I think my Palin quota would be full if my only exposure to Sarah Barracuda was on Saturday Night Live. Despite Tina Fay's reluctance to deliver us this poignant impersonation after November 4, she captures the essence of a woman who seems to lack much political/intellectual substance (at least in public). Her three television interviews failed to earn her credibility, rather they resulted in her standing as the laughing stock of bloggers, columnists,and television personalities.
Yes, a "pleasant and nice" politician is comforting, but qualification (or the appearance of preparation) is even more important.
The stress of Palin's mishaps must at least be slashing a few months off the lifespan of her running mate. She strings together incoherent phrases in response to predictable questions from national anchors. How does McCain really feel about Palin's inability to stay on message? Now, Zardari wants no part in a Palin hug.
When a veteran commentator offers this type of harsh response something is wrong.
"That is one of the most pathetic pieces of politics that I have ever seen for someone aspiring to one of the highest offices in this country" Cafferty says. If anything Palin, should at least learn how to bullshit Couric and Gibson.
Despite our ideological differences, I at least want to give Palin some credit as a politician. But seriously, how does a mayor (male or female) actually charge victims of sexual assaults for rape kits?
Earlier this week, CNN Anchor Campbell Brown called for the McCain campaign "to free [Palin] from the chauvinistic chains you are binding her with." Campbell, the McCain campaign is limiting exposure to Palin not because of her gender, but because she has failed to impress anyone, Democrat or Republican, Male or Female with her public intellect and leadership skills.
So what does it say when Kathleen Parker, of the National Review admits that the "Palin Problem" is not her gender, but that she is simply not ready for the job.
"No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted."
Bob Herbert of the New York Times argues:
"If, on the other hand, it becomes clear that her performance, so far, is an accurate reflection of her qualifications, it would behoove John McCain and the Republican Party to put the country first — as Mr. McCain loves to say — and find a replacement for Ms. Palin on the ticket."
Calling for a replacement on the ticket initially seems outrageous, but then again maybe it's worthwhile considering the circumstances.
To my knowledge, only one candidate for Vice President (Thomas Eagleton) has withdrawn after accepting the nomination. Nine vice presidents, however, have succeeded the sitting President after unexpected death. Yikes.
She is not the right person for this office and it frustrates me. America seems to be catching on as her favorability ratings tumbled 21% in a single week.
28 September 2008
23 September 2008
Green Jordan
Pleasantly surprised to see big names Nike, Home Depot and IBM on Plenty magazine's Top 20 list of business with leading eco-friendly practices.
Nike designed the most recent Jordan shoe, the XX3, not only for style, but to keep up with higher environmental standards for all consumer products. They used eco-rubber and a water-based bonding process in the production of these sweet kicks.
Cool to see even that even the shoe makers care.
20 September 2008
Worth A Watch
I am rolling in anticipation for the 2009 Emmy Awards. Not because of my desire for more pointless sound offs from unqualified hosts, but because another HBO miniseries deserves recognition. Despite this series' critical illustration of the War in Iraq, I find myself pondering a curiosity to serve my country. Yet, even without a military background, I still feel a slight responsibility to explore this service like other men my age.
I have always been perceptive as to how this real-time war is being portrayed by the cinema folk. While bigger name documentaries such as No End in Sight and Taxi to the Dark Side recount the flawed plans and policies (or lack thereof) of those situated in Washington, DC, the accounts of those on the ground subscribe less mainstream attention.
Generation Kill recounts the on-the-ground developments of the Marines 1st Reconnaissance Battalion in between Kuwait and Baghdad. This seven part mini series is based on the actual accounts recorded by journalist Evan Right. It contrasts the results of insane miscalculations by the military higher ups with the emotional and fraternal aspects of war. Initially, the battalion shines with hope, but this optimism dwindles with no clear definition of victory. For example, the first American troops in Iraq are not clear on who to target or the direction of the mission. The series alludes to the fact that even higher ranking officials ("Godfather" himself) is unsure of the American plan beyond Baghdad. The Marines lack sufficient supplies and translators along with humanitarian aid for Iraqi civilians. Marine command ask the Battalion to push through violent insurgent zones in darkness, yet they fail to provide proper armor and batteries for night vision goggles.
