Desperate, Narcissistic Moonface Hangs Herself

[Manscape]

Another national embarassment..........perhaps worse than the McCain impotence............

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/999566.aspx

CLINTON: PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

Posted: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:25 AM by Domenico Montanaro

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.

“ ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday. She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’ She added, ‘There's a pattern emerging here.’”

Here’s what some said in response: “Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, ‘That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about.’ Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, ‘That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.’”

The New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton misplays race card while Barack Obama is treated like rock star.” “ome of her supporters -- including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) -- slammed the comments. ‘I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb,’ Rangel told The News as he headed to the House floor, where earlier he had embraced Obama. The bitter words came as both candidates looked ahead to West Virginia's primary Tuesday and pressed their talking points -- Clinton insisting she was in the race to win, while Obama argued he could have the nomination wrapped up when Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20.”

Peggy Noonan also believes Clinton played the race card in her USA Today interview. "If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”

“‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She's saying, “He's not one of us.”’

John Edwards said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he disagrees with Clinton’s “white Americans” comment and that she's got to ask herself, "Where are the lines?" He added, “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”

And did Edwards tip his hand on who he’s backing? He called Obama the "likely nominee.” And we’ll chalk this one up to his Southern accent, but he said he "voted for 'em on Tuesday.” (Sounded an awful lot like "him.")

Also… “I think Barack Obama’s doing pretty well without my help.” Edwards also said, “He is clearly the likely nominee at this point.”

Edwards said he may choose to publicly declare for one of the candidates, but he’s keeping it to himself “just for now.” He added, though, that he doesn’t think his endorsement matters except to “people like you all” [the media]. He wouldn’t answer if he and his wife, Elizabeth, voted for different people.

Here’s the New York Post’s headline to Charles Hurt’s column: “Desperate Hillbillies threaten to break up party.” “Well, now these racial politics have spilled out into the public and are splintering longtime, devoted Democrats into separate camps. It's become the ‘working-class whites’ versus the ‘eggheads and African-Americans.’

More: “With no one left to cry to, Sen. Clinton has gone nuclear and she's getting kookier by the minute. Yesterday she was toast. Today, she's looking more like scrambled eggs.”

Politico's Smith on Clinton's blunt talk about her white support: "Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters. And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters."

The New York Times reports it's possible Clinton will give herself more money. "Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia." More: "Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus.”

Interestingly, the Times makes the point that Obama's big spending in PA for his nine-point loss actually may have dealt a devastating financial blow to Clinton. "Obama spent $9 million on television advertisements in North Carolina and Indiana, including a last minute $170,000 purchase in the expensive Chicago market, which extends into northern Indiana. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton spent about $4.7 million in those states, according to CMAG. Even more, said Evan Tracey, spokesman for CMAG, the fact that Mr. Obama was able to pump $10 million into media purchases in Pennsylvania in April, even though he did not win that state, forced Mrs. Clinton to spend $5 million, cash she could have used in Indiana and North Carolina.”

Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said "seven figures." That doesn't quite confirm the million dollar Internet haul but...

During a three-state whirlwind tour yesterday of half of the remaining primaries, Clinton has altered her stump speeches on energy slightly to address the specific needs of those states, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. While Clinton emphasized coal technology in West Virginia (a topic normally included in a list but rarely specified on), she discussed wind power at more length in South Dakota. "When we get 52% of electricity from coal in the United States, coal is not going anywhere," Clinton said to applause in Charleston, WV. The New York Senator did emphasize the necessity for clean coal technology but assured the audience, which was sure to have included a good percentage of coal miners, that coal mining would not be eliminated.

None of the coal talk was anywhere to be seen in an expanded rally in Sioux Falls, SD four hours later. Instead, the focus was on wind energy production. "It's been said that America from the Dakotas down to West Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind," Clinton said. "And, you know, that's not just Washington political hot air talking; that's actually a fact, that if we harness the wind coming off of these plains and we had an electric grid system with the distribution system to transmit it from right here in South Dakota across our country, we would be moving toward clean renewable energy."

