…and this is a 
Hannity pwned
Category: Humor • Politics
Posted on: October 9, 2008 8:18 AM, by PZ Myers
This is truly a thing of beauty: Sean Hannity, after using the tawdry guilt-by-association gimmick against Barack Obama, gets the same thing done to him. Watch the man squirm in frustration!
Bonus! The clip is presented by Keith Olbermann!
Double bonus! It's got Rachel Maddow commenting on it!
Super duper triple bonus! John Cleese sent in a poem about Hannity!
Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese
Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You're a profanity
Hannity
Time for a group liberal smirk and swoon, everyone.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Evan | October 9, 2008 8:22 AM
Smirking and swooning since I saw that this morning. Made of win.
Posted by: Will K. | October 9, 2008 8:22 AM
Why didn't Alan Colmes use this opportunity to flee his tormentor?
Posted by: Kel | October 9, 2008 8:30 AM
That was very cool, hopefully the american people can see through the terrorist jabs.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 9, 2008 8:32 AM
The only thing better would have been if it was presented by someone who isn't misogynistic slime like Olbermann and someone who didn't viciously attack Senator Clinton like Maddow. That it was those two in the clip were negatives in my view, but fortunately Hannity's trouncing still shone through despite the hypocrisy of the two fauxgressives.
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 8:43 AM
Meh. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought Hannity had a point (please note: I only know him from the clips posted on blogs like these): he's a journalist and he has people on his show with whom he doesn't agree; in fact, it's in his job description. I agree that the whole guilt by association thing is bogus, but slamming a journalist for the people he interviews is not a real rebuttal, even if it's Fox. But I didn't see the show, so I could be wrong.
The only positive thing I could see is, like KO said: don't be cowed into submission by a shouty, blustering interviewer, just talk back and make your point. If you manage to do that, you've won.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 9, 2008 8:50 AM
Hannity did not have a point -- unless it is that only journalists are allowed to encounter people with ideas different from their own. You missed the irony. Hannity was loudly complaining that having these people with views with which he disagrees does not mean he endorses them...while trying to claim that because Obama served on a committee with someone with radical views means he must have also endorsed them.
Posted by: Pieter Kok | October 9, 2008 8:50 AM
Ploon: Hannity's own defense ("I am a journalist, I ask everybody questions") was undermined by his extreme editorializing, which places him squarely in a political camp. It therefore matters whom he has on his show, and how he treats them.
Posted by: Elvish Pirate Monarch | October 9, 2008 8:52 AM
@Tabby
You are making it sound like if you didn't support Clinton and her push towards the end then you are some how not a progressive. I found Clinton's "Kitchen Sink" strategy distasteful and like trying to shoot the party through the foot if she didn't win. Just because Maddow and Olberman felt the same way doesn't make any of us less progressive. And I for one, and I am assuming them, would have voted for Clinton in the end if she had won the primaries.
@Ploon
Yes, Hannity had a point, that's why this is relavent. Of course he has every right to interview anyone especially people he disagrees with, but if he wants to hold Barack accountable for the crimes of someone who is a neighbor of his that he worked on a charity board for then it is only fair for Hannity to be held to the same standard, which is what Mr. Gibbs did.
Posted by: Marc | October 9, 2008 8:55 AM
@ploon The point is that Hannity used the guilt by association thing on Obama. If Hannity has an Anti-Semitic on his show, then clearly he is an Anti-Semitic by association. Right?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 9, 2008 8:58 AM
Fox News Exec.: "Did you see Hannity and Colmes?"
Rupert Murdoch : "Yes. Robert Gibbs was rude, loud, not interested in a real discussion and used weak reasoning to smear someone he didn't like."
.....
1 weak later
Colmes: " Welcome to Gibbs and Colmes...."
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 8:59 AM
Okay, but I do think there is a crucial difference between being a journalist and for instance serving on a board. Neither means that you endorse anyone or everyone you're dealing with (I imagine you would occasionally sit on a committee or board with political opponents or people indifferent to you). I also accept that Hannity probably comes in the same mold as other Fox journalists (fiercely partisan and intellectually dishonest). However, I still think that this rhetorical device is less effective against a journalist than say, someone engaged in more collaborative situations.
