Jump to content

Rev Blair

Senior Members
  • Posts

    243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rev Blair

  1. I read a lot, spend way too much time in bookstores spending money that should be reserved for cigarettes and beer. There are some notable books on global warming. The thing is, they are all by scientists who are already prolific authors, or by science journalists who would have written them anyway. All are extensively footnoted and the studies cited are all peer reviewed. I'm sure these people are pleased their books are selling better than usual, but they would have written them anyway. The only book I can think of that remotely fits the claim that somebody was just trying to cash in is an S/F novel by a Canadian scientist who almost lost his career because of our government's anti-science stance. As for the funding claim...the Bush government is notorious for underfunding global warming research. The Canadian government has cut all science programs, but was especially brutal with climate research. I just don't see where the cash grab is. One of the profs/researchers here at the University of Manitoba pointed out to a few of us that if was in it for personal gain, he'd be way better off writing for "Friends of Science," or some similar place. He's managed to hang on to most of his funding for his research in the north. The thing is that he doesn't get anything for that. It pays for travel, equipment, etc., but he just gets his prof's salary. He'd get that anyway. The same is true of scientists employed by the government. Environment Canada doesn't give you a bonus when they fund your research, they just supply the funds to do that research. Your salary stays the same. Unless you are doing private research...and there doesn't seem to be a lot of that when it comes to climate research in Canada, at least...your personal income is not terribly dependent on global warming. There would be some sort of job there anyway.
  2. The vested interests are basically the oil companies, swansont, although the mining and ag companies have a stake too and play a lesser role. They have a financial interest in keeping the oil economy going. Then there are the ideologists who are just against regulation of any kind. They see that any solution to global warming will require global warming and deny the science as a result. Finally there are those with a religious conflict. Fundamentalists have a big problem with global warming science because the greenhouse theory is very much tied up with greenhouse theory. Many of them also believe that their god gave man dominion over the earth. These three groups (and I don't mean organised groups) make up a loose coalition that kind of feed off of each other, but it's not like a conspiracy or anything...just people looking after their own interests.
  3. This is something that's been bugging me for a long time. Cattle were one of the first animals we domesticated. I believe they come Asia originally. North American Bison have only recently been domesticated. Bison and cattle can interbreed though. They will do so without artificial insemination. The resulting offspring are reproductively viable. As species they diverged a very long time ago, and their populations were isolated at least since the Bering land bridge disappeared. So how long does it take before divergent species can't interbreed anymore? Do we know? Does it differ in different species?
  4. So what? Gore is one guy, a politician not a scientist. And don't you think the deniers have a vested interest? You bet they do, much more than Gore does. As iNow pointed out, those questions aren't really that simple. The answers you seek can be found at the IPCC site though. In the Summary for Policy Makers they state:
  5. Rev Blair

    Music ;D

    Someplace around here I have (on cassette I think) something called, "You Make My Piss Flaps Itchy." It's a little odd. Anyway, it was by some girl singer from Saskatchewan back in the eighties or early nineties. Kind of a trucker tune. I don't know if she wrote it or just sang it. I have a feeling you'd like it, though.
  6. Bush is pretty much universally despised outside of the US. The big exception right now is the evil robot running Canada, but even he has been working hard to distance himself from Bush in the public eye. Howard is gone from Australia, and Maggie Thatcher's bastard son is gone from Britain where the Tories are arguably running to the left of Labour. Sarkozy is in trouble in France, and the German right is doing flips and twists to appear more moderate. A lot of people are looking at Bush's trade policies as little more than an extension of American hegemony around the planet. They are looking at US economic failure under Bush, both domestic and foreign, as a failure that is now threatening their own economic policies. They are looking at US military and foreign policy as a real problem that has played a huge part in the other failures. That's not the kind of legacy that's going to allow McCain...who has cozied up to Bush's policies in order to please the Republican base...a lot of room to move.