Why go on? The New York Daily News: “Whatever happens, it's a profile in true grit. But why is she still in a race that with each passing hour appears more doomed? Admirers say she's genuinely driven to make America a better place. Critics attribute her doggedness to the consuming ambition, thirst for power and streak of narcissism she shares with her husband.”

“Movie mogul and Hillary Rodham Clinton backer Harvey Weinstein told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he would stop fund-raising for Democrats if she refused to support new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, it was reported yesterday.”

[Guest Guest Who?]

Another national embarassment..........perhaps worse than the McCain impotence............

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/999566.aspx

CLINTON: PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

Posted: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:25 AM by Domenico Montanaro

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.

“ ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday. She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’ She added, ‘There's a pattern emerging here.’”

Here’s what some said in response: “Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, ‘That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about.’ Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, ‘That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.’”

The New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton misplays race card while Barack Obama is treated like rock star.” “ome of her supporters -- including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) -- slammed the comments. ‘I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb,’ Rangel told The News as he headed to the House floor, where earlier he had embraced Obama. The bitter words came as both candidates looked ahead to West Virginia's primary Tuesday and pressed their talking points -- Clinton insisting she was in the race to win, while Obama argued he could have the nomination wrapped up when Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20.”

Peggy Noonan also believes Clinton played the race card in her USA Today interview. "If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”

“‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She's saying, “He's not one of us.”’

John Edwards said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he disagrees with Clinton’s “white Americans” comment and that she's got to ask herself, "Where are the lines?" He added, “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”

And did Edwards tip his hand on who he’s backing? He called Obama the "likely nominee.” And we’ll chalk this one up to his Southern accent, but he said he "voted for 'em on Tuesday.” (Sounded an awful lot like "him.")

Also… “I think Barack Obama’s doing pretty well without my help.” Edwards also said, “He is clearly the likely nominee at this point.”

Edwards said he may choose to publicly declare for one of the candidates, but he’s keeping it to himself “just for now.” He added, though, that he doesn’t think his endorsement matters except to “people like you all” [the media]. He wouldn’t answer if he and his wife, Elizabeth, voted for different people.

Here’s the New York Post’s headline to Charles Hurt’s column: “Desperate Hillbillies threaten to break up party.” “Well, now these racial politics have spilled out into the public and are splintering longtime, devoted Democrats into separate camps. It's become the ‘working-class whites’ versus the ‘eggheads and African-Americans.’

More: “With no one left to cry to, Sen. Clinton has gone nuclear and she's getting kookier by the minute. Yesterday she was toast. Today, she's looking more like scrambled eggs.”

Politico's Smith on Clinton's blunt talk about her white support: "Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters. And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters."

The New York Times reports it's possible Clinton will give herself more money. "Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia." More: "Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus.”

Interestingly, the Times makes the point that Obama's big spending in PA for his nine-point loss actually may have dealt a devastating financial blow to Clinton. "Obama spent $9 million on television advertisements in North Carolina and Indiana, including a last minute $170,000 purchase in the expensive Chicago market, which extends into northern Indiana. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton spent about $4.7 million in those states, according to CMAG. Even more, said Evan Tracey, spokesman for CMAG, the fact that Mr. Obama was able to pump $10 million into media purchases in Pennsylvania in April, even though he did not win that state, forced Mrs. Clinton to spend $5 million, cash she could have used in Indiana and North Carolina.”

Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said "seven figures." That doesn't quite confirm the million dollar Internet haul but...

During a three-state whirlwind tour yesterday of half of the remaining primaries, Clinton has altered her stump speeches on energy slightly to address the specific needs of those states, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. While Clinton emphasized coal technology in West Virginia (a topic normally included in a list but rarely specified on), she discussed wind power at more length in South Dakota. "When we get 52% of electricity from coal in the United States, coal is not going anywhere," Clinton said to applause in Charleston, WV. The New York Senator did emphasize the necessity for clean coal technology but assured the audience, which was sure to have included a good percentage of coal miners, that coal mining would not be eliminated.

None of the coal talk was anywhere to be seen in an expanded rally in Sioux Falls, SD four hours later. Instead, the focus was on wind energy production. "It's been said that America from the Dakotas down to West Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind," Clinton said. "And, you know, that's not just Washington political hot air talking; that's actually a fact, that if we harness the wind coming off of these plains and we had an electric grid system with the distribution system to transmit it from right here in South Dakota across our country, we would be moving toward clean renewable energy."

