Further proof that the notion of a "liberal media" is a myth: CNBC Hires Dennis Miller.

Here's my favorite quote from the article:

"Even if people don't agree with him, they'll find what he's saying interesting," [CNBC President Pamela Thomas-Graham] said.

...which is true. At least Dennis Miller is funny and has a unique style that I enjoyed watching on his HBO show. However, she went on to say...

"Our audience isn't looking for someone to tell them how to think."

Then why did you hire Dennis Miller? That's exactly Dennis Miller's shtick -- he may pepper his right-wing secretes with witty similes, but a flowered is a blowhard. Take away Miller's cocaine-induced, sesquipedalian (albeit occasionally funny) monologues, and he's Ann Coulter.

With a smaller Adam's Apple.

From my pal Temple:

This just in from a friend here in Bend. Which prompted me to submit my own:

"I'm a Republican because democracy is for sissies."

C'mon, everybody! Let's all play!
-T
==========

You can submit photos and testimonials for consideration to appear with President Bush on a forthcoming CNBC and Fox television show called "Republican Values TV." The process involves a testimonial demonstrating "why YOU are a Republican."
Here's the link:

http://www.republicantv.org

Here's the testimonial I submitted:

"I'm a Republican because I love corruption, dirty money, lying to the American people, cheating my way into office, awarding lucrative contracts to the corporations I serve, closing America's schools so Halliburton can build new schools in Iraq, threatening the lives of Amercian CIA operatives, gutting veterans' benefits, driving the nation into record debt, bombing innocent people who live near oil reserves, raping the public's natural resources for profit, mailing phony forged propaganda letters from U.S. soldiers in Iraq, destroying the Bill of Rights, violating international law, defying the United Nations to 'enforce a UN resolution' and butchering the English language.

Thank you, hope I make it on the show."

If you submit to them, feel free to also send them my way. I'll post the good ones here.

The BBC, which is as impartial a news source as any, is reporting that "US economic growth soars". The argument: the US had the biggest quarterly growth in consumer spending since 1984, when a certain Ronald Reagan was president.

Basically, the BBC is saying that the US economy soared because rich people spent more money. Why don't you tell the 69,000 people per month (on average) who are losing their jobs that the economy is improving?

It's the return of Reaganomics -- make sure the hoarders of the bulk of the economy have more to hoard so that economic indicators point upward. Then, that success will trickle down in the form of new jobs and investment in new business. There are some decent arguements out there that the Reagan years did pay off in the long run, though Bush Sr. was then stuck with an enormous deficit that he couldn't do anything with except to raise taxes. It took the Clinton administration to pay down that deficit and actually create a surplus which could have saved social security. Too bad that surplus is now gone.

Tax cuts cannot create jobs unless spending is also curtailed -- even a conservative economist will tell you that -- and $87 billion in Iraq is not exactly curtailed spending. One of the myths about Democrats that is forced upon them by conservative blowhards is the "tax-and-spend" mantra. Lest we forget that it was Al Gore who "oversaw the National Performance Review, an ambitious program that has saved the Federal Government over one billion dollars by streamlining expenditures".

Oh, and I, of course, have to bring up Howard Dean. This is from DeanforAmerica.com:

A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any future economic downturn.

During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created, the state's minimum wage has climbed twice, incentive programs have expanded to help downtowns attract new businesses, and tax incentives were created to attract and keep new companies.

Some intense Google searching and combing of the other candidates web sites provided no statements to refute this.

Here's what it boils down to. The conservative way is to support big business so that there are more crumbs for the peasants to eat -- the "Let Them Eat Cake" version. The liberal way (and I mean the truly liberal way, not the Clinton 1997 tax plan that actually would have raised taxes for the poor) is to support everyone and to provide help to those who need it the most. When everyone is treated better, everything gets better. Ironically, that sounds more Christian than anything I've ever heard a conservative say.

My favorite blogger is getting sued.

Be sure to look up in the sky Wednesday night -- it may be aurora-licious.

There was a very, um, curious exchange at the President's news conference today. The Washington Post transcript misses part of it, so the text in blue is paraphrased from what I saw on CNN:

BUSH: Okay, a question from [you] and a question from [you] and then lunch.

QUESTION: Are we invited?

BUSH: Depends on the question.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you talked about politics. For weeks if not months now, when questions have been posed to members of your team, those questions have been dismissed as politics and the time will come later to address those questions. You indeed have said that yourself.