Despite the clear frustrations of the soldiers on the ground, they exhibit a unique sense of brotherhood as they drive through the desert. I am most intrigued by this aspect of battle — likely because some of the soldiers are my age or younger. They sing hit songs from the 1990s and throw in pinches of tobacco. They share a set of emotions that is either not normal or not cultural accepted for men in America. Even with such outrageous conditions on the ground and my fierce opposition to the War in Iraq, I still find myself intrigued by the concept of military service. I contemplated ROTC in college, but is this all the result of my inner sense of patriotism or my attraction to what (at times) seems to be a boys club in Humvees?
I suppose our generation of young men (and women) was "saved" from the concept of a military draft. Yet, I am still not set on whether I believe military service is a necessary service for all young people. Certainly, some of the most influential in this country, including over 115 members of the House and Senate served in the military. Plus it seems to work in other countries (i.e. Israel). Either way, I am fortunate that I am able to make the choice between yes or no on military service. These young men are forced to "function in a void of indifference."
I honor the 4169 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq and pray for the men and women serving this country around the Globe.
_A.Scott
I have always been perceptive as to how this real-time war is being portrayed by the cinema folk. While bigger name documentaries such as No End in Sight and Taxi to the Dark Side recount the flawed plans and policies (or lack thereof) of those situated in Washington, DC, the accounts of those on the ground subscribe less mainstream attention.
Generation Kill recounts the on-the-ground developments of the Marines 1st Reconnaissance Battalion in between Kuwait and Baghdad. This seven part mini series is based on the actual accounts recorded by journalist Evan Right. It contrasts the results of insane miscalculations by the military higher ups with the emotional and fraternal aspects of war. Initially, the battalion shines with hope, but this optimism dwindles with no clear definition of victory. For example, the first American troops in Iraq are not clear on who to target or the direction of the mission. The series alludes to the fact that even higher ranking officials ("Godfather" himself) is unsure of the American plan beyond Baghdad. The Marines lack sufficient supplies and translators along with humanitarian aid for Iraqi civilians. Marine command ask the Battalion to push through violent insurgent zones in darkness, yet they fail to provide proper armor and batteries for night vision goggles.
Despite the clear frustrations of the soldiers on the ground, they exhibit a unique sense of brotherhood as they drive through the desert. I am most intrigued by this aspect of battle — likely because some of the soldiers are my age or younger. They sing hit songs from the 1990s and throw in pinches of tobacco. They share a set of emotions that is either not normal or not cultural accepted for men in America. Even with such outrageous conditions on the ground and my fierce opposition to the War in Iraq, I still find myself intrigued by the concept of military service. I contemplated ROTC in college, but is this all the result of my inner sense of patriotism or my attraction to what (at times) seems to be a boys club in Humvees?
I suppose our generation of young men (and women) was "saved" from the concept of a military draft. Yet, I am still not set on whether I believe military service is a necessary service for all young people. Certainly, some of the most influential in this country, including over 115 members of the House and Senate served in the military. Plus it seems to work in other countries (i.e. Israel). Either way, I am fortunate that I am able to make the choice between yes or no on military service. These young men are forced to "function in a void of indifference."
I honor the 4169 soldiers who have been killed in Iraq and pray for the men and women serving this country around the Globe.
_A.Scott
14 September 2008
Please - this Man cannot be our next President
Check out this McCain interview from WCSH in Portland, Maine.
This interview shows off a pompous John McCain with an inability to articulate his words. He appears quite irritated by a reporter who simply asks for some legitimate evidence behind Sarah Palin's credentials.
_A.Scott
This interview shows off a pompous John McCain with an inability to articulate his words. He appears quite irritated by a reporter who simply asks for some legitimate evidence behind Sarah Palin's credentials.
_A.Scott
13 September 2008
Public Intellect
I am stimulated (like most) by the absorption of information (a less than shocking revelation). Fundamentally, I retain information from a diverse set of physical interactions and communications. Yet, I credit the majority of my intelligence-gathering with a less personal mode of discovery — perusing new text. While interesting information is available via fiction, I understand the “real” stuff to be most relevant to my development.
No longer does a daily newspaper limit my input, rather I am free to roam a web full of comments, opinions, and reports at all hours of the day. Since political happenings provoke my curiosity, I still admire the traditional journalist, for his or her service of contributing knowledge, judgment and opinion to me and to the rest of the public. By attaching some version of a byline to a published piece, a journalist accepts responsibility and adds his or her mark to record. Even with new outlets and new audiences, the journalist who qualifies as a public intellectual is rare.
Today, with new ways to discover and distribute information, it seems necessary to define and question the role of the journalist. No longer is Cronkite, Wolfe or Halberstam the sole source of news or intellectual input. The problem plaguing newspapers includes a lack of an intermediate force between the reader and the news, which then disrupts them from vouching for the legitimacy of information. Nearly all of us are capable of generating news or opinion — average bloggers, political and entertainment personalities, and obviously pundits and reporters.
In 2008, whom do we consider a journalist and more importantly why would we ever consider this person a public intellectual? One would argue that any Joe on the Internet who provides the public with some intellect is a public intellectual. With this in mind, my initial intuition is that a traditional journalist certainly classifies as an above standard public intellectual. In theory, a journalist provides (what we hope to be) intellectual information to the public. In reality, however, not all journalists offer a mix of (objective) reporting, analysis, criticism and commentary. In no way am I arguing for an irrefutable connection between journalist and public intellectual, but the quality of the contribution from some journalists qualifies them into this unique category. Stephen Mack points to Jean Bethke Elshtain, who coins the public intellectual as:
“… not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose” (insert link)
Journalist Christopher Hitchens argues that:
“To be a public intellectual is in some sense something that you are, and not so much something that you do. Many scholars are intelligent and highly regarded professors, but they are somehow not public intellectuals.”
Am I giving the journalist too much credit? Often times, he or she fails to provide us with anything close to a stimulating thesis or argument. Is this a result of system that is tired of traditional intellect and impartial comment? Blame the editors, no the writers, or wait the readers. Do Americans care anymore-about hearing from a responsible journalist or more importantly from an informed public intellectual? We certainly care for the daily musings of Hannity, Limbaugh and Olbermann. Still, these three characters are not eligible for public intellectuals.
I am referring to the public informants who offer written information via periodicals. Although some traditional journalists maintain an online presence, they still offer their primary comment through newspaper or magazine. Since a journalist writes with others in mind, he or she has the ideal opportunity for public interaction and for influencing sentiment. I understand the archetypal public intellectual adds brilliant complexities to the dialogue, but I believe this intricacy is difficult to translate for the public. To qualify, an intellectual must inspire the minds of his or her audience by providing privileged details, styling the prose in unique fashion, and opening wonder into worthwhile topics. With the advantage in communicating with the reader as opposed to the listener, the print journalist relies on a greater sense of permanence and more pressure for precise words and details.
So why do journalists Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Fareed Zakaria earn places on The Prospect/Foregin Policy Top 100 Public Intellectuals list ? Not only do these three connect with wide audiences, but also such intellectual contributions earn them true admiration from a scholarly following. While reaching a consistent level of sophistication, they consistently serve up smart commentary rather than partisan talking points. In addition, all three expose themselves even more by hosting personal websites. Most importantly, these three convince me that in order to stand as a public intellectual, a journalist must be analytical. As Hutchins again argues:
“However, the attitude towards authority should probably be s[k]eptical, as should the attitude towards utopia, let alone to heaven or hell.”
I believe that this country still boasts a high number of public intellectuals – all of whom serve a critical role of our democracy. Even if they express opinion, they do so with reason and justification. Journalists such as Nicholas Kristoff, Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Eugene Robinson serve in this capacity. While Noonan has provided us with some recent slip-ups, no public intellectual is without faults.
Most importantly, they situate themselves in politics as well respected players for both sides of the aisle. They share opinions on the most prestigious few pages of the most respectable publications in the country (the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Given the government’s recent attempt at managing the news, the public intellectual is obligated to criticize, advise, and predict. These writers seem comfortable retaining a relatively low profile, but also serving as intellectual personalities. They do not require public banter to succeed or inspire further thought.