Why go on? The New York Daily News: “Whatever happens, it's a profile in true grit. But why is she still in a race that with each passing hour appears more doomed? Admirers say she's genuinely driven to make America a better place. Critics attribute her doggedness to the consuming ambition, thirst for power and streak of narcissism she shares with her husband.”

“Movie mogul and Hillary Rodham Clinton backer Harvey Weinstein told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he would stop fund-raising for Democrats if she refused to support new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, it was reported yesterday.”

Where exactly is the quote of her saying "white Americans"?

[Guest jegbert]

Another national embarassment..........perhaps worse than the McCain impotence............

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../09/999566.aspx

CLINTON: PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

Posted: Friday, May 09, 2008 9:25 AM by Domenico Montanaro

Filed Under: 2008, Clinton

The New York Post: “Clinton played the race card yesterday as she dismissed Barack Obama as a candidate who will have a hard time winning support from ‘white Americans.’ It was the most starkly racial comment Clinton has made in the campaign, and drew quick condemnation from some Democrats.

“ ‘I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,’ she told USA Today in an interview published yesterday. She referred to an Associated Press story on Indiana and North Carolina exit polls ‘that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.’ She added, ‘There's a pattern emerging here.’”

Here’s what some said in response: “Muriel Offerman, a North Carolina superdelegate who has not disclosed her choice, said, ‘That should not have been said. I think it drives a wedge, a racial wedge, and that's not what the Democratic Party's about.’ Asked about Clinton's comments, Massachusetts superdelegate Debra Kozikowsi said, ‘That's distressing. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.’”

The New York Daily News: “Hillary Clinton misplays race card while Barack Obama is treated like rock star.” “ome of her supporters -- including Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Manhattan) -- slammed the comments. ‘I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb,’ Rangel told The News as he headed to the House floor, where earlier he had embraced Obama. The bitter words came as both candidates looked ahead to West Virginia's primary Tuesday and pressed their talking points -- Clinton insisting she was in the race to win, while Obama argued he could have the nomination wrapped up when Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20.”

Peggy Noonan also believes Clinton played the race card in her USA Today interview. "If John McCain said, ‘I got the white vote, baby!’ his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party. To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical ‘the black guy can't win but the white girl can’ is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.”

“‘She has unleashed the gates of hell,’ a longtime party leader told me. ‘She's saying, “He's not one of us.”’

John Edwards said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he disagrees with Clinton’s “white Americans” comment and that she's got to ask herself, "Where are the lines?" He added, “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”

And did Edwards tip his hand on who he’s backing? He called Obama the "likely nominee.” And we’ll chalk this one up to his Southern accent, but he said he "voted for 'em on Tuesday.” (Sounded an awful lot like "him.")

Also… “I think Barack Obama’s doing pretty well without my help.” Edwards also said, “He is clearly the likely nominee at this point.”

Edwards said he may choose to publicly declare for one of the candidates, but he’s keeping it to himself “just for now.” He added, though, that he doesn’t think his endorsement matters except to “people like you all” [the media]. He wouldn’t answer if he and his wife, Elizabeth, voted for different people.

Here’s the New York Post’s headline to Charles Hurt’s column: “Desperate Hillbillies threaten to break up party.” “Well, now these racial politics have spilled out into the public and are splintering longtime, devoted Democrats into separate camps. It's become the ‘working-class whites’ versus the ‘eggheads and African-Americans.’

More: “With no one left to cry to, Sen. Clinton has gone nuclear and she's getting kookier by the minute. Yesterday she was toast. Today, she's looking more like scrambled eggs.”

Politico's Smith on Clinton's blunt talk about her white support: "Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters. And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters."

The New York Times reports it's possible Clinton will give herself more money. "Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia." More: "Clinton had been increasingly relying on Internet donations this spring from new and small-amount contributors; the day after she won the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the campaign brought in a record $10 million online. But Hassan Nemazee, one of Mrs. Clinton’s national finance chairmen, put the amount she collected online in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries at only “$1 million-plus.”