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 9:02 AM
I repeat though that I agree that the guilt-by-association ploy is ridiculous.
Posted by: BMcP | October 9, 2008 9:04 AM
Keith Olbermann is just the Democratic party's version of Sean Hannity, they are both equally tools and mouthpieces.
Creative poem by John Cleese, weird that he would care being in Britain and all, funny none the less.
Posted by: True Bob | October 9, 2008 9:05 AM
Ploon @ 11,
I would suggest this is exactly the place to demonstrate the flaws, as Hannity was using that flawed guilt by association. Where else does the rhetorical demonstration get a public audience?
Posted by: LB | October 9, 2008 9:06 AM
Hannity and Olberman work in the entertainment industry; Obama is running for the President of the United States. Therein lies a significant difference.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | October 9, 2008 9:10 AM
Tabby Lavalamp,
I don't get all the love liberals shoot over to Olbermann. He frequently shows himself to be an egotistical, sexist, blow hard who is big on rhetoric but little else.
Maddow, on the other hand, I've always quite liked. Used to listen to her show a lot. Then again, I've never heard her unduly attack Senator Clinton. Care to dig up when this happened; I'll be really dissapointed and a little shocked if its true. Haven't seen her TV new show, by the way.
Posted by: rebelest | October 9, 2008 9:15 AM
Sean Hannity=The Worst Person in the World
Posted by: spgreenlaw | October 9, 2008 9:18 AM
Er, that should read "new TV show." Seems I got ahead of myself there.
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | October 9, 2008 9:28 AM
As an aside, take note of the end of the clip where they mention that the McCain campaign is limiting future interviews with Palin to only two conservative-friendly shows. If this is true, it indicates that even McCain realizes Palin a greater liability than asset.
Posted by: John Snider | October 9, 2008 9:35 AM
This isn't exactly the slam-dunk on Hannity that folks are making this out to be. Interviewing a despicable person for a talk show isn't comparable to working with, cooperating with, networking with, and associating with a despicable person. As much as I hate to say it, Hannity won this one. (Now, granted, I didn't see the interview Gibbs was talking about, and if Hannity AGREED with the poisonous opinions of his interviewee, that'd be a different thing.) Nonetheless, it's the job of journalists to interview people of all stripes; good, bad and ugly, and merely doing an interview does not constitute guilt by association nor does it constitute approval of the guests opinions.
Are people so desperate to see Hannity fall that they really see this video as a victory???
Posted by: McCain article is semi-protected | October 9, 2008 9:41 AM
Any registered Wikipedians here?
John McCain's Wikipedia article fails to mention his involvement with far-right racist, anti-Semitic organizations, the U.S. Council for World Freedom, and the World Anti-Communist League, which were involved in the Iran-contra scandal.
Someone please remedy this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#U.S._Congressman_and_a_growing_family
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/07/mccain_and_the_us_council_for.html
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/pdf/nicaragua_20081007.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27086114/
http://www.publiceye.org/foreign_policy/covert/wacl.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=w1bqY-DxHMEC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=wacl
Posted by: Rob | October 9, 2008 9:45 AM
Why don't people criticize McCain for the years he spent associating with those Commies in Vietnam?
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 9:48 AM
#20:
As I was told above, Gibbs wasn't trying to tar Hannity with the same brush or turn his argument around at him (i.e. Hannity is equally guilty-by-association as Obama), but trying to discredit the whole argument of guilt-by-association in and of itself. This is a subtlety that escaped me at first, and I'm afraid it will have escaped a lot of TV-viewers, especially of the Fox variety. Therefore I don't think this will harm Hannity's credibility with anyone other than those who already think he has none. What's more, I don't think Hannity himself saw the subtle irony, so he himself probably thinks he won that exchange. Sad but true.
