years of weather and try to spot a trend but I recall more than a few hot days in the last few years where pols came on TV and said something to the effect of “120 degrees in texas and there are people who STILL don’t believe in global warming!” yeah, well, this year they will have to listen to the doubters use the same bad logic–“Best ski conditions in Colorado in decades! Global warming my frozen ášš!”
Just bad, wretched science all around.
And “climate change”…boy, that’s really going out on limb. Like the climate isn’t always changing. The nice thing is, like creationism, the hardcore global warming fanatics can’t lose the argument because they have such a flexible hypothesis. Hot weather? Global warming, duh. Cold weather? Ice age brought on by changes in the gulf stream from melting ice caused by…global warming. No change in the weather? Well…the weather is supposed to change! If there isn’t any change that means there must be some outside force interfering with it and that can only be…the Mysterions! No, seriously, global warming.
That’s not how science works.
I won’t even get into the the even more controversial question–assuming the worst, it’s happening and we’re responsible and it’s going to get worse, so what do we do about it? Except to note that we should be very very careful about that answer, because while I have no fear for the Earth’s continued existance I have serious doubts about our ability to change in a few years the socio-economic structures that have allowed us to keep 7+ billion people alive and fed. The supposed food shortages caused in part by burning corn for fuel shows how sever unintended consequences can be. Unless they show that they’ve thought things out I’d just as soon tell most politicians “Don’t just do something! Stand there!” until I think it’s safe to actually let them muck around.
Every gaffe outrage this year has had at least audio, usually video.
Reverend Wright was entirely a video phenomenon.
The questioning of Clinton’s account in Bosnia went back and forth between her and the media several times, but it didn’t become a big story until they had video of her walking calmly across the landing strip.
McCain didn’t back down from Reverend Haggie until the recording of the Hitler comments came out.
Obama’s bitter comment had garbled audio. Not as dramaticly useful, but it proved that he said those things.
It’s not just a news things. Once people have some audio or video link, they pass it around the internet like wildfire. Sometimes the media has their “public outrage over comments” story written even before the first news organisation ever broadcasts it.
Bill Myers said (about using the @ sign)—
“I dunno, it’s something I picked up in some other blogs that seems to make it easier to distinguish between my words and someone else’s. Even if it doesn’t, I don’t think it’s making anything more difficult or hurting anyone.”
Well, I think you are hurting the Imperial Army. Because of your excess usage, they are now short on @-@s.
{{geeky Star Wars reference}}
And of course The Onion is ahead of us all.
No. (Olbermann’s) actually much worse than that sometimes. Moreso of late than before. He’s fast become the Left’s Bill’o in that his success is making his ego and his rants balloon in size and grow more and more ugly and foolish.
When Olbermann’s right, he’s right, but sometimes he can be right too loudly and for too long. In this case one of the last things he said would have served much better on its own rather than at the tail end of an almost eleven minute speech:
“Because a senator – a politician – a person – who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot – has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.”
@Alan Coil: “Well, I think you are hurting the Imperial Army.”
They deserve it.
I just love you Loonie Lefties discussing, arguing and fighting. It’s hysterical. This board is a hoot.
Imperial Army never gets any love.
But they have way cool uniforms.
Luigi Novi,
The fact that there is substance in what he says validates him (Olbermann)? With all due respect, there is a bit of substance to what almost everyone says, even the “fringe” right and left. But I have never seen ANYONE go on and on – in my opinion at best repeating himself and at worst coming off as an imbecile than Olbermann, though your mileage may and obviously does vary – for as long on a significant (which is being kind)station time after time with such anger as Olbermann. Not Lou Dobbs. Not Glenn Beck. Not Geralso Rivera or Oliver North or Michael Moore or Ann Coulter or Andy Rooney or Bill O’Reilly.
But, to each his own.
Bill Mulligan,
Not to take this too far off the rails either, but regarding global warming, I have to disagree with one of your main points.
Whether the earth is getting warmer or whether we as humans are having ANY impact on it is IRRELEVANT. As the dominant species on the planet what we must ask ourselves as we decide to take action to “Save the Planet” is whether or not humans are changing the Earth’s climate to a SIGNIFICANT degree. The jury is still out on that. Note I didn’t dismiss it out of hand. I would just like to be convinced by an honest debate, which is not what we are getting right now.
As for any action we take to “reduce the carbon footprint” being positive regardless of motivation, let me just say ethanol, which is being proven to be not only a sham, but is doing so at the expense of people around the world going hungry (or hungrier, as prices climb) while Big Farms double whack the little guy by raising prices and receiving taxpayer subsidies. Just “food” for thoight:)
This just brings to mind the fact that it’s been at least a couple of days since I’ve heard anything about her in the news. It’s more the snippets about “Obama/McCain”. One can’t help but wonder when she’s finally going to take the hint?
Ethanol has nothing to do with reducing global warming, though it is being sold that way to the gullible. besides the inherent lack of wisdom in burning food I think it’s been established that you end up using a lot of energy to raise the crops to get the ethanol.
It’s advantages are basically that it makes farmers happy, is not dependent on foreign oil and thus a more reliable source, and it sounds like you are doing something. The science of climate is complicated so most people will be happy to accept “We can make fuel from corn!” as a solution.