How can the public differentiate between reality and politics when you and your campaign have raised over $80 million and you're saying that this season has not started?

BUSH: You're not invited to lunch.

(LAUGHTER)

From what I watched, there wasn't that much (LAUGHTER), actually.

This has been on my mind since I sang "Babe" by Styx last Saturday night at the Hidden Cove Lounge:

1) Punk and grunge tunes younger than 15 years do not make good karaoke songs. Your off-key rendition of Stone Temple Pilots or Blink-182 is simply not entertaining anybody.

2) I don't care how good of a singer you are or how perfect the song is for your voice -- slow, sad tunes that no one has ever heard of do not make good karaoke songs, no matter how well you sing them. For God's sake, we're drinking here!

3) Anything longer than 5 minutes and/or featuring an enormous guitar solo is not a good karaoke song. We don't want to blankly stare at you staring at the screen blankly.

Karaoke is all about pleasing the audience. There's no artistic fortitude for you to sell out. It's about being drunk and entertaining a bunch of other drunks. Therefore, the best karaoke songs should possess a certain degree of irony for the singer. Don't sing your favorite song. Go for the guilty pleasure, the song everyone says they hate but secretly love. Pick something nostalgic. Best of all, sing the most uncharacteristic thing anyone would expect you to sing. You'll have the audience in the palm of your hand.

Next time I karaoke, I'm thinking "You Make Me Feel Like a Natural Woman."

Mad propz to Rob Batarla, a friend of mine from junior high school, who wrote me today after stumbling upon my blog. In eighth grade, I was his campaign manager when he ran for student council treasurer. I was horrible at the job, and I even ended up voting for someone else. I can't remember who I did vote for, but Rob didn't speak to me for a very long time. I should have stuck by my candidate. Rob -- I'm sorry I let you down.

After reading today's Boondocks, gracefully pointed out by Atrios...



...I, for the first time ever, typed anncoulter.com into my address bar. If her rhetoric wasn't grody enough, she has a whole images section. I'm not sure who really wants to see Ann shooting a gun or trying to look hot (yuck on both counts).

Anyway, here's the very first photo on the images site, posing with neocon fuck-buddy Sean Hannity:



We're not talking lighting, Photoshopping, or any of that. No matter how you look at it, that's a goddamned Adam's Apple.

I wonder if Mr. Hannity knows he's been fisting an inside-out penis.

Discovered via Cruel Site of the Day, Rush Limbaugh sings his smash hit I'm a Nazi (1.7MB MP3). The Martha Stewart one is pretty funny, too; they're all here.

And yet, this page is missing my all-time favorite audio collage, Ronald and Nancy Reagan proclaiming that "Drugs open your eyes to life." (350K WAV)

On another note, I'd like to publicly thank all of my friends who celebrated my birthday with me on Wednesday evening despite the Cubs (inevitable?) loss to the Florida Marlins. It's good to know who my true friends are.

One last thing, for the record: Close your eyes. Imagine Bertolt Brecht wrote a Kung Fu film. Intrigued. Now open your eyes and go see Kill Bill right now.

Ladies and gentleman, I give you the most reviled man in Chicago:




Perhaps the curse is real? Knock on wood, I guess. After all, I still think baseball is boring, but I find the sociology of the whole situation -- two cursed teams with the potential of playing each other in a World Series -- fascinating, making me watch a few games and understand baseball a little more. I'm finding myself rooting for the Cubs. How about that.

All I know is that today is my 29th birthday, and I'm going to be hard pressed to find a bar tonight that isn't chock full of choads.

SIDENOTE: Why to they call it the World Series? Japan and Mexico have professional baseball -- if it's a World Series, shouldn't the all out winning team here have to play the all out winner of Japan? I guess pointing out this bit of arrogance means I hate America. Sorry, Mr. Scarborough.

SIDENOTE 2: Why do we call ourselves "America" when the United States is only one country that comprises North America, and there are two other Americas? I guess pointing out this bit of arrogance means I hate the United States. Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly.

Random thought: Who wants to bet that this season, The Simpsons will feature Ranier Wolfcastle running for mayor of Springfield?

Today, Fark -- come for the Photoshop contests, stay for the boobies -- links to a New York Daily News gossip column. Fark links to it with, "Daryl Hannah says she's suing Playboy over this month's photos." Like I said -- Farkers love their boobies.