Posted by: rimpal | October 9, 2008 9:52 AM
John Snider,
Interviewing a despicable person for a talk show it ain't. Inanity Hannity based his entire smear job on the testimony of a despicable character, offering him up as a reliable and trusatworthy source of info. That is collaboration. In contrast Obama served on the same board with Ayers, who has been rehabilitated by society at large, and a few others Dem and Gop, some of whom are contributors to McSame's warchest!
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | October 9, 2008 9:52 AM
#20-(Now, granted, I didn't see the interview Gibbs was talking about, and if Hannity AGREED with the poisonous opinions of his interviewee, that'd be a different thing.) Nonetheless, it's the job of journalists to interview people of all stripes
I think that's a reasonable point, but it misses a larger pattern of behavior on Hannity's part. When Hannity interviews someone he disagrees with, he makes sure to point out anything, even if it's irrelevant to the issue at hand, that will discredit them. However he completely ignored Martin's past, calling him simply "an author", because he wanted to make it sound like Martin was a reasonable person and enough of an authority that his attacks on Obama should be treated seriously. That Hannity is still refusing to acknowledge his guest's ugly past, and that he considered a lunatic anti-Semite the best person to present a serious attack on Obama really says something about his own credibility...oh, wait, I'm sorry for suggesting he has any credibility.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | October 9, 2008 9:53 AM
BMcP #13:
Ok, dunno which planet you live on, but on this one, the US is one of the major dominating forces on the planet and anyone with half a brain cares about the american presidential election. I get that the converse is not true (how many americans can name the prime minister of the UK?), but hey, we're used to it. :)
Posted by: McCain article is semi-protected | October 9, 2008 9:57 AM
Any registered Wikipedians here?
John McCain's Wikipedia article fails to mention his involvement with far-right racist, anti-Semitic organizations, the U.S. Council for World Freedom, and the World Anti-Communist League, which were involved in the Iran-contra scandal.
Someone please remedy this.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/07/mccain_and_the_us_council_for.html
http://www.publiceye.org/foreign_policy/covert/wacl.html
Posted by: Clare | October 9, 2008 9:58 AM
Given that the people screaming about this seem to be missing the point that Ayers is hardly the horrendous terrorist they're claiming he is (at least from my vague recollection of what I have heard of the Weather Underground - being a Brit and relatively young to boot I may have missed something significant) it will come as no surprise when none of them manage to spot the real message of this interview either. The mob mentality, 'us against The Enemy(TM)' (and apparently now Hamas = Weather Underground as well - what a guy Hannity is) attitude of this whole thing strikes me as far closer to 'real' terrorism than what the WU did.
Posted by: McCain article is semi-protected | October 9, 2008 10:03 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=w1bqY-DxHMEC&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=wacl
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27086114/
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 9, 2008 10:05 AM
@ploon
Hannity is most assuredly NOT a journalist. He is a purely purely partisan operative in the Reich Wing media machine whose sole purpose is to advance a regressive ideology while demonizing honest Americans, and he hasn't been in any way subtle about that. Merely holding up the word "journalist" in quotes near oneself is far from sufficient to make one a journalist.
Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (who seem to have their detractors on this page) however, most definitely are journalists. They report facts, and call out others on their lies. Certainly they editorialize, but so what? And I'm sure that someone will now say that the commentary of Olbermann and Maddow makes them somehow the equivalent of the talking heads on Faux News, but saying it doesn't make it so. They don't lie, where Hannity and his ilk do nothing but lie.
Posted by: Bob L | October 9, 2008 10:06 AM
I think the best part was when Hannity tried defending himself with the line "but I am open minded".
Posted by: Bob L | October 9, 2008 10:09 AM
I think the best part was when Hannity tried defending himself with the line "but I am open minded".
Posted by: wombat | October 9, 2008 10:09 AM
We're not deciding whether we hand over the keys to the executive branch of the United States to Sean Hannity. And this individual whom Hannity had on his show was not the host of a political function for Mr. Hannity nor did they serve on a board in which Mr. Obama distributed money to support Mr. Ayers' initiatives. Obama's time on this board is certainly relevant to his presidential run. It is in no way unfair to investigate how he distributed funds and how those funds were used. Ayers' views on education are well documented. It is fair to assume that if Obama was passing out money to Ayers initiatives that he at least agreed with them in principle. I don't see how it's unfair to examine that relationship. And it's pretty clear from the known facts that Ayers isn't just some guy from Obama's neighborhood.
I don't care for Hannity's partisanship or journalistic style. Gibbs deflection of these points may have been strategically artful, but they are not analogous to the association between Obama and Ayers.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | October 9, 2008 10:16 AM
Cleese lives in California, I thought.
Posted by: arby | October 9, 2008 10:22 AM
#s 13 & 25. Cleese lives in Britain? I thought he was in extreme western Britain, Santa Barbara. rb
Posted by: arby | October 9, 2008 10:26 AM
#s 13 & 25. Cleese lives in Britain? I thought he was in extreme western Britain, Santa Barbara. rb
Posted by: JStein | October 9, 2008 10:27 AM
John Cleese, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow destroying Sean Hannity... can this day get any better?
Posted by: JStein | October 9, 2008 10:29 AM
John Cleese, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow destroying Sean Hannity... can this day get any better?
Posted by: El Herring | October 9, 2008 10:29 AM
Felicia Gilljam: I was about to make that exact same point. I'm British, never been any further west than Land's End, but I can probably name as many U.S. politicians as U.K. ones (who seem to be mostly Scottish nowadays, including Blair & Brown!)
How many U.K. politicians can the average American name? I'd guess, apart from the two I've just mentioned... none.
Posted by: mattmc | October 9, 2008 10:38 AM
hey Juandos,
Post that a few more times, then maybe it will start to make sense. Libtards indeed....
Posted by: Jamie | October 9, 2008 10:39 AM
"Honey, come quickly - Junior's learnt how to copy and paste!"
"That's great, honey - as soon as he learns how to think, then maybe we can let him near sharp objects."
Posted by: Ric | October 9, 2008 10:39 AM
The only thing better would have been if Keith O. called Hannity a douchebag.
Posted by: El Herring | October 9, 2008 10:39 AM
Someone here could benefit from an anal keyboard insertion.
Posted by: craig | October 9, 2008 10:40 AM
When Hannity has had people complain that his radio show is unfair, he has said that he is NOT a journalist, that he is a "conservative commentator."
So his claim now to be a journalist is pure hypocrisy.
Posted by: michel | October 9, 2008 10:40 AM
investigation of what obama did precisely could be of interest and should be allowed, and from what i believe there already has been some investigation.
but it seems now that obama is already convicted before there even was an investigation. just the fact that there is a connection seems to be enough. association doesn't mean you're guilty. or else everybody in the University of Illinois at Chicago would be a terrorist.
it's exactly hannity's kind of hate mongering that i would call terrorism. let's just hope it doesn't inspire some redneck loon to make sure that obama doesn't get to the end of his campaign.
Posted by: Jamie | October 9, 2008 10:42 AM
"Honey, come quickly - Junior's learnt how to copy and paste!"
"That's great, honey - as soon as he learns how to think, then maybe we can let him near sharp objects."
Also, "no wonder you folks are called Libtards the world (planet earth) over..."?
Who the fuck outside of the United States uses the word "libtard"? Have you even been outside your home state - or even your home town? Foolish, foolish child - enjoy your bed of fear and ignorance.
Posted by: chuckberto | October 9, 2008 10:43 AM
you can say that again.
Posted by: Valis | October 9, 2008 10:45 AM
@Juandos
1. You are a complete idiot.
2. You are a complete idiot.
3. You are...oh never mind.
4. You have no idea how to submit a comment...idiot.
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 9, 2008 10:45 AM
Off thread
On the GFP thread - What did Shimamuro do? If he did not inject GFP how did he bind it. Because it is a protein, did it bind inside the cell?
