Al calls Dean out

You're right. That was the absolute best zinger of all. Zowee!

Rev. Al may be a dishonest, self-serving race pimp and huckster, but he sure knows how to get in his digs. I always like it when he's on O'Reilly. He comes on there and takes his shots, but always dishes it out in return.

Like someone else on another thread asked, a good comeback for Rev. Al would have been, how many white people do you have on your staff?

Anyway, Fat Al's got a good point that Dean's politically crafty to the point that he imagines he gets away with just about anything til he gets called on it.

Good point. Howie has a problem here. He shoots from the hip all over the place and when someone finally calls him on it, he blows his top, like he did with that voter at that one "town hall" meeting in Iowa recently (basically telling him to sit down and shut up). Dean either has incredibly thin skin or hates being confronted with unpleasant truths, or both. Not the kind of qualities one would want in a national leader with access to the launch codes.

I clearly remember that RAT puke writing Harkin's Eulogy for Wellstone. Then Harkin delivered it "as his own, heartfelt words".

Talk about a phoney!

It could be that WC plans to beat Dean in the NE, which is obviously the one place Dean is strong.

Kinsley used to be the strident liberal (partisan Democrat) on CNN's "Crossfire", leaving to try his hand at the first commercial online commentary magazine. He's always had a mighty high opinion of himself (if thinking that everyone else is lower than oneself is the same thing) and is in a swoon over Howard Dean:

Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?
by Michael Kinsley
[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.

Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')

It could be that WC plans to beat Dean in the NE, which is obviously the one place Dean is strong.

Kinsley used to be the strident liberal (partisan Democrat) on CNN's "Crossfire", leaving to try his hand at the first commercial online commentary magazine. He's always had a mighty high opinion of himself (if thinking that everyone else is lower than oneself is the same thing) and is in a swoon over Howard Dean:

Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?
by Michael Kinsley
[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.

Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')

It could be that WC plans to beat Dean in the NE, which is obviously the one place Dean is strong.

Kinsley used to be the strident liberal (partisan Democrat) on CNN's "Crossfire", leaving to try his hand at the first commercial online commentary magazine. He's always had a mighty high opinion of himself (if thinking that everyone else is lower than oneself is the same thing) and is in a swoon over Howard Dean:

Why do liberals swoon for a guy in uniform?
by Michael Kinsley
[T]he current liberal swooning over (retired) generals is truly something new. A widespread fantasy among liberals who loathe the Bush administration, for example, is that Colin Powell will resign as secretary of state and "say what he really thinks." This will bring down the whole house of cards, these liberals believe. What he really thinks, they think, is more or less what they really think... Then there is Gen. Wesley Clark. Much of his support comes from people who think they haven't swooned themselves but believe that others will do so. But most of these people are in a swoon whether they realize it or not... How pragmatic is it, though, to snub the one candidate who seems to be able to get people's juices flowing -- that would be Howard Dean -- in favor of one with nothing interesting to say, on the theory that this, plus the uniform stashed in the back of his closet, will make him appealing to people you disagree with? When the odds are against you, as they are for the Democrats in 2004, caution and calculation can be the opposite of pragmatism... The rules entitle the swooner to project his or her views onto the candidate, despite any lack of evidence or even evidence of the opposite. But the rules also insist that the candidate will never win.

Everyone needs to save a copy of the full article, because the ticket may end up with Gen Clark in one role or the other, and Kinsley will try to pull a 1984 harangue trick on us. :')

Oops. Sorry, must have clicked more than once.

It could be that WC plans to beat Dean in the NE, which is obviously the one place Dean is strong.

In Massachusetts and Vermont, maybe. Maybe. Not in New Hampshire.

It could be that WC plans to beat Dean in the NE, which is obviously the one place Dean is strong.

Not a given. From the last time at bat:

CNN.com: Civil unions' for gays yield backlash in Vermont
September 13, 2000:
'Take Back Vermont' spurred turnout
In many states, turnout was low. But in Vermont, a backlash against a state law authorizing "civil unions" for homosexuals led to the defeat of five Republican legislators who voted for it. Opponents of the law, which confers some of the same benefits on gay couples that married heterosexuals enjoy, have turned against incumbents who supported the measure.
"It hurts very much," said state Rep. Marion Milne, before Tuesday's vote was counted. Milne, who supported the law, lost the Republican primary to Sylvia Kennedy, a political novice and evangelical Christian who opposes civil unions.
"We've opened a can of worms by creating legislation for a small minority of people," Kennedy said.
A loosely organized movement called "Take Back Vermont" galvanized opposition to the civil union law. One of the chief authors of the bill, Republican House Judiciary Chairman Thomas Little, beat back a challenge.
But Republican Reps. Milne and John Edwards were defeated, and Republican state Sen. Peter Brownell and Reps. Robert Kinsey and William Fyfe were trailing. Also, a Democrat who voted against civil unions -- state Rep. James McNamara -- was ousted.
"This is probably something that's going to take a generation to resolve," Little said.
Some observers thought opposition could even threaten the re-election chances of Democratic Gov. Howard Dean, once considered a shoo-in for a new term.