Skank

According to “Tom the Dancing Bug.”

Photo of our great leader meeting with the Dalai Lama.

Thousands of people every year are struck by lightning, how has this sophomoric moron remained untouched.

Over at Liberal Oasis Bill Scher highlights the stupidity of the hundreds of news stories and opinion pieces of the past year where reporters and pundits clutch their pearls at the very bad idea of Hillary’s candidacy–bad because she’s such a polarizing figure. Well, ABC News and the Washington Post commissioned a poll to see just how polarizing Hillary is. Surprise, surprise..not so much.

The Most Polarizing Prez Candidate Is…Not Hillary

Here’s some poll data that I don’t believe has received much attention.

***

ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL. Sept. 27-30, 2007

“If [see below] wins the Democratic/Republican nomination for president would you definitely vote for him/her in the general election for president in 2008, would you consider voting for him/her or would you definitely not vote for him/her?”

PERCENT SAYING “DEFINITELY WOULD NOT”

Obama — 39%
Clinton — 41%
Edwards — 43%
Giuliani — 44%
McCain — 45%
Thompson — 54%
Romney — 57%

***

What’s does that mean?

1. Sen. Hillary Clinton is no more polarizing than other Dems, and less polarizing than every leading Republican.

Read the rest of Scher’s parsing of this poll here.

Our Secretary of State Condi Rice said:

“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

“I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma,” said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.

Clueless, absolutely clueless, just like her “husband.”

 Kagro X:

So here’s the key. The domestic spying has always been justified by saying it was a necessary response to 9/11. But clearly there’s damned good reason to believe these programs were conceived and initiated well before the September 11th attacks.

That would mean — gasp! — that your “government” is full of it.

But it’s not just that. If Qwest’s competitors were already abetting this bloodless(?) coup before 9/11, then the “administration’s” domestic spying not only has little if anything to do with response to terrorism, but it also objectively failed to prevent 9/11.

Hmmm, I’m going with both lying and imncompetent.

Jon Rauch: “Some optimists say that in Army Gen. David Petraeus, Bush has finally found his Gen. Grant. That may or may not be true, but it is beside the point. The problem is that Petraeus has not yet found his President Lincoln.”