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 10:47 AM
Whoa there Juandos, easy on the F5-button! Do you get a cookie every time you hit that? I'll let others shoot down the relevance of your links (of which there are many) and just say: what does Cleese's background have anything to do with the quality of the poem?
And "libtards the world over"? I can assure you that there are not many Republicans outside the US. Talk about an inflated sense of self-importance.
Posted by: Jose | October 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Obama is also friends with fundie republicans. McCain considers former Klan members friends. Palin hangs with anti-Semites. Biden's cat is gay. A guy I was friend with in high school is a pot head. The guilt by association argument is meaningless. You can use it to argue anything about anyone. Judge people by their conduct, not by the people they've interacted with in their lives.
Posted by: clinteas | October 9, 2008 10:49 AM
Ah,praise the killfile.
Fucking dickhead.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 9, 2008 10:51 AM
Wombat,
there we go, someone already spinning the facts :
The facts are :
1. Ayers donated a grandiose $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois state senate (like thousands of other individuals : do we need to check their association also ?). It would be difficult to find people in Chicago who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns.
2. Obama and Ayers were both members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, http://www.woodsfund.org/ between 1999 and 2002.
Both being members of a charity group at the same time (as with other board members) doesn't mean that Obama necessarily agrees with Ayers' views on education or anything in particular. The Woods Fund isn't, as Wombat suggest, something put in place to support Ayers' initiatives.
3. Obama was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
Posted by: scooter | October 9, 2008 10:53 AM
Ploon Loon @5 Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought Hannity had a point [snip] he's a journalist.
FAIL
Hannity is a journalist like Ken Ham is an evolutionary biologist.
I recommend a good colon cleanser like Physillium Husk to clear out your brane which is clogged with shit.
The stoopid Burns
Posted by: Aaron Whitby | October 9, 2008 10:54 AM
I thought Gibbs was effective by playing Hannity at his own game of insincere, manipulative, brain freezing bloviating. Holding up a mirror can be a good ploy at times, even if it's ugly to watch.
Have to agree with all who see Olberman for the awful blowhard he is. Maybe we need to ape Fox and TalkRadio to defeat them but it feels wrong to me. Know less about Maddow but the little bits I heard on Air America were not encouraging. Check out the incomparable Bob Somerby on Olberman - http://www.dailyhowler.com.
BTW Poor Juandos, not only can't he control his posting finger but his first link (sorry had to know what garbage he was touting) is a garbled mess. It claims to correct Cleese's accurate statement about Thatcher's time in the cabinet with an inaccurate rebuttal. And it lays out the real facts for all to see and still gets it wrong. Hilarious.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 9, 2008 11:01 AM
Juandos got automatically banned by the software for that excess, which is kind of cute. I'll go back and purge it later, but I've got to run to class.
Silver Fox, AKA Max Verret, AKA creationist fool: READ THE ARTICLE IN THAT THREAD. It explains how GFP can be introduced into a whole organism yet only be expressed when and where a specific gene is expressed.
Posted by: Ranson | October 9, 2008 11:03 AM
Great. That assmonkey can spam fifty times in a row, but my preview disappears into the void, along with my first and second posts complaining about it. Thanks, Scienceblogs! *thumbsup*
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 11:05 AM
#71:
Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread (or even the message) and consider the arguments I expressed, before bringing out the unwarranted insults. I did say I don't know Hannity except from clips on blogs. So take your meds and chill, everythings going to be alright.
Posted by: Brad D | October 9, 2008 11:11 AM
I'm glad someone put Hannity in his place in a way that his viewers are potentially capable of understanding, but personally I couldn't make it halfway through the video, it was giving me a headache. Dude! Just shut up and let your guest make his point, it will be much quicker and less painful that way.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 9, 2008 11:12 AM
Well, I learn something new everyday. I had never, ever come across the word Libtard before today (the UK is obviously not of this world any more, I guess). It's a pretty feeble insult...