Interestingly, the Times makes the point that Obama's big spending in PA for his nine-point loss actually may have dealt a devastating financial blow to Clinton. "Obama spent $9 million on television advertisements in North Carolina and Indiana, including a last minute $170,000 purchase in the expensive Chicago market, which extends into northern Indiana. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton spent about $4.7 million in those states, according to CMAG. Even more, said Evan Tracey, spokesman for CMAG, the fact that Mr. Obama was able to pump $10 million into media purchases in Pennsylvania in April, even though he did not win that state, forced Mrs. Clinton to spend $5 million, cash she could have used in Indiana and North Carolina.”

Yesterday, Terry McAuliffe said "seven figures." That doesn't quite confirm the million dollar Internet haul but...

During a three-state whirlwind tour yesterday of half of the remaining primaries, Clinton has altered her stump speeches on energy slightly to address the specific needs of those states, NBC’s Lauren Appelbaum notes. While Clinton emphasized coal technology in West Virginia (a topic normally included in a list but rarely specified on), she discussed wind power at more length in South Dakota. "When we get 52% of electricity from coal in the United States, coal is not going anywhere," Clinton said to applause in Charleston, WV. The New York Senator did emphasize the necessity for clean coal technology but assured the audience, which was sure to have included a good percentage of coal miners, that coal mining would not be eliminated.

None of the coal talk was anywhere to be seen in an expanded rally in Sioux Falls, SD four hours later. Instead, the focus was on wind energy production. "It's been said that America from the Dakotas down to West Texas is the Saudi Arabia of wind," Clinton said. "And, you know, that's not just Washington political hot air talking; that's actually a fact, that if we harness the wind coming off of these plains and we had an electric grid system with the distribution system to transmit it from right here in South Dakota across our country, we would be moving toward clean renewable energy."

Why go on? The New York Daily News: “Whatever happens, it's a profile in true grit. But why is she still in a race that with each passing hour appears more doomed? Admirers say she's genuinely driven to make America a better place. Critics attribute her doggedness to the consuming ambition, thirst for power and streak of narcissism she shares with her husband.”

“Movie mogul and Hillary Rodham Clinton backer Harvey Weinstein told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he would stop fund-raising for Democrats if she refused to support new primary elections in Florida and Michigan, it was reported yesterday.”

News flash for Manscum; We all get newspapers and watch the news on TV.

[Guest Guest]

News flash for Manscum; We all get newspapers and watch the news on TV.

He's auditioning as a cub reporter for the Daily Planet.

[Guest Guest]

Where exactly is the quote of her saying "white Americans"?

[Guest Guest]

News flash for Manscum; We all get newspapers and watch the news on TV.

What an insolent child you are.

[Guest Melanie]

News flash for Manscum; We all get newspapers and watch the news on TV.

News flash for jegbert: USA today is barely a newspaper, and Fox doesn't provide news.

[Guest Guest]

News flash for jegbert: USA today is barely a newspaper, and Fox doesn't provide news.

Let me guess, that Leftist rag, the NY Slimes is more your speed.

[Guest Guest]

News flash for jegbert: USA today is barely a newspaper, and Fox doesn't provide news.

What a pompous ass.

[Guest Guest]

Let me guess, that Leftist rag, the NY Slimes is more your speed.

This reminds me of the study that found that even people who read no news were better informed on Iraq than those who watched Fox News.

[Guest Guest]

What a pompous ass.

As opposed to the guy calling the original poster "Manscum", right?

Psst, your bias is showing.

[Guest Guest]

This reminds me of the study that found that even people who read no news were better informed on Iraq than those who watched Fox News.

Huh?

[Guest Guest]

Huh?

I'll spell it out for you.

The neocons bash the NY Times, a newspaper of record, and hail Fox News. So, it's funny and ironic that people who watched NO news were better informed about Iraq than those who got their news from Fox News.

[Guest Guest]

I'll spell it out for you.

The neocons bash the NY Times, a newspaper of record, and hail Fox News. So, it's funny and ironic that people who watched NO news were better informed about Iraq than those who got their news from Fox News.