  7. Ah, I like Bill, PhDP, except for the way he started pushing the religion thing after he decided to retire. Toews, on the other hand, promotes ignorance even while he uses that ignorance to lie to us. He should have been run out of politics after having to plead no contest to breaking election finance laws, but it hardly even made the news because everybody is afraid of pointing out the dangerous backwardness so pervasive in Manitoba's bible belt. I was in a field yesterday, with the little grey truck, because Blaikie is retiring and it looks like Toews is going to finally have to leave politics. Seems he fathered a child out of wedlock while in Ottawa and his wife is a little pissed off about it. Normally that would kind of disappear in modern Canadian politics, it wouldn't matter, but Toews built his political career on being what the opposition calls the Minister of Family Values. Anyway, I've been trying to get a couple of young people to step up and try to take over the NDP nominations in these ridings. One would replace Blaikie and get a job, and the other would challenge whoever replaces Toews and lose. I've been trying to do this without getting involved in the party, because the powers that be within the NDP have enough problems without having to deal with me. I frighten them, and they likely don't need to be photographed with some beer-swilling piece of white trash who forgets to put his smoke out before wandering into public places. It would be like having Jamie Heath back, but without the fashion sense. So I dragged these two poor, unsuspecting people out into a field on the pretense of rescuing the remains of a 1969 International Harvester flatbed for a farm museum. I knew it was going to be muddy and wet, so I brought the dogs. I thought there would be a working tractor available though, a smallish John Deere with a cab, so I left the beer at home. It was only supposed to take an hour or two. So I never checked on the tractor. I met the kids in the yard and they clambered into my truck, fighting for seat space with the dogs, and we made it almost halfway down the little mud path that led back to the International before the truck...well...sunk. We got out and appraised the situation and I kind of got them talking about running. Then I announced that I was going to get the tractor, called the dogs, and began the longish walk back to the yard. I thought that was pretty smooth...I'd let them convince each other to run. It started pouring of course, and I was soaked to the bone by the time I got back to the shop. There was no tractor, just a note saying that it was getting new fuel injectors and I should try again some other time. I grabbed a logging chain and a hand winch and headed back out in the rain. It took almost four hours to get the truck back to solid ground. Jack it up, drive and/or winch it off the jack, repeat as necessary. Even the dogs were giving me reproachful looks by the time we reached the yard. I do think I convinced one of the kids to run though...in the riding that can't be won. If he can increase vote share by two or three percent it will be a miracle. If he can knock on doors without being assaulted, it will be surprising. That is not an NDP riding down there. He asked me for advice before he got in his car and I got in my truck. "Tell them about today," I said, "Rednecks love stories like this." The other kid, had decided to ride back to town with me since his car (a nice new Dodge) wouldn't start. He was seated unhappily under Max the dog, who was dripping mud and in the mood for hugs. He (the kid, not Max) looked at me as we pulled out onto the highway and said, "I'm going to that dig up north. Is Nikki running again?" He's an archaeology grad student and somebody found a giant conch from the premian period in the mud or something...I wasn't paying attention because the mud was flying off the tires right about then and it was like driving on four flat tires. I caught the part about Nikki though...she lost the last time out because of a weird vote split. I have no idea if she's running or not, but I promised to put in a good word for him if he wants to work for her. I left out the part where she likely doesn't remember me...didn't want to discourage the lad. So that's the short version of the tale of the mud, PhDP. I see an opening for some real change, so I'm pushing people to run. As near as I can tell, there is an election coming at some point and now is a good time to play politics within the party...at least as long as I don't have to actually get too involved with the party.
  8. Have we known about the greenhouse effect since the late 19th century? Yes, that is established science. Do we know that CO2 and methane are ghgs? Yes, that science has also been established for a very long time. Do we know the role water vapour plays? Yes, since the 1930's, if I remember correctly. Do we know that we've been dumping GHGs into the air for a very long time? You bet we do. Did the Johnson administration look into this and consider it a threat? Yup, and so did every US government until Bush Jr. Please spend an hour or so and watch it. Oreskes gives a good timeline of the science in the first half and covers some of the denial industry in the second half. She only hits the main points...it is only an hour, after all...but it will give you a good idea of how well-established the science is and how political the alleged disagreement is.