But scroll down that article to the seventh item on the page. Past Justin Timberlake, Cameron Diaz, the Boston Red Sox, and Uma Thurman, you'll find Christie Todd Whitman, former New Jersey governor and former head of the EPA for George Bush.

Christie Todd Whitman freely slams former boss President Bush for giving a $1 billion contract to Halliburton - headed by Vice President Cheney from 1995 to 2000 - to fix Iraqi oil wells.

"That was dumb," Whitman tells Nancy Collins in the November Harper's Bazaar. "Why in God's name [would] you let that happen? Halliburton may be the best people to do the job, but you have to bid it, because it just looks terrible."

Terrible, indeed. Suspicious, even.

But item number seven? Our priorities are sad sometimes, are they not?

Another e-mail from a reader! No, I don't have my e-mail address posted here (to avoid spam), but soon I will add a response form. Anyway, on my claim that DSL is better than cable, Frank Payne, whose website you should visit often if you like to listen to new music that doesn't totally kiss Clear Channel's ass, writes:

I'm going to have to disagree. I've used both quite a bit and cable has been the clear winner in my own personal trials. DSL providers always claim this bullshit about how cable uses a 'shared' network. Well guess what, a network is a network. When everybody's online, it doesn't matter if which service you have, the whole internet is slow. During good times, I typically have a bandwidth limit of 200 - 300 KB/sec. In rare cases during off-peak times, I've gotten sustained transfer rates as high as 450 KB/sec. When I say rare, I mean maybe two or three times a month when I'm on at 6AM, downloading from microsoft.com. In the year that I had DSL, those rare moments never happened and my typical pipeline was around 130 - 200 KB/sec. Again, this is limited experience -- one specific location versus another. The other attractive feature of cable is its use of DHCP. Few consumers need a static IP, and those who don't benefit from not having to hard code IP addresses. From an IT standpoint, that means people can pull their laptop off their desk and plug it in at home without changing network settings.

So far, I don't know anyone with 'premium' DSL, so I don't know if paying for a 1.5 megabit line is really worth it. I would be interested to see what actual impact it has on download speeds from specific sites. My theory is that you can probably achieve a greater total bandwidth by spreading it across multiple consecutive downloads, but I find it difficult to imagine that individual sites would be any faster.

Firstly, perhaps you know something I don't, but I don't see how that's an argument for dynamic versus static IP addresses. If your laptop can automatically figure out where it is (and change all of your firewall and proxy settings automatically without you having to do anything or having had done major tweaking in the first place), I don't think whether your IP is static or dynamic is going to make a lick of difference. Besides, most DSL providers charge extra for static IP anyway, so that has nothing to do with why I say DSL is better than cable.

Sure, it's all a network, but DSL does not have the same slow-down problems that cable does if everyone on your block is downloading "pr0n" at the same time. It's the difference between a switch and a hub. DSL provides a direct connection to the ISPs switch, while cable connects everyone on your block to a localized hub, and then the hubs connect to the Internet switches. That's two hops instead of just one. At prime websurfing times, I've seen friends with cable connections get speeds close to dial-up. I guarantee you that DSL would not have that problem, and I'd rather have a little slower but consistent connection than occasional WTFs.

Furthermore, cable has proven to be insecure. For example, look at the dangers of Rendezvous-enabled Macs on cable modems. Cable shares more resources than DSL does, which can be dangerous unless you know what you're doing. Speaking of which...

If you want to talk about average users, not power users, then DSL is the way to go, especially because of security. There's less to worry about. Sure, as long as you set up your firewall, everything's fine. However, if you're saying "Few consumers need a static IP, and those who don't benefit from not having to hard code IP addresses," I'd say even fewer consumers want to worry about properly tweaking a firewall or specifying which computers have access to their connection. So much for not having to hard code anything.

With what I've read and what I've seen amongst my friends, DSL is the way to go. Unfortunately, cable is winning out because of its already widespread availability. Yet again, Beta is beaten out by VHS.

Busy day; blog little. Three quick things:

1) Geologically, California will inevitably fall into the ocean. As far as I'm concerned, it already has and is trying to drag the rest of the country with it.