Matt Bai, a political writer for the New York Times Magazine, serves as a good example of a rising public intellectual. Although his name is less recognized than some of the journalists mentioned earlier, Bai also explores fascinating content and explores these subjects in great depth. And while his resume may not yet rival his fellow journalists before, Bai still provides a tremendous service as a public intellectual.
He has openly investigated subjects such as race (“Is Obama the End of Black Politics?”) and class (“The Poverty Platform”) in relation to current political strategy. I was lucky enough to hear Bai’s comments at the 2008 Politics Online Conference in Washington DC. He situated himself as a curious new age public intellectual who stumbled across the net-roots movement. Now he is entangled in an Internet constructed by the earliest bloggers such as Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. Bai did attend Tufts and Columbia School of Journalism, but his biggest academic achievement seems to be the Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship. Additionally, he served as a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government.
What I admire most about Bai is his dedication to each story. He offers in-depth details and he captures the essence of a situation or another person well-constructed essays. He captures the spirit of the new progressive movement and the changing political atmosphere among Democrats. As he said in his speech at the politics online conference, the Internet is changing everything – politics one of the last American institutions to pick up to this change. As Bai says to the Columbia Journalism Review:
"Particularly, I think the move toward punditry and the culture of competing for time on cable television is toxic to the business. And I think we as an industry should reexamine why we do it, and if we should do it at all. I think it has definitely eroded the public’s trust in us."
With Bai’s understanding of the new online intellectual movement, he provides a voice of reason with regards to the complexity of the subject matter. Sound bite television journalism seems to have ruined our appreciation for that medium. With this in mind, Bai extends his thinking and his conversation to all intellectuals — even those who exist online. Bai says again to the CJR:
“I think there’s a lot of really valuable criticism that gets done on the blogs. After I talk to you, I’m gonna go see Markos from Daily Kos and Jerome from My DD to talk to them about our respective book projects, and I think they have a lot to offer to the debate.”
This journalist seems eager and therefore his curiosity is reflected in his work. While Bai may not represent an intellectual elite, he is able to provide a unique quality of work. By not publishing on a so consistent basis, he restricts his audience to a few very well thought out constructions.
I admire Matt Bai and look forward to further discussions about the public intellectual and his relationship to this class of thinkers.
_A.Scott
No longer does a daily newspaper limit my input, rather I am free to roam a web full of comments, opinions, and reports at all hours of the day. Since political happenings provoke my curiosity, I still admire the traditional journalist, for his or her service of contributing knowledge, judgment and opinion to me and to the rest of the public. By attaching some version of a byline to a published piece, a journalist accepts responsibility and adds his or her mark to record. Even with new outlets and new audiences, the journalist who qualifies as a public intellectual is rare.
Today, with new ways to discover and distribute information, it seems necessary to define and question the role of the journalist. No longer is Cronkite, Wolfe or Halberstam the sole source of news or intellectual input. The problem plaguing newspapers includes a lack of an intermediate force between the reader and the news, which then disrupts them from vouching for the legitimacy of information. Nearly all of us are capable of generating news or opinion — average bloggers, political and entertainment personalities, and obviously pundits and reporters.
In 2008, whom do we consider a journalist and more importantly why would we ever consider this person a public intellectual? One would argue that any Joe on the Internet who provides the public with some intellect is a public intellectual. With this in mind, my initial intuition is that a traditional journalist certainly classifies as an above standard public intellectual. In theory, a journalist provides (what we hope to be) intellectual information to the public. In reality, however, not all journalists offer a mix of (objective) reporting, analysis, criticism and commentary. In no way am I arguing for an irrefutable connection between journalist and public intellectual, but the quality of the contribution from some journalists qualifies them into this unique category. Stephen Mack points to Jean Bethke Elshtain, who coins the public intellectual as:
“… not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose” (insert link)
Journalist Christopher Hitchens argues that:
“To be a public intellectual is in some sense something that you are, and not so much something that you do. Many scholars are intelligent and highly regarded professors, but they are somehow not public intellectuals.”
Am I giving the journalist too much credit? Often times, he or she fails to provide us with anything close to a stimulating thesis or argument. Is this a result of system that is tired of traditional intellect and impartial comment? Blame the editors, no the writers, or wait the readers. Do Americans care anymore-about hearing from a responsible journalist or more importantly from an informed public intellectual? We certainly care for the daily musings of Hannity, Limbaugh and Olbermann. Still, these three characters are not eligible for public intellectuals.
I am referring to the public informants who offer written information via periodicals. Although some traditional journalists maintain an online presence, they still offer their primary comment through newspaper or magazine. Since a journalist writes with others in mind, he or she has the ideal opportunity for public interaction and for influencing sentiment. I understand the archetypal public intellectual adds brilliant complexities to the dialogue, but I believe this intricacy is difficult to translate for the public. To qualify, an intellectual must inspire the minds of his or her audience by providing privileged details, styling the prose in unique fashion, and opening wonder into worthwhile topics. With the advantage in communicating with the reader as opposed to the listener, the print journalist relies on a greater sense of permanence and more pressure for precise words and details.
So why do journalists Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Fareed Zakaria earn places on The Prospect/Foregin Policy Top 100 Public Intellectuals list ? Not only do these three connect with wide audiences, but also such intellectual contributions earn them true admiration from a scholarly following. While reaching a consistent level of sophistication, they consistently serve up smart commentary rather than partisan talking points. In addition, all three expose themselves even more by hosting personal websites. Most importantly, these three convince me that in order to stand as a public intellectual, a journalist must be analytical. As Hutchins again argues:
“However, the attitude towards authority should probably be s[k]eptical, as should the attitude towards utopia, let alone to heaven or hell.”
I believe that this country still boasts a high number of public intellectuals – all of whom serve a critical role of our democracy. Even if they express opinion, they do so with reason and justification. Journalists such as Nicholas Kristoff, Bob Woodward, Robert Novak, George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Eugene Robinson serve in this capacity. While Noonan has provided us with some recent slip-ups, no public intellectual is without faults.
Most importantly, they situate themselves in politics as well respected players for both sides of the aisle. They share opinions on the most prestigious few pages of the most respectable publications in the country (the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. Given the government’s recent attempt at managing the news, the public intellectual is obligated to criticize, advise, and predict. These writers seem comfortable retaining a relatively low profile, but also serving as intellectual personalities. They do not require public banter to succeed or inspire further thought.
Matt Bai, a political writer for the New York Times Magazine, serves as a good example of a rising public intellectual. Although his name is less recognized than some of the journalists mentioned earlier, Bai also explores fascinating content and explores these subjects in great depth. And while his resume may not yet rival his fellow journalists before, Bai still provides a tremendous service as a public intellectual.
He has openly investigated subjects such as race (“Is Obama the End of Black Politics?”) and class (“The Poverty Platform”) in relation to current political strategy. I was lucky enough to hear Bai’s comments at the 2008 Politics Online Conference in Washington DC. He situated himself as a curious new age public intellectual who stumbled across the net-roots movement. Now he is entangled in an Internet constructed by the earliest bloggers such as Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong. Bai did attend Tufts and Columbia School of Journalism, but his biggest academic achievement seems to be the Pulitzer Traveling Fellowship. Additionally, he served as a fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government.
What I admire most about Bai is his dedication to each story. He offers in-depth details and he captures the essence of a situation or another person well-constructed essays. He captures the spirit of the new progressive movement and the changing political atmosphere among Democrats. As he said in his speech at the politics online conference, the Internet is changing everything – politics one of the last American institutions to pick up to this change. As Bai says to the Columbia Journalism Review:
"Particularly, I think the move toward punditry and the culture of competing for time on cable television is toxic to the business. And I think we as an industry should reexamine why we do it, and if we should do it at all. I think it has definitely eroded the public’s trust in us."
With Bai’s understanding of the new online intellectual movement, he provides a voice of reason with regards to the complexity of the subject matter. Sound bite television journalism seems to have ruined our appreciation for that medium. With this in mind, Bai extends his thinking and his conversation to all intellectuals — even those who exist online. Bai says again to the CJR:
“I think there’s a lot of really valuable criticism that gets done on the blogs. After I talk to you, I’m gonna go see Markos from Daily Kos and Jerome from My DD to talk to them about our respective book projects, and I think they have a lot to offer to the debate.”