Posted by: clinteas | October 9, 2008 11:13 AM
Ploon,No 5,
//he's a journalist and he has people on his show with whom he doesn't agree; in fact, it's in his job description. I agree that the whole guilt by association thing is bogus, but slamming a journalist for the people he interviews is not a real rebuttal//
Youve seen Hannity's job desciption? Im impressed.
The guy is not a journalist,which should be clear to anybody who has ever seen him on his show,he is paid to follow the political agenda of his network,and he wont let facts or sincerity get in his way.
Posted by: Jose | October 9, 2008 11:13 AM
Juandos got automatically banned by the software
You can get automatically banned! That's awesome. Of course, now I have to resist the urge to test the limits of the software.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | October 9, 2008 11:16 AM
"Breathtaking in-Hannity" indeed !
Posted by: Annapolitan | October 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Yesterday, I noticed in the Derbyshire thread that quite a few commenters had multiple postings. I think there might be a hiccup with Scienceblogs, and this may not be the fault of the individual who is posting.
FYI, the first time I tried posting this, I got an error message.
Posted by: Patricia | October 9, 2008 11:19 AM
Is the blog still screwed up, or is that guy simply more of a fucktard than usual?
Posted by: S.Scott | October 9, 2008 11:22 AM
Did anyone see Olbermann's rant about Palin? (or am I late to the party?)Classic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnSXGTFQ0Ak
Posted by: spyderkl | October 9, 2008 11:22 AM
That...was...wonderful! Even though Keith Olbermann can be a sexist jerk at times, I still love and respect his politics and bravery. Rachel Maddow is just all kinds of awesome - I loved her on Air America and I think she's doing well, considering some of MSNBC's constraints on her.
I especially enjoyed the part where Hannity tried his patented "if you've got nothing else, just keep shouting 'em down" shtick - and it didn't work this time. Whooo!
Posted by: Ploon | October 9, 2008 11:22 AM
#71 and #78:
Look, I'm NOT going to apologise for not ever having seen Hannity's show. I did mention that, if you'd bothered to read all of my first post. So keep your snarky criticism to yourself, it makes you look less of an ass. I expected better reading comprehension from the regular commenters on this blog.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 9, 2008 11:24 AM
Gotta love someone calling people tards when they can't read a simple message about not resubmitting your comment.
Posted by: spyderkl | October 9, 2008 11:25 AM
That...was...wonderful! Even though Keith Olbermann can be a sexist jerk at times, I still love and respect his politics and bravery. Rachel Maddow is just all kinds of awesome - I loved her on Air America and I think she's doing well, considering some of MSNBC's constraints on her.
I especially enjoyed the part where Hannity tried his patented "if you've got nothing else, just keep shouting 'em down" shtick - and it didn't work this time. Whooo!
Posted by: spyderkl | October 9, 2008 11:32 AM
Aw, hell - how did that post twice? Sorry. :(
Posted by: scooter | October 9, 2008 11:34 AM
El Herring @ 41 How many U.K. politicians can the average American name?
About as many who are dancing on a pin.
Poodle Blair sold you out, you have a tough road ahead of you. Naming U.K. politicians is about as relevant as enumerating Paris Hilton's dick miles.
You're a joke, Great Britain has the credibility of Idi Amin, and is best known for repeats of Teletubbies.
If you would pull your nose from the buttcrack of American jingo dipshitism, you might be taken seriously, but I'm not holding my breath, your government represents the quislings of Europe.
Getting off your knees would be a good start.
Labor Party my big fat pink white ass.
The last time there was a labor party in GB was when yall got together to toast contractions every 30 seconds, or every thirty years.
Keep it up and you'll be right up there with the US, women giving birth in pick up trucks
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 9, 2008 11:36 AM
And you really think if the Americans elect a moron the rest of the world doesn't have to live with the consequences?
The French press has been covering the US election campaign for months now (and not just the campaign -- even Obama's wife!), so has my e-mail provider (who sits in Germany), and when I was in Poland and Serbia in August, it was all over the press there, too.