It's not hard to understand. Misinformation is worse than no information.

[Guest Guest]

I'll spell it out for you.

The neocons bash the NY Times, a newspaper of record, and hail Fox News. So, it's funny and ironic that people who watched NO news were better informed about Iraq than those who got their news from Fox News.

Kids, this is a great example why you need to just say "no" to drugs.

[Guest Guest]

I'll spell it out for you.

The neocons bash the NY Times, a newspaper of record, and hail Fox News. So, it's funny and ironic that people who watched NO news were better informed about Iraq than those who got their news from Fox News.

What ? This post is without a doubt the most moronic I've seen in quite a while.

[Guest Guest]

What ? This post is without a doubt the most moronic I've seen in quite a while.

Then why did you write it?

[Guest Guest]

What ? This post is without a doubt the most moronic I've seen in quite a while.

I know neocons often find the truth moronic (obviously because their simple minds can't handle it), but here it is in black and white:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Med...2_03_Report.pdf

[Guest Guest]

I know neocons often find the truth moronic (obviously because their simple minds can't handle it), but here it is in black and white:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Med...2_03_Report.pdf

Don't tell me you're so naive as to believe the leftist propaganda spewed on these Loony Left hate sites. My God, I've been debating a moron.

[Guest Guest]

Don't tell me you're so naive as to believe the leftist propaganda spewed on these Loony Left hate sites.

Don't tell me you're so simple-minded that you'll classify any facts you don't like as "leftist propaganda". These are not the partisan politics you're looking for.

"The WorldPublicOpinion.org network is a consortium of research centers studying public opinion on international issues in their respective countries. At present the network consists of research centers in 22 countries across all of the major continents."

My God, I've been a moron.

Fixed.

[Windy City Attorney]

Don't tell me you're so naive as to believe the leftist propaganda spewed on these Loony Left hate sites. My God, I've been debating a moron.

Please explain how the Program on International Policy of the University of Maryland (which conducted the survey) is a "Loony Left" organization. Is it just that it's got "University" in the name without the words "Patrick Henry," "Bob Jones," "Regent," "Oral Roberts," or "Liberty"? Or is it the "Program on International Policy" that proves it? I can see how someone who thinks that we've made all the right moves in foreign policy over the last seven years might think that - after all, the Bush/Cheney/neocon approach to foreign policy has two aspects- threaten war and wage war. If you're part of the 28% and falling that still thinks this group is doing a great job, I could see how you might not understand the need for actually studying international policy. Or anything else for that matter - you probably think that the President should be chosen based on whether you'd want to have a beer with him, not whether he or she actually knows anything relevant to the job of President.

It's a study. Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean it's propaganda.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Please explain how the Program on International Policy of the University of Maryland (which conducted the survey) is a "Loony Left" organization. Is it just that it's got "University" in the name without the words "Patrick Henry," "Bob Jones," "Regent," "Oral Roberts," or "Liberty"? Or is it the "Program on International Policy" that proves it? I can see how someone who thinks that we've made all the right moves in foreign policy over the last seven years might think that - after all, the Bush/Cheney/neocon approach to foreign policy has two aspects- threaten war and wage war. If you're part of the 28% and falling that still thinks this group is doing a great job, I could see how you might not understand the need for actually studying international policy. Or anything else for that matter - you probably think that the President should be chosen based on whether you'd want to have a beer with him, not whether he or she actually knows anything relevant to the job of President.

It's a study. Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean it's propaganda.

"Windy City Attorney" ?? Please. 10th grade "C' student I'll believe.

[Guest Keith]

"Windy City Attorney" ?? Please. 10th grade "C' student I'll believe.

I guess that would explain your fondness for G.W.

[Guest Guest]

"Windy City Attorney" ?? Please. 10th grade "C' student I'll believe.

More typical neocon dodging. What's the matter, boy? Can't respond to what s/he actually said? Poor baby.

[Guest TheoryCat]

"Windy City Attorney" ?? Please. 10th grade "C' student I'll believe.

Comparing the grammar of the two posts makes this the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you very much-you're truly a precious gem.