This journalist seems eager and therefore his curiosity is reflected in his work. While Bai may not represent an intellectual elite, he is able to provide a unique quality of work. By not publishing on a so consistent basis, he restricts his audience to a few very well thought out constructions.
I admire Matt Bai and look forward to further discussions about the public intellectual and his relationship to this class of thinkers.
_A.Scott
09 September 2008
Go Target
It's funny that the largest private employer in North America gets slammed by the Supreme Court of a country that is often criticized for its own human rights practices. Maybe a new US logo will turn things around for Wal-Mart.
_A.Scott
_A.Scott
07 September 2008
I heart Tivo
Why does my tongue roll to Kleenex, Xerox, Band Aid, and Tivo before tissue, photocopy, bandage, and digital video recording?
I would never say (for more than one reason) "oops, I forgot to digital video record the 'The Situation Room." It's interesting how language changes (and adopts corporate branding) over time - e.g. 'to tivo' is now a slang infinitive.
I'll cross my fingers that 'tivo' is the next addition to the Oxford English dictionary. Big day in 2006 when the verb 'google' was official.
_A.Scott
I would never say (for more than one reason) "oops, I forgot to digital video record the 'The Situation Room." It's interesting how language changes (and adopts corporate branding) over time - e.g. 'to tivo' is now a slang infinitive.
I'll cross my fingers that 'tivo' is the next addition to the Oxford English dictionary. Big day in 2006 when the verb 'google' was official.
_A.Scott
06 September 2008
An Across the Pond Perspective
Naomi Klein highlights an argument for how Obama dropped the ball with regards to Gustav.
"There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents."
_A.Scott
"There are plenty of political reasons for this, of course. Obama's campaign is pitching itself to the middle class, not the class of discarded people New Orleans represents."
_A.Scott
05 September 2008
Woodward's At It Again
I look forward to reading this 4-part series in the Post, watching the Woodward interview on 60 minutes and reading this book. It's unfortunate that 30,000 American troops serve(d) as pawns for positive PR.
_A.Scott
_A.Scott
04 September 2008
RNC Rant
Why did the Republican Party feel the need to air a video about the 9/11 tragedy at their National Convention? Sure, I understand the political reasons behind the video (brew a sense of fear that Democrats will forget about homeland security), but please, let's look forward. I'm a patriot and I will forever remember the thousands who lost their lives on that day, but seven years later, how do they continue to capitalize on this event? For all of us, let's figure out some way to prevent attacks on our homeland by improving diplomacy and truly committing to our military efforts in Afghanistan.
Interesting that the President who built his entire administration around this tragedy was not featured in the video. Only Rudy.
_A.Scott
Interesting that the President who built his entire administration around this tragedy was not featured in the video. Only Rudy.
_A.Scott
"The lack of diversity [at the RNC] is out of sync with the demographic changes in the United States"
Thought provoking article of the day from the Washington Post.
"Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago."
"Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago."
03 September 2008
Palin-itis.
Sarah Palin's rant this evening frustrated me on various levels - most notably the tone of this Governor who seems to be promoting herself as the one actual voice who functions outside "traditional" Washington bickers and low blows. Yet, she echoed Mayor Guiliani's outrageous downplay of Senator Obama's past as a community organizer. It's troubling that a canidate who prides her connection to the "little" people of this country would demean the very allies who stand to unite and improve communities. My aggravation boils down to my belief that experiences providing a canidate with first hand knowledge of the grassroots are fair for establishing qualification for higher office. Bottom up experiences (e.g. community activist and professor) should be interpreted (especially in this particular election) with as much relevance as top to bottom experiences (quarter century in public office). Palin's lame attempt at comic relief stands as a prime example of what Senator Obama argued was that the McCain (ticket) "doesn't know [what's going on in the lives of the American people]."
CNN political commentator Roland Martin is equally p'od on national televison.
CNN political commentator Roland Martin is equally p'od on national televison.
02 September 2008
"This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one."
A wonderful laugh to start my week, courtesy of Maureen Dowd.
A wonderful laugh to start my week, courtesy of Maureen Dowd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