2) To upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows XP home costs $99.00. And if you have an older computer, it may not even run the upgrade. To upgrade from an earlier version of Mac OS X to the latest version costs $129, $30 more. Beta testers reported that it actually runs faster on older machines (like my Blue-and-White PowerMac g3) than previous versions of OS X. There's also no duplicitous product activation. So to all of the Mac users bitching that Apple doesn't have an upgrade price for Panther, quit whining. (Of course, I get it with a student discount for $69. HA-HA!)

3) UNSOLICITED, UNCOMPENSATED ENDORSEMENT: I purchased a subscription to The Nation, the first magazine I've actually subscribed to in a few years. It's worth every penny.

United States Hypocrisy at its finest

"'As requested, GAO established a fictitious company and purchased over the Internet key excess DoD biological equipment items and related protective clothing necessary to produce and disseminate biological warfare agents.'"

...

Much if not all of the equipment sold to GAO investigators is available to the public at full price on the open market, the source said, but "we certainly don't need DoD to be a discount shop for potential bioterrorists."

Sleep tight, citizens.

Why does Michael Powell, Colin's son and Chairman of the FCC (nepotism is so delicious), hate consumers? Because he loves corporations, and corporations hate consumers. They do, however, love consumers' money and want to screw you out of as much of it as possible.

Fortunately for us consumers, Michael Powell keeps getting shot down.

First, he tried to allow media companies to tighten their stranglehold on markets. That was defeated, thank God.

Now, he plans to appeal a court ruling stating that cable companies, like phone companies, have to lease their networks. The FCC ruled that cable lines were "information services" so that large corporations wouldn't have to let just anybody use their network. (Michael Powell said the ruling was meant to spur investment -- how does that make sense?) However, a judge ruled that since cable lines are used for back-and-forth communication now instead of just receiving Cinemax, the FCC had to consider them "telecommunications services." This would mean that cable companies would be treated like telephone companies.

Even though DSL is better than cable, cable is indeed easier to come by, and this ruling is great not only for consumers but for the economy. Sure, more competition means lower prices, but competition also means better service. Lower prices and better service means more widespread adoption of household broadband. More broadband customers means a new market. A new market means more new businesses and more new ideas. More new businesses and more new ideas means a stronger economic sector. More competition may mean fewer SUVs for a few CEOs, but it also means more jobs, more spending, more prosperity.

I'm not opposed to free enterprise. In fact, I'm all for free enterprise. However, the government should focus on the word "free," not the word "enterprise."

TANGENT: Unfortunately, more bandwidth means more websites designed entirely in Flash; I'll let useability guru Jakob Nielsen tell you why that's bad.

Today, I'd like to talk about boobs.

As a heterosexual male, I can very easily say that I really, really, really like boobs. My girlfriend won't mind my stating here that she has the best boobs I've ever, you know, experienced.

I don't know why we heterosexual males enjoy boobs so much. Perhaps in one of his cocaine-induced egomaniacal theorizing sessions, Freud would have opined that boob-mania comes from an Oedipal condition. Sociologists will point to how body parts that are considered beautiful in a particular culture are exaggerated, such as long necks in Thailand or small feet in China; breasts are exaggerated in American culture because the Puritanical underbelly of our zeitgeist says that women are meant to be mothers and nothing else, and boobs' most important function is caring for a child.

For whatever reason, boobs are hot. And as much as I love boobs, I'd like to make this small request of womankind:

PLEASE STOP FLASHING YOUR BOOBS IN PUBLIC.

Case in point: On Friday, I took my digital camera out to Wrigley Field during game four of the divisional series against the Atlanta Braves. (I've posted my favorites at my other website.) Between "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and the bottom of the ninth, the entire crowd on famed Waveland Avenue literally had their backs to the ballpark. The women in the third-floor apartment across the street were egged on by the drunken, unwashed masses below (not to mention a handful of cops) to flash their boobs. After teasing the crowd with some girl-on-girl tongue kissing, several women obliged, and, yes, I took a picture.

Why do women do this? Is it simply a fad encouraged by Mardi Gras? Are they hoping to get on Girls Gone Wild and be exploited? Is it an expression of women's liberation or, after decades of arguing for women's liberation, a rebellion to the fight for equal treatment? If peer pressure is that great, how is a gathered group of strangers considered "peers" to such a degree that they can be so pressuring? Are we so vain or were we treated so poorly as children that we'll do anything for attention?