Next you'll tell me you'd never have imagined that a "state" of Germany lost 350 million € in the US mortgage crisis and that Iceland is more or less bankrupt for the same reason (I don't know if the announced Russian credit over 4 billion € was granted or not).
ROTFL! Nobody outside the USA uses that word, and nobody who doesn't read blogs on US politics even knows it. Perhaps because, everwhere outside the USA, the first thing people think of when they hear "liberal" is liberal policies on the economy -- deregulation, low and flat taxes, and the like, the policies that the Republicans promote in the USA. No wonder that the Canadian party most similar to the Republicans calls itself the Liberal Party.
Add to that the fact that Obama is a fairly boring conservative. He isn't on the left by any but US standards. Like Kerry and AFAIK both Clintons (Hillary certainly, Bill I don't know that well) would fit very comfortably into any conservative party in Europe.
Lo and behold, practically the whole world is for Obama with majorities of 80 to 90 %. That's because McCain isn't even on the political map, he's to the right of the map itself.
Last but not least, learn to read the error message. It says in no uncertain words that you should not resubmit your comment; your comment has got through, the software only failed to display the updated page.
Posted by: clinteas | October 9, 2008 11:40 AM
scooter,
do you still have no electricity,or why are you so grumpy LOL
//How many U.K. politicians can the average American name?//
How many U.S. politicians (or newspapers,for that matter)can the average American name?
Posted by: Dances With Books | October 9, 2008 11:44 AM
Just one word: priceless.
We definitely need to be turning the tables on people like Hannity every chance we get. By the way, Rachel afterwards had a nice "how to handle people like Hannity" segment. It's like a handbook, only to the point.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 9, 2008 11:44 AM
Elvish Pirate Monarch...
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=keith+olbermann+misogyny&btnG=Search&meta=
Posted by: Mena | October 9, 2008 11:48 AM
Juandos only posted that message 17 times, not fifty!
Oh, and Scooter, don't be a jerk. That situation was resolved within the first dozen or so comments.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | October 9, 2008 11:50 AM
I don't think made a very convincing argument. He should have said something to the effect that Fox never questioned the anti-semitism (presuming they did not... one can only imagine).
Posted by: Paul Johnson | October 9, 2008 11:50 AM
I don't think made a very convincing argument. He should have said something to the effect that Fox never questioned the anti-semitism (presuming they did not... one can only imagine).
Posted by: MarkW | October 9, 2008 11:52 AM
Juandos: As the commenter ross points out on the very link in which you accuse John Cleese of lying Cleese was factually correct when he stated that Thatcher was only in government for three years, as education secretary (1970 - early 1974) before she became PM.
Being a backbench MP from 1959 to 1970 is not 'in government', nor is being leader of the opposition from 1975 to 79.
Posted by: Hockey Bob | October 9, 2008 12:00 PM
Olbermann... failure at ESPN, failure at MSNBC.
http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=67744_keitholbermannyr5_122_965lo.jpg
Keith Olbermann calling *anyone* a hack?!? My irony meter has just been permanently broken.
Posted by: Andrew | October 9, 2008 12:00 PM
Agree with most of what David Marjanović says, but our Liberals have far more in common with US Democrats in that they are essentially corporatist centre-right to cenrists, although Liberal politicians morph fluidly to parrot rhetoric that appeals to the centre-left portion of the electorate. They are the party of politicians rather than ideas.I suspect that very few US Republicans would feel at home in the Canadian Liberal party.
Obama is a textbook Canadian Liberal except for his commitment to American exceptionalism and imperialism. His support for FISA, invading Pakistan and the Wall Street handouts puts him at odds with Liberal rhetoric, but not with Liberal governance.
Our current Conservative Party contains some real conservatives as traditionally defined (we call 'em Red Tories), plus a lot of what are now called "neo-cons". As well as I can tell from my armchair in the North, Stephen Harper is deinitely smarter and better educated than Republican leaders since Nixon. He is also a fairly canny politician who appears recently to have overplayed his hand with respect to the lack of appeal of the current Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, so is losing support.
The more centrist-left-leaning republicans map onto the rightmost fringe of our Conservative party, but much that is unremarkable in Republican rhetoric is heard only in the "moonbat" fringes of Canadian politics.
Many of your Democrats would bristle at Liberal rhetoric, but be OK with their policies in action, I think.
I use the terms "left" and "right" for convenience, realizing that they are imperfect. It might interest people to know that a substantial minority of Liberals are anti-abortion, for example.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Never preview.
I click "Post", wait for the "Submission Error" (which, incidentally, juandos, says "please don't submit your comment again" in bold and in a separate line...), go back, copy my comment just to make sure it isn't lost, refresh the page, and see that it got through. It always gets through unless I stop the loading of the error message too early.
All of them.
;-)
AAAARGH! Sorry! Sorry for insulting all average Americans! I'll never do that again.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 9, 2008 12:03 PM
The point wasn't to make an argument. It was to SHOW the tactic. Do to Hannity exactly what they've tried to do to Obama. He did it exactly right. Hannity was on the defensive, flustered and had no response that could show that this attack was different.
Posted by: El Herring | October 9, 2008 12:04 PM
Wow - another anal keyboard insertion needed here, along with a sense of humour transplant.
scooter - did I ever say I was a supporter of the current U.K. government? What exactly was that rant of yours all about? In what way have I ever attacked or upset you?
I'll be the first to admit my country/government is a mess, but you seem to think I'm solely responsible for it simply because I live here. What would you like me to do, move to the U.S. where everything is sooooo much better in your wonderful shining example of a perfect democracy; a beacon of truth and decency to the rest of the grubby little world. Yeah, right.
America - a country with a great future behind it, to paraphrase Max Headroom. Sinking into the mire and taking the rest of us with it.
scooter => killfile.
Posted by: Andrew | October 9, 2008 12:04 PM
Agree with most of what David Marjanović says, but our Liberals have far more in common with US Democrats in that they are essentially corporatist centre-right to cenrists, although Liberal politicians morph fluidly to parrot rhetoric that appeals to the centre-left portion of the electorate. They are the party of politicians rather than ideas.I suspect that very few US Republicans would feel at home in the Canadian Liberal party.
Obama is a textbook Canadian Liberal except for his commitment to American exceptionalism and imperialism. His support for FISA, invading Pakistan and the Wall Street handouts puts him at odds with Liberal rhetoric, but not with Liberal governance.
Our current Conservative Party contains some real conservatives as traditionally defined (we call 'em Red Tories), plus a lot of what are now called "neo-cons". As well as I can tell from my armchair in the North, Stephen Harper is deinitely smarter and better educated than Republican leaders since Nixon. He is also a fairly canny politician who appears recently to have overplayed his hand with respect to the lack of appeal of the current Liberal leader, Stephane Dion, so is losing support.
The more centrist-left-leaning republicans map onto the rightmost fringe of our Conservative party, but much that is unremarkable in Republican rhetoric is heard only in the "moonbat" fringes of Canadian politics.
Many of your Democrats would bristle at Liberal rhetoric, but be OK with their policies in action, I think.
I use the terms "left" and "right" for convenience, realizing that they are imperfect. It might interest people to know that a substantial minority of Liberals are anti-abortion, for example.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 9, 2008 12:05 PM
David Marjanović, OM wrote:
Perhaps you're not all that familiar with Canadian politics or have us confused with Australia and John Howard's Liberal Party. Up here in the Great White North we have Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party who have parroted such GOP talking points about not "cutting and running" (until it was politically expedient to talk about a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan).
Our Liberal Party is more ideologically in tune with the Democrats, a mostly centrist party that will lean right when the political winds are blowing in that direction.
Posted by: Scotty B | October 9, 2008 12:11 PM
John Cleese's poem reminds me a lot of John Lithgow's book I'm A Manatee. I got it inside a box of Cheerios, but I would recommend it to anyone who has kids! (Also, if you're musically inclined, the last couple of pages are sheet music, I guess if you want to sing the book)