  9. Geeze, talk about strawmen. Al Gore, a rich man from a rich family, is making a profit, so the theory must be flawed. In addition to that, he has been working on this problem, in one way or another and without much success, since before the time the cooling papers were published. I have looked at what the skeptics are saying. They are saying that the theory, which is backed up by mounds of data is wrong. When they lose that argument, they claim that the theory might be right, but that we aren't the cause. When they lose that argument, they claim that it isn't that bad, may even be good. A modified version of the theory being wrong. When they lose that argument they argue minute details and claim those details invalidate the entire theory. When they lose that, they say that it' all political. I hope everybody here understands that in science when there are more than one competing theory, the strongest one generally becomes more accepted because evidence builds to support it over time. Warming theory has been around for over century. In that time, a lot of evidence has been amassed showing that it's a solid theory and that it's happening. In the last couple of decades that's really picked up. The opposition to it is largely political, not scientific. Those who call themselves skeptics are all too often anything but. A skeptic is asking for evidence, not ignoring the evidence that exists to support some pre-determined bias.
  10. Er, the thread is called "The Significance of the Pickle." It's named for a song by the same guy who had to include the phrase, "This is a song about Alice, anybody here remember Alice?" in his most famous song because these things tend to go a little off-track. Feel free to wander. I personally spent several hours of my day mired to the axles with no beer and wet cigarette papers. I have no idea who invented the Jack-All, but I likely owe him a huge debt of gratitude...along with man who invented the chain and whoever it was that taught me to say, "Utinae," which is Cree and not very polite. I'd explain the political implications, but I doubt anyone here has heard of Vic Toews or Bill Blaikie. Anyway, there's a zombie movie on my TV, so I'll have to respond to the rest later.
  11. I still think he should pick Steve Earle as his running mate, but I'm kind of twisted. Anyway, I was thinking we might change the punctuation to read, Obama's running, mate.
  12. I'm going to miss Russert. He was one of the bright spots of American political journalism. He never fell into the spin machine much, instead he just asked questions. The best thing was that those questions often made a lot of people uncomfortable. I think he understood the role of the fourth estate pretty well.
  13. Rev Blair

    Music ;D

    Ah, that's just because you've never gotten hammered and listened to Chinga Chavin's (and I'll buy a beer for anybody who can tell me his other name without using Google) "Dry Humpin' in the Back of a Ford." Good country music...not that crap that comes out of Nashville and ends up contaminating the radio of my truck...is smart, poignant, topical, and fun. Bad country music is...well...disco yodeling, and not in a good way. Anyway, right now I'm listening to the Kinks "Muswell Hillbillies", which is a pretty weird album, all things considered. I highly recommend it.
  14. Tell me what the right science is. The Greenhouse Effect has been accepted for how long now? How intertwined is evolutionary theory with that very effect? When did that Swiss (??? think he was Swiss) scientist first put forth global warming theory...189?. I'm getting really tired of the debate. I learned a lot of the basics of this back in grade 4...about the time Newsweek was publishing that cooling article. In the late eighties...enthralled with huge motors and pick-up trucks...I set out to convince myself that global warming wasn't happening. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not stupid either. I ended up understanding that global warming was happening and that we were the cause. Everything I've seen from the other side looks like bullshit to me. I tend to look at these things with a writer's eye. Not just a journalist's eye, which searches out fact (I get money for that), but a guy who writes fictional dialogue enough to know when something sounds kind of off. If I were to write a fictional story about self-interested people screwing over the planet for greed, the global warming saga would be a pretty good model. I'd have to beef up the veracity of the claims of the denialists a bit to make it believable, and downplay the science to make it more interesting than a bad sitcom, but there's a certain trend in the overall discussion, and those who claim global warming is not happening seem to be...let's be generous and say they're wrong.
  15. Funny, when the west told Palestine to have an election and we didn't like who they elected, we effectively cut off their food supply. It does matter, very much, who you elect. The rest of the world may not have a say in it, but John McCain is unlikely to have a whole lot of support when he goes visiting. It matters what France thinks because they are very influential in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Same with Britain. Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser extent Germany, are influential in South America. China has a lot of influence with anybody who has oil right now. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's going to need the goodwill of the world in the coming years.
  16. Ah, let's start here. Not taking responsibility is one of the things I go after my government for the most. We started the peace keeping thing, yet we don't really do it anymore. We came up with the idea of 0.07% of GDP/GNP going to international aid, but we've never come close to meeting that figure. We pushed the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, yet have failed to act on it. Our last Prime Minister pissed off Bono so badly that Bono gave out the PM's number on stage. I think that middle powers have to take a lot of responsibility. I think that's even more true for Canada because we push the ideas on others and are often instrumental in originating those ideas. If you guys want to rag on us for not taking responsibility, feel free. You may find me trying to explain the political situations that "cause" us not to take that responsibility. Please don't take that as me approving of my government's actions (or lack thereof). It's just that I think revealing the excuses limits the ability to use those excuses in the future. As for "guarding the top of the hill," I think that's exactly what middle powers are best at. It's just a question of which hill. The only time I recall defending Bush on anything was when his daughters were in the news for partying etc. Not the same, I know, but kids will be kids. I also don't recall Neil Bush's involvement in the Savings and Loan Scandal having much effect on either George the elder or Neil's siblings. It is a big one, but again the US could be very influential in changing things. No other single country, not even China or Russia, wields both the power and the influence that the US does. Half of your country didn't create these policies though. Let's face it, Bush was elected (barely) for his social conservatism. He was re-elected (barely) because of a mixture of that social conservatism and the failure of your media to spread the word about his lies regarding Iraq. Even if everybody who voted for Bush understood the complexities of foreign policies...and the American public is notoriously uneducated about such things, hardly anybody votes on foreign policy. As for Bush's domestic policies, those aren't entirely honest either. Let's face it, he basically turned the keys to the kingdom over to a few corporate robber barons and some radical right religious leaders. I don't recall him promising that in either election campaign. Nothing is sufficient though, at least short of a world government, and if you're about your sovereignty being diminished by the UN you certainly aren't going to support that. The UN is the only game in town though...there is no other organisation that is even close in scope, mandate, and influence. There is little or no chance of creating one. So you can strengthen the agency we have, or you can work to weaken it further. For the last eight years, and arguably since the early sixties, the US has been a negative force within the UN. Something I keep wondering is what the US is going to do when its power is gone. You've been heading that way for quite some time. You will become a lower power eventually...and I'd bet on sooner rather than later. When that happens you will want a strong, vibrant UN. You will lack the power and influence to bring that about by that time though.
  17. If I remember correctly, there were seven papers on cooling (mostly having to do with particulates blocking sun light), and over 40 on warming during the 1970s. The popular media...most notably News Week...picked up the cooling theory because it sold magazines, but the characterization that climatologists, or scientists in general, thought there was going to be massive cooling is really a creation of media sensationalism, the political right and their creatures, and a lack of real public discourse about the science. As for the political aspect of this: If global warming is happening, and the vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that it is, then we need to change the way we do things. Those changes will happen through politics, not science. Scientists don't set policy, politicians do. I believe that part of the discussion should happen in the political forums though, not the science forums.
  18. The proper reaction to that is to address the weaknesses though, not walk away, or increase the weaknesses by undermining what authority they do have. The UN is designed to be a fragile organisation, for it's power to come from the membership. It has no power beyond the agreements that the members sign and can only exert power if the membership lets them. The reason it is set up that way is specifically to avoid impinging on the sovereignty of the member states. I'm not dismissing anything. I do think the UN got a bad rap on Iraq and that's not only overshadowed the many good things they achieve, but allowed a lot of their shortcomings to go unnoticed. Keep in mind that the terms of the ceasefire were agreed to by all involved. The UN acted as a broker or mediator, but they were not responsible for the terms. Those were determined by those involved, including the US, not the United Nations. That includes actions that could be taken when violations occurred. Sanctions were suggested against the US, but it was made clear that you (no doubt with the backing of Britain) would just veto them at the Security Council. Is that a problem? Yeah, the permanent five having a veto is a massive problem. They wouldn't be at the table at all...especially the US and China...without that power though. Sometimes you have to take what you can get and hope to make some incremental gains over time. No, it's not just my opinion. Annan brought forth two sets of reforms and said, very clearly, that each set had to be taken as whole for the process to work. Most experts agreed with The US then led the stampede to pick and choose specific reforms instead of choosing one set or the other. The only way the UN can be reformed is from within. The packages Annan proposed were good an quite achievable, though far from perfect. As for Oil for Food, the UN went to the US to tell them about corruption within the program more than once. The US chose to do nothing about it. Bush was praising the program right up until Annan said that the war in Iraq was illegal, then the claims of corruption began. Again, that's not my opinion, just the sequence of events. Annan was found to have done nothing wrong. His grown son had some relatively minor involvement, but blaming parents for the actions of their grown children strikes me as silly at best...I sure as hell don't think my parents should be held responsible for things I've done in my life. Without US participation, the US does not get a say though. Given the interconnectedness of world events and the USA's dependency on internationalism of one sort or another, I think walking away would be a huge mistake. More than that, the US can be a positive influence on the UN and vice versa. Want to stop the abuse of children by UN peacekeepers? Step up and make it possible for the UN to prosecute American peacekeepers. Want to rebuild your reputation on the international stage? Sign some agreements and work with other countries. Negotiate. Compromise. Don't veto everything...accept that you can't win every battle. Practice true diplomacy. It won't hurt your sovereignty, instead it will enhance it. That's something you learn living in a middle power. I agree, but I'd add that if you bring in electoral reforms that diminish the influence that corporations have on government, you'll find that a lot of the interventionism goes away all by itself. But part of changing people's minds is telling them that they are mistaken. Not that you don't agree, but that you don't agree because their viewpoint doesn't make sense.
  19. Well, I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned from the past about what to do in the future. Rwanda and Darfur are very different situations, for instance, but the lessons of Rwanda can and should be applied to Darfur. I don't think those lessons are limited to the US either. Check out the Canadian government's inaction on Darfur or our government's reluctance to use any sort of soft power now. You do lead the pack though. Like Spidey's uncle said, "With great power comes great responsibility." That's something great powers of the past accepted...the British and Roman Empires are generally cited as examples...but that the US has always been reluctant to take on. The other reason you get criticized a lot is that you have the potential to be so much better and have shown that in the past. Think about it...The New Deal, Kennedy (the Peace Corps, Cuban Missile Crisis etc), Carter's attempts at a Mid East peace agreement, the writings and efforts of your founding fathers. Hell, Nixon getting China to start talking. You've headed for that position of being a shining city on the hill quite a few times in one way or another, sometimes big and sometimes small, but then back away from it.
  20. You essentially stopped other nations from taking action in Rwanda because you refused to use the word genocide. You blocked it at the Security Council level. It goes deeper than that too, the president's plane was shot down by Ugandan rebels, which really precipitated things. It was shot down by a US missile that was last seen in Iraq during the Gulf War. Was the US solely to blame? Of course not, Belgium, France, and Britain all bear some level of responsibility. I've argued long and hard that the Canadian government should have taken action without the blessing of the UN too. The US was the big player though, the leader of the pack.
  21. The UN didn't "dismiss" those acts of aggression, they just didn't agree that they were grounds for a military invasion. Sanctions were already in place and there were few further actions that could be taken. The case was also not helped by US actions. You got caught spying when you were supposed to be inspecting weapons. You refused to acknowledge your past relationship with Hussein or your role in suppling dual use technology in the past. You showed up with some cartoon drawings of trucks as "proof" that Saddam had WMDs. You never even tried to explain why your government claimed the massacre of the Kurds was done by Iran until Bush decided he wanted a war. You treated the greater international community with hostility and derision and you wonder why they didn't back you up. You launched petty attacks on other members of the Security Council (Freedom Fries? WTF?) and then got all petulant when they told you to piss off. it has been the US and China who have most opposed the strengthening of those tools. You can't have it both ways. Annan had been trying to get reforms since before he was Secretary General. He came up, after much study, with two sets of options when he was SG. He specifically said that the lists weren't meant to be a la carte, that each set of options needed to be kept complete. There was a reason for that, of course. You can't create more SC seats and bring in new voting rules without checks and balances, and those checks and balances need to be specific to the new rules. It was also obvious that if everybody just presented their own wants, the entire process would fall apart. The US led the charge to select a few options from each list, even while launching a jihad against Annan over Food for Oil. Ultimately, they sent Bolton to the UN, a slap in the face of the entire institution. The US was instrumental in undermining attempted reforms even while Bush and Bolton screamed that reform was needed. You don't have to intervene in anything though. Being a member of the UN does not require interventionism. In fact most member states of the UN would be very happy if you quit intervening. You do need to be influencing Europe and Asia though. The UN is not just about military might...they delve into everything from trade to aid to global warming. If you won't play with the other kids, they won't ask you to the party when you want to be there. I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of soft power, but the US really needs to learn how to use it. Then drop out of NATO. There's a hell of a lot more to the UN than military obligations. In fact, nobody in the UN has any military obligations they didn't sign on for. The UN might ask, but you get to say no. Much of your business is based on your big bully reputation. Read Paul Bremer's edicts when he was running Iraq...they pretty much spell out how intertwined that war was with your economic interests. Not just oil either. Your economic history has very much been intertwined with your interventionism. We can agree as long as we exclude the teaching of Straussian theory in pol-sci courses. My concern is what the greater electorate is taught though, and most of that electorate learns from the mass media, not in universities. I've been engaging them all of life. The basic principles that hang them up are religion, TV and other forms of mass ignorance. You can stand there giving facts, statistics, examples all day and night, but they'll still sit there drinking their whiskey and insist that all drug users should be locked up...except their friends who smoke pot, of course. That's different. There is no common ground, and there is no convincing them. They are proud of their ignorance and they know that all of facts came from academics in ivory towers.
  22. I responded to the claim that I was just bashing Bush by giving several examples going back several administrations. That was responded to by some nationalistic (not to mention questionable...Lech Walesa arguably had more to do with ending the Cold War than Reagan) chest beating. The thing is that I never claimed that the US never did any good, just that there were, and still are, problems that need to be addressed. Whether you like it or not, your country has decided to be the world's policeman...to reach out beyond your borders and protect what you have chosen to define as your interests abroad. That kind of decision does come with a responsibility and, since there is no sign that any of your leaders plan to close up the borders and stay home, your country must accept that responsibility. And when Kofi Annan pushed for reforms to address those problems, the US was first in line (China second) to tell him to piss off. The UN responded to Iraq's actions with the tools that it had. The US has been instrumental in ensuring those tools are inadequate. Much of US antipathy to the UN has little or nothing to do with the UN's shortcomings though, but its ability to question US actions around the world and its ability to express a consensus that the US doesn't like. It would be the next step towards the demise of the US as an international power. You would be giving up your voice on the Security Council, you would be losing influence in Europe and Asia. That kind of isolationism is not something you can afford is this day and age. Your power and influence is already ebbing, your economy is in pretty serious trouble, and your international reputation is in tatters. The UN does many good things, you are right about that. You should be working to build on that, for your own good. Maybe it's a matter of talent...you just haven't noticed the celebs on the right because they aren't talented enough. I doubt it though...your reference to "lefties" is kind of laughable to those who live in more moderate countries. Obama would be centre-right in most places, Kucinich a centrist. A lot of your leftties look pretty right-handed to a lot of us. That Your claim that you aren't taught that experts...that would be academia...aren't, in your words, "pointy headed geeks," doesn't hold up. You claimed that is just a message of the right-wing pundits. It has been the subtext of the Republican message, and I recall several politicians referring to ivory towers and academics not living in the real world. The pundits say it outright, then the politicians refer to it more gently. The message gets repeated over and over again. That, whether you admit it or not, teaches people not to trust experts. Centuries ago we lacked the data though. Advances made in the late 19th and 20th centuries really showed that those things worked. My post encourages us to stand up and say, "NO you're wrong." There's nothing implicit about it. Is it a partisan position? I don't see how it can be...I don't see a lot of politicos standing up and saying that outright. I don't hear a lot of talk of how crime rates drop with increased social programs or policies recommending that we provide heroin to addicts coming out of the US. We know those things work because we've tried them elsewhere, but they aren't even a part of the discourse in your country and are only a minor part in mine. If wanting fact-based legislation makes me partisan, then so be it.
  23. I'm not sure how a multi-party system would work in your republican system. It works pretty well in the parliamentary system, especially the Westminister model, because party whips are traditionally much more powerful and minority parliaments have a long tradition. That's not to say that I don't think a multi-party model would be good for the US system, I do, I just have trouble seeing how it would work. Democracy without partisanship begins to look like the old politburo in a hurry. The question is how much partisanship, and what type, is healthy. The right amount raises the level of discourse...policies are discussed, probed, and adjusted. Too little leads to things like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Too much leads to things like swiftboating.
  24. I think it's at least a month late, but the party will still unify. She damaged Obama because she made the story this past week about her when it should have been about him, with her fading quickly from the public mind. Now that he is the candidate, however, I expect he will quickly gain ground on McCain in the polls, especially as the media begins talkin about their competencies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.