There's a million questions that can be asked, and millions more possible -- and possibly correct -- answers. My answer: flashing your boobs is freebasing attention; it's confirmation crack. I would argue that in a capitalist society that relies on a social Darwinism forced upon it by less-than-free enterprise to define itself, vacuous attention is worth more than true understanding. The 15-minutes of fame dictum has become 15-seconds of self-validation through shocking acknowledgement. I am not a human being existing in an over-saturated world unless attention is paid to me by the entire population (in a given area) for even a moment by any means necessary. Flashing one's boobs holds the power of fleeting joy for the boob viewers, making the boob flasher feel as attractive and important as a celebrity or a model, if only for a short, brief moment.

Booze has something to do with it, too.

If it stopped there, then I wouldn't be arguing for a boob armistice. Your boobs, your prerogative. And if you didn't want a photo of them on my website, you wouldn't have flashed them in public.

Problem is, when the boobs stop and the booze hasn't, the situation turns ugly. The apartment building in question on Friday was pelted with beer cans and insults when the show was over. How sexy did these women feel when the typical encouragement coming from the street was, "Show us your tits, bitch!" and "C'mon, slut, do it!" (direct quotes) followed by a half-chugged Old Style flying through your window? There was a palpable, angry fog that spread across Waveland Avenue because The Show had ended prematurely. Were they expecting a money shot? In fact, the situation could have escalated further and gotten very ugly had the bottom of the ninth inning not arrived holding the promise of a Cubs victory, which didn't come -- pun intended.

I'm pleading for women all over the world to please stop flashing their boobs in public, not because I find it morally reprehensible (or aesthetically unpleasing) but because men are, as my aforementioned beautiful-breasted girlfriend calls them, choads. In most cases of adverse social situations, I don't think the stimulus is the problem. The problem that needs to be addressed is the infrastructure that governs our decision-making processes and architects our reactions. Like with drugs -- the solution is not eliminating drugs; the solution is to eliminate the reasons for doing drugs, societal and emotional.

Boobs, on the other hand, are a different story because if women stop showing their boobs, men will still have necks and ankles, tight sweaters, high heels. When the time is right to see the boobs, those boobs are going to be that much better. Isn't the imagination so much sexier?

I'm on the brink of a slippery slope, though. A similar argument is used to blame women who dress provocatively for being raped. No woman should ever apologize for being raped, can-I-can-get-a-witness. Therefore, I need to make an important distinction here. I'm not saying that men behave like choads because of the boobs. They behave like choads because they are already choads. Until men in America learn to be more respectful of women -- I'm open to suggestions on how we do that -- let's take away this one egregious outlet for that disrespect. Like when my father locked up my Atari 2600 for two weeks; I sure learned my lesson.

I look forward to the day when a woman can expose her breasts to a group of men, get a "Lovely," a "Thank you," and then go back to paying attention to the ballgame.

I guess none of Arnold Schwarzenegger's handlers saw Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?. One of them should have mentioned to him that using a broom for a metaphor may not have been the best choice.

(If you haven't seen the movie, a gubernatorial candidate who uses a broom at a political rally ends up being a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Smooth move, Arnie.)

I saw this excellent rant on Blog for America. I point it out here because it reiterates a lot of what I said yesterday about why I favor Dean over Clark, and then some:

My point is, the Democratic nominating contest is essentially about determining the nature of that party, not the "electability" question. Howard Dean represents anti-establishment insurrection from the ground up. His popularity is not about left or right issues (as the media and his opponents keep claiming) but rides upon the swelling anger people feel toward Bush and the Dems' own complacent, top-down, risk-averse, corporate-compromised leadership.

...

The General's tepid economic-stimulus plan is off-the-shelf stuff from the Democratic Leadership Council. He is being tutored on economics by Citigroup godfather Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling, the DLC's economist in chief.

If you want four more years of Wall Street economics guiding the Democratic party, go with the Four Stars. If you are ready for risk and real change, listen to the Doctor. People who put aside convictions in order to win an election often wind up regretting it. I know I did during Bill Clinton's presidency.

This is the sort of thing Atrios digs up all the time. If you aren't reading his site, you're a Nazi*.



Fair and balanced, my ass.

(*Okay, no, you aren't a Nazi. But you should visit his site often.)

Because I once performed in a staged parody of Doctor Who and have since grown to love the show, I have to post this. I hope Tom Baker is telling the truth because this would rock.

Yeah, I'm having a slow day at work. Can't you tell?