To me, the main point is not why the weather is changing but rather what, if anything, can be done about it, how expensive it will be, how many will die from the fix (as opposed to the problem) and what the likelihood of success will be.
Bill: “Ethanol has nothing to do with reducing global warming, though it is being sold that way to the gullible. besides the inherent lack of wisdom in burning food I think it’s been established that you end up using a lot of energy to raise the crops to get the ethanol.”
Energy efficiency isn’t a global warming issue as much as it is a renewable resources issue. You’re right that corn ethanol is a bust in the energy efficiency department.
Cellulose ethanol looks like it will be vastly superior in that regard. They just need to get production costs down. They’re saying they’ll accomplish that in the next five years, but you know how dependable scheduling scientific breakthroughs is.
I’m actually hopefull that cellulose ethanol could work. It doesn’t have the political appeal of corn ethanol but it’s defintely the way to go.
I think a lot could be done with some old fashioned cleverness. It bugs me that in my house I have an attic which is almost always warm and a basement, which is always cool. Since controlling the climate in the part I live in involves either heating or cooling the house shouldn’t ther ebe some way of taking advantage of this? Why do we put the water heater in the coldest paert of the house? (ok, a burst water heater in an attic would be very very very bad…then again, it might be far less likely to burst.)
I think we have been getting an honest discussion about Global Warming, a.k.a. Catastrophic Climate Change, just not from all the scientists who are employed by the Big Oil companies. All the rest of the scientists in the world think Catastrophic Climate Change is a fact, and almost all of them think mankind is causing a large portion of it.
Drop the word “large” from that last bit and it’ll be right.
I’m not even sure that it’s accurate to say that all the legit scientists believe that “catastrophic” climate change is a fact. In fact, many of the ones who are on the front lines about this are alarmed that the scare tactics are going to backfire–when Al and prince Charles and the other amatures state that the Earth has 10 years left to avoid disaster what happens when 10 years go by and it’s still pretty much spinning away?
Did you hear that Dr. Tom Knutson has reversed his previous belief that global warming would invrease the number of hurricanes? Of course, I would caution everyone to not immediately assume that this study will stand the test of time–which would have been good advice for his earlier efforts as well.
as I’ve said, there’s LOTS of good reasons to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon but I don’t know that shouting apocalypse in a crowded continent will get the job done. might even hurt.
Bill,
My point in bringing up ethanol is that a lot of people simply assumed if we could make fuel from corn, we could reduce fossil-fuel use and decrease global warming. But if it takes MORE energy to produce than it gives, then not only is it detrimental cost-wise, but is definiely not “saving the planet”. In fact, I’m sure all those people who are finding food higher in price or scarce in some parts of the world due to our misguided ethanol policy are really happy that some rabid environmentalists are feeling better about themselves for “saving the planet” while many of them are more hungry or even starving around the world.
Another thing I see rarely get mentioned by our liberal media is that for many countries, a warmer earth is beneficial. They can grow crops longer, don’t have to worry about freezing or finding food in the winter, etc. Yet, their stories are NEVER told, not even as an occasional counterweight to the usual stories portraying global warming in a negative light.
For many, the visual of a polar bear near melting ice is more powerful than a smiling child with enough food for the first time.
Don’t blame the environmentalists for ethanol. It’s ADM lobbying for ag subsidies we have to thank for it. More protectionist sniveling.
The future is in algae-based fuels. I forget the exact ratio, but you only need to grow pond-scum in the area of something like Luxembourg to equal the solar power from the area of something like the whole of Australia. It was something that drastic. Also, desert regions can be used to grow jojoba, the oil of which is said to require very little processing to replace diesel fuel, with only a fraction of the pollution.
They’re also talking about genetically modifying existing vegetation to eat more carbon dioxide. Every carbon atom is processed by a plant every 12 years, and speeding up this process may take the carbon out of our air.
Our troubles aren’t sheltered from a dearth of creativity. It’s sheltered by reactionary-backed corporate protectionism.
“but you only need to grow pond-scum in the area of something like Luxembourg to equal the solar power from the area of something like the whole of Australia”
Not much use when you’ve been in drought for 7-10 years. Where do you find a pond in the first place? 🙂
If jojoba can be grown in Australia as it does in other desert regions, you can have fuel practically growing on trees in a generation. Do Australians ever talk about solar energy?
Yes, solar power is discussed.
How about this for a topic, PAD?
MESSAGE TO SEN OBAMA:
When you decide to inform the American public that a relative of yours was involved in liberating a German concentration camp during WWII, how about making sure to use your Harvard education to double-check that the camp you name was ACTUALLY liberated by American forces, instead of Soviet forces?
You see, Sen Obama, your “uncle” (actually, it appears it was your “GREAT-uncle”), if he served in the US Armed Forces, could NEVER have approached the infamous camp at Auschwitz. Auschwitz (which even a Harvard graduate using a map could determine) lies in modern Poland, and US troops advanced eastward no further than the Elbe River (which flows through the former German Democratic Republic aka East Germany).
Now, upon further consideration, one must ask how many more gaffes (or goofs) you plan on bringing up involving your family. The biggest, prior to this, was your bizarre civil rights timetable in which your parents first met during the Selma march. Now, with my living just an hour’s drive to the east of Selma, I can tell you that there’s NO record of any march taking place in Selma except for the famous one in 1965 (if there is one, it’s managed to COMPLETELY disappear from history since no one has ever discussed it), and, according to your own biography, you were born in 1961. Unless your parents somehow were involved in some time travel experiments, I don’t think they could’ve met in Selma and then produced you.
What’s utterly incredible about this particular story is the lack of major coverage–completely unlike the kerfluffle that accompanied Hillary’s comment about Bosnia earlier in the season or even the utter meltdown that took place following the RFK comment (which, one should note, didn’t appear to offend RFK, Jr, since he DIDN’T take offense, and if anyone should have been offended, he should have). Well, I guess it’s not all THAT incredible, since the major news outlets (especially MSNBC) have been in Obama’s pocket since before the primary season started.
JosephW,
The difference, in my view, between this gaffe and Clinton’s is that Obama had the gist right and one significant detail wrong (which camp). The name of the camp was not central to his story or his point. (And if you want to split hairs about “uncle” vs. “great uncle”, that’s your business, but I know plenty of adults who refer to their great-uncle as Uncle so-and-so.)
Clinton’s Bosnia gaffe, on the other hand, *was* central to her story: her whole point was that she was used to dangerous conditions, of which sniper fire was a prominent example. When it turns out that she completely misrepresented what occurred, that undercuts her point significantly.
Considering that I read an article about this on CNN’s main page, by the way, I think decrying a “lack of major coverage” is somewhat myopic.
TWL
Another thing I see rarely get mentioned by our liberal media is that for many countries, a warmer earth is beneficial. They can grow crops longer, don’t have to worry about freezing or finding food in the winter, etc.
true enough but the problem is we have this set up that allows us to get by, produce enough food to keep 7 billion alive, more or less. any change to that will be disruptive, even if it ends up increasing the available farmland.
Phoenix suddenly getting rain, for example, doesn’t help anyone–growing crops in wet sand isn’t a whole lot easier than growing crops in dry sand.
The problem is that it’s easier and a whole lot faster to turn a rainforest into a desert than visa versa.
joesephW–yeah, I have to agree with Tim–Obama has a flair for gaffes but this was hardly worth mentioning. Even the others are more amusing than illustrative of any personality flaws–the I see dead people moment from a few days ago was an off the cuff remark and shows why some people show keep things on the cuff–but Hillary’s was an out and out fabrication, designed to make her look good. No comparison.
In the US, oil companies have access to our government officials to discourage devoting resources to explore making solar cheaper and more efficient. For all anyone here knows, every house in your neighborhood may be solar powered, and we don’t know it. By “discussed” do you mean something like that it’s not quite omnipresent but still prevalent, or is it as bad as that it’s only discussed?
JosephW: “Well, I guess it’s not all THAT incredible, since the major news outlets (especially MSNBC) have been in Obama’s pocket since before the primary season started.”
Your thesis doesn’t fit the facts. The news media were saturated with stories about Rev. Wright and “bittergate” for weeks, both of which hurt Obama and helped Clinton significantly amoung white working-class voters.
JosephW: “…which, one should note, didn’t appear to offend RFK, Jr, since he DIDN’T take offense, and if anyone should have been offended, he should have.”
Those who fail to understand the outrage provoked by Ms. Clinton’s gaffe need to take into account the context surrounding it. To wit:
— Regardless of Ms. Clinton’s intent, her remarks came just shortly after the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The fear that such a thing could be repeated is what led Colin Powell’s wife to tearfully talk him out of running for president. Ms. Clinton should have realized that irrespective of her intent, bringing up RFK’s assassination in the context of her contest with Obama was in poor taste, would likely create misunderstandings, and would unecessarily aggravate a still-open wound for many Americans.
— Ms. Clinton’s remark was factually incorrect. Her husband had locked up the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination in April 1992, not June as she has repeatedly asserted.
— RFK entered the race for the Democratic presidential nomination just six weeks prior to his death in June. The parallel Clinton tried to draw between herself and RFK simply doesn’t exist.
By the way, I refer to my great-aunts as “aunt” and great-uncles as “uncle.” I know many others who do as well.
Jerome Maida: “I would just like to be convinced by an honest debate, which is not what we are getting right now.”
According to whom? Much of the “science” that questions the validity of the global warming hypothesis is ideologically driven and flawed. Cries that the scientific community is “liberally biased” are usually a smokescreen thrown up by those whose work has been rejected on its merits rather than its politics.
Unlike religion, where there is no right or wrong answer, science is objective. Every idea, hypothesis, and theory doesn’t deserve equal time. Some scientific ideas are just crap and should be treated as such.
The global warming hypothesis hasn’t been proven yet, which is why it’s still a hypothesis. But much of the “counter-evidence” being offered is still crap.
Bill Mulligan saID: 00″…shouting apocalypse in a crowded continent…”
I like that phrase. May have to borrow it sometime.