Only because my birthday is coming up:

I got an e-mail. I'm thrilled people actually read this crap.

Why do [you] hate Wesley Clark so much? You wrote in your blog that you are for people realizing they were wrong and changing their minds. Then you blast him for it. Seriously, dude. I know you like Dean. But the guy has not created enough of a Buzz around himself. Maybe he should be the Veep, whispering in Clark's ear about welfare and education while the real President mends fences on the global scale. What would be better than a NATO veteran at the helm right now? Someone who knows when and when-not to use force as a last resort to diplomacy's failure. I know you have collected some soundbyets (sic.), but have you heard Clark speak? He is pretty compelling.

I'm not trying to dog Wesley Clark. I'd happily vote for him, and not only because he's not George Bush (or Joe Lieberman).

All I'm trying to say is that there is more egregious stuff with which Republicans can slam Clark than there is for Dean. The aforementioned prior love for George Bush and Ronald Reagan. His stance that he was always against Iraq War II is not exactly accurate. As for "someone who knows when and when-not to use force as a last resort to diplomacy's failure," there's plenty of evidence that how he handled Kosovo wasn't exactly a force-as-last-resort situation. (However, the Republicans would be hypocrites if they tried to bring that up.)

It took Arianna Huffington several years to foment her new political identity, not a few months. If Wesley Clark changed his mind, then he REALLY changed his mind, he changed it really FAST, and he can change it still in the blink of an eye. Clark smacks of a typical Republican candidate in that he's (perhaps) someone propped up by the party to tow the line and look and sound good for the cameras. I think we are all sick to death of such candidacies, and it makes me even sicker that the Democrats would (perhaps) play such a game. Do the ends justify the means? (Perhaps.)

Clark lacks experience in handling legistative-versus-executive disputes. He has skeletons in his closet, or at least enough skeleton-colored yarn to be spun into a skeletion by Karl Rove. He has contradicted himself several times in the course of the past year more maganimously than any of the other Democratic candidates. He seemingly still doesn't have a formal platform aside from his vague 100-Year-Vision. I want the candidate that stands for what I believe in, has an excellent political record, and is the least penetrable by the Republican party. So far, that candidate for me is still Dean.

With all of these reservations, I still would be thrilled to see Clark become our president. He is a compelling speaker which, despite what I said two paragraphs earlier, is indeed very important. His statements about domestic issues are right on. Even if he was for Bush before, he seems to be against him now. And to lead a NATO campaign, which involves coordinating the military might of several countries, obviously requires some serious diplomatic skill. Clark is still my #2 on the list of Democratic candidates that I like, and my list is only two people long.

Therefore, if the perception is that I'm dogging Clark, understand that I'm only arguing for the candidate that I like by playing devil's advocate with my number two.

Oh, did I mention that Howard Dean surpassed the fundraising record set by Bill Clinton's re-election campaign?

This is the sort of thing that is going to bite Wesley Clark in the ass, from evil, evil Joe Scarborough's hour of vitriolic horseshit on MSNBC:

And Wesley Clark, oh, Wesley Clark, he’s changing his tune so much these days, you would think he was a seasoned politician. Last week SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY unearthed two-year-old footage of Clark speaking to a group of Republicans in Arkansas. Please take a listen again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WESLEY Clark (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am very glad we got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O’Neill, people I know very well, our president George W. Bush. We need them here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

I'm all for realizing you're wrong and changing your tune. Look at Arianna Huffington. But this was from two years ago. Though Joe Scarborough doesn't provide the exact date of the quote (was it before or after 9/11?), it's exactly the sort of thing that conservative tow-the-liners are going to parade out with some efficiency.

I'm sure the Democratic Party is saying, "See? This guy was a Republican and changed his tune and realized they were wrong!" The not-at-all-liberal media will make it look like Clark is wishy-washy and untrustworthy.

More and more, I don't think Clark is the man who can beat George Bush. In fact, unless this CIA-leak scandal bites Bush in the ass -- and it won't since the Justice Department gave them 24 hours to destroy their evidence -- Bush still looks strong.

Let's hear it for Rush Limbaugh. I guess he got so hungry after losing all that weight that he stuck his foot in his mouth.

Amazing he found all of that room for his foot, too, considering his mouth was already full of pills.

Excuse me for being a lazy, spoiled American, but I do love watching people I hate fall apart.

Hooray for me: