she's anti abortion rights, just involved in a scandal, hasn't "worked for it" the way Clinton has etc.

The real Republicans will see it as icing on the cake "she's only VP" and not oppose it- Democratic women? We'll see, as they say in the papers.

_{"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert}

it might appeal to republican crossovers and independents but I find it hard to believe a stanch pro lifer will appeal to dem women.

Women aren't stupid. Clinton supporters will run away as fast and as far as they can from this neocon duo. Geez, all of a sudden I like Obama.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

but the press will continue to act like Hillary supporters are sheep and will follow the few blustering so called supporters for McCain over the cliff. Fools.

a lot of Hillary's supporters were conservative women.

Not all women are liberals and not all women support a woman's right to choose.

I did inhale.

I know but they know that Hillary is stanch pro choice so I don't see why they would swing to someone with even less experience than Obama just because she(Palin) is stanch prolife. I guess some will but the majority of Hillary's supporters are democrats. I think we will be seeing that 3am call ad reworked. :D

Some interesting further analysis and elaboration of your point, from the very pro-choice Texan Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.com

Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.

..all 60 of them.....

Tina's point below is solid--only conservative feminists disaffected by the recent Primary campaign would be likely Repub takes...their platform in general is so repugnant to the average Feminist that there'd be almost no chance at all for any but the Stepford Wife vote...

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

Disaffected Clinton voters will not accept some ultra conservative replacement. Clinton was the deal. No substitute suffices.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

"she has as little experience as Obama"
"Joe better not be too tough on her"
"well, we know John has always gone for younger women"
"at least she's better looking than Lieberman"
:-)

_{"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert}

And Atrios just posted this: "junior high cheerleaders at mccain rally? creepy"

See my "Dobson's Choice?" post.

"He cannot say any more that Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to be commander in chief when he chooses a woman whose signature achievement two years ago was that they won an award from the National Arbor Day Foundation," a Democratic operative said.

Shocking!!!

:(

I just want someone with substance.

unfortunately, bill clinton signed NAFTA and normalized trade agreements with china despite having no enforceable enviromental or labor agreements in place; this let businesses get around the stronger laws we have here. Moreover, Pelosi has done nothing to challenge bush even though he wants to make our environmental laws the same as the third world.

and, while al gore puts on a good act, his mansion still uses 200 times more energy than an average home so all his emotional sobbing in inconvienient truth looks faked through that lens.

so, given all this, I think that the dems support the current culture...

when I traveled around minnesota for dennis kucinich-- and more recently for ron paul, both democrats and republicans told me that the republicans were more likely to do something substantial with alternative energy since, when big business wants something, they go after it!

and, personally, I'm no longer sure that our archaic education and health care systems are worth saving. and this isn't a fox news thing since even obama noted that "several generations of students have been lost." (paraphrased) so, perhaps, if we let things collapse there will be pain but forests regrow after a forest fire.

uses about *20* times as much as the average person's, not *200* (as you'll note in that link, the AP researched it and found it used *12* times as much).

And I bet the place where you got that info didn't offer any meaningful comparisons like what any *past* VP's energy use was. They just used the number in isolation as if an ex-VP had precisely the same obligations as any other person in the US - you know, like running a global business or entertaining foreign dignitaries; the sort of thing you see the average person living in rural Arkansas doing all the time.

basically, al gore's annual energy consumption could "power 232 average homes for a month" or, as you put it, his mansion consumes 20 times more energy than the average home [SOURCE].

this article also makes another interesting observation:

Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

thus, the energy required for his "green upgrades" failed to reduce his subsequent energy usage. Hence, Al Gore can't go around suggesting that "being green" is easy since his attempts, so far, have only made things worse.

Moreover, Gore has at least three homes: one in Nashville; one in Carthage; and one in Arlington so he's a true resource hog.

thus, I stand by my conviction that "Al Gore is a poser and a profiter" and, after watching his movie, I'd say that, like his father, whose addiction to profit kept him farming tobacco, Gore Jr. continues to live large despite knowing that second hand carbon is bad for our planet.

With respect I'll go with the AP estimate myself.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703020001

I repeat: there both the same number, just scaled differently.

i.e. while most people only need 12 units of energy per year, gore needs 232 units per year.

the 20 you posted is simply 232/12 or about 20 per month.

so-- either way you look at it, he's mocking us since, if he was worried, he'd cut back.

But that's not true. The article *manipulated you*. They were counting on you not looking critically at how they were presenting the numbers, and they played you for a sucker.

This is how they played you:

"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. "

See the magic here?

Why are they comparing the amount that Gore's house used in a year with what the average person used in a month? Would we be interested in comparing the amount John eats in a month to the amount Chuck eats in a week?

Well, that would be so the unwary who didn't read the article closely or critically - in this example, that's you - would rush out and tell everyone they know that "Gore uses over two hundred times as much energy as the average person!".

Which you obligingly did.

And you're using that number today despite having been corrected on it once before less than a month ago.

"...he still uses more electricity than 230 typical homeowners even though he implies that he's worried about the environment..."

Although - frankly - most people on the planet couldn't really care less how much his personal electrical bill is; at least not any more than most people would care that Jefferson talked about Liberty while owning slaves. Gore's got an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, and enjoys a pretty remarkable amount of goodwill in the larger world outside the US. Most folks on the planet seem to think he's one of the better leaders America never had, with the exception of a tiny cadre scattered amongst the 5% of the planet that happens to be American. As far as the rest of the planet's concerned, he can use as much electricity as he thinks he needs as long as it doesn't make the sun grow dim; he can stick a bulb in his mouth and a 220 volt cable up his ass and play "Santa On The Chimney Top" at Christmas as long as his work leads to advances in awareness and policy.

It would be very nice to see America taking global warming seriously instead of pretending it doesn't actually exist. Bush's ranch is a paragon of energy conservation, but Bush spent the last eight years telling the planet global warming doesn't exist (there's some seriously weird disconnect going on in that guy's head). So a fellow's personal energy profile isn't the first (or second, or third) thing I look to for guidance on things like this - particularly when hysterical claims of "230 times average!" start shrinking under closer scrutiny into "erm, well, he could probably do a little better".

To me, the presentation was on target since it said, in essence:

"a normal person eats 12 hamburgers a year while al gore eats 232 of them."

Hence, if Al Gore really cared, there's a lot of room for improvement.

Moreover, in the future, I'll use the language of my hamburger story in order to avoid ambiguity since I agree with you that my initial presentations needed crisper language; on the other hand, the "inconvient truth" it suggests about gore remains and my opinion remains steadfast that gore has a wishbone, but no backbone, and talk, but no walk.

of course, you seem intent on apologizing for gore since you wrote: why anyone would compare a former Vice President with 'typical homeowners?' and the answer is: "Al Gore himself made carbon footprint a moral measurement." Thus, he continues to betray himself and looks like a fraudulent poser.

You also commented that "[bush] spent the last eight years telling the planet global warming doesn't exist" yet, as vice president, Al Gore sent our manufacturing capacity to China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico, etc... in order to hide our carbon footprint within their per capita numbers. Hence, I say again, he's a fraudulent poser. At least with bush, his actions and words are consistent.

The most damning thing about Al Gore is that, while he tried to blaim the republicans for the poor environmental regulations found in his own adminstration's trade agreements, these same shortcomings have been evident in his own personal life and he has direct control over that!

FYI: From the Harvard Crimson: "Americans want to emulate the stars, not just obey them! [SOURCE]

I lost interest in discussing this with you a while back - right around the time I realized you'd already been given this information before and ignored it. I posted for a specific purpose, which was to debunk a common falsehood, which I have now done. Good luck with hating Gore, I hope it works out for you.

you're funny. it's totally true that the man used 220 more homes worth of energy last year than the average american.

IMO, the reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is because they choose pied piper candiates and al gore is one of those candidates.

enjoy your faithfulness!

you sure you really want to double down and go for broke when anyone else reading this thread can simply read the original statement from your own source and do the math themselves?

your math was 20 a month; my math was 20x12 which comes to 240 per year and I subtracted 12-- the use of those who care.

BTW: I'll consider myself debunked if al gore explains why elite celebrities can do as they please despite his predictions. as far as I know, communism collapsed because the elite ultimately suffocated the system; based on what I see, folks like Gore are doing that to our system.

_{"What we have here is, failure to communicate"}

I didn't think god had anything to do with this thread.

the dems certainly lacked compassion here:

“The hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, it will be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side,” Fowler said, while laughing. Fowler also told Spratt that “everything’s cool.” [SOURCE]

the evidence on the heartlessness of the dems, and why they sided with bush, and why they didn't impeach, keeps piling up.

McCain adviser says terrorist attack would boost campaign
Tuesday June 24 2008 09:13

A senior adviser to the US presidential hopeful John McCain has apologised after saying a terrorist attack on American soil would be a "big advantage" to the Republican candidate's election campaign.

Charlie Black later expressed regret over his "inappropriate" comments, and McCain said he disagreed with the claim.

McCain's presidential rival Barack Obama called the remark a "complete disgrace".

Discussing national security in an interview with Fortune magazine, Black was asked about the impact that another terrorist attack on US soil might have on McCain's campaign.

"Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," said Black

(...)

If your point is that both teams have idiots amongst them that open their mouths before engaging their brains, I'd agree with you. There's a lot of that going around.

I think that their brains were engaged but they forgot to filter its output.

Madeline Albright, for example, once said: "500,000 dead iraqi children were worth the price" when asked about Iraqi sanctions so the clinton/gore adminstration wasn't very benevolent.

OK. Slowly. In very small words.

>>>
Example 1)

Jim eats one egg a month. Ted eats twenty eggs a month. Ted eats twenty times as many eggs as Jim.

>>>
Example 2)

Jim eats twelve eggs a year. Ted eats two hundred and forty eggs a year. Ted now eats _____ times as many eggs as Jim.

>>>

Compare examples 1) and 2) and identify which of the following statements, A) or B), is correct. Use the result to fill in the blank above.

(I have inserted a small hint. I have marked the incorrect statement using the words "incorrect statement" in bold text and the correct statement using the words "correct statement" in bold text.)

>>>

A) Incorrect statement: In the time between examples 1 and 2, Ted's consumption of eggs seems to have soared! Ted now eats two hundred and forty times as many eggs as Jim! The answer is "228" after you deduct twelve for normal egg eating.

B) Correct statement: Ted still eats exactly twenty times as many eggs as Jim.

since my mcdonalds story never uses the word "times."

I said: "a normal person eats 12 hamburgers and al gore eats 240 in a year." when I budget, I use $7,000 a year for rent since I budget annually, not monthly.

anyway, since al gore is tall, maybe he needs 48 hamburgers a year.

of course al gore has other homes and jets everywhere; thus, he's gobbling up hamburgers all over the place!

Gandhi said: "be the change you seek" not a fraudulant poser.

for al gore's intelligence since "the best informed man" ain't the wisest.

From your source:
"In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity"
and:
"the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year"

So, Gore's home uses 213,210 / 11,040 = 19.3 times as much as the average American household. A little less than 230 times...

Or, to look at it a different way, we could say:
In the past year, the average American's home burned through 11,040 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 12 average American households for a month. (Wow, that sure sounds like a lot). Even more astonishingly, in the past year, the average American's home burned through 11,040 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 365 average American households for a day!!!! (Now that definitely is a lot - someone wants to speak to those average households).

See??

he literally eats over 200 more hamburgers than the average person even though he professes that eating those hamburgers will destroy the world!

perhaps he met alice in wonderland!

[both images linked with *profound* gratitude - ES]

I agree with Mr T.

is one of my favorite sites :)

http://despair.com/viewall.html

it's not big deal that you found the facts inconvienient about gore. truly, when I see ignorance like that, on the left, I understand why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

your elegantly reasoned insights on the widening gulf between rich and poor, the failure of communism, and why our willful ignorance makes it so very hard for you to sell completely bullshit stories here.

I've little doubt that your demonstrated prowess in critical thinking has left the entire readership as eager as I for any pearls you might deign to cast before us.

perhaps you have a crush on him or something? it's not about willful ignorance but, as I wrote, wishbone but not backbone. People want painless change via popping a pill.

give it up already. Please put the rest of us out of this misery and move on to another subject that maybe us members of ignorant left will understand to your satisfaction.

here's an image for you:

what a nice shot!

Wikipedia

Jonathan Singer has it right, "Spirow Agnew."

Yeah, "remember Spiro." Alaska is already prominently in the news for its Rethug corruption. Hope they vetted her well. I wonder what she'll be saying about the corruption in her state's party. She is the governor, after all.

Kind of makes you think of "the Keating Five," doesn't it.

"abuse of Office"--firing the commissioner for Public Safety because they wouldn't fire her brother-in-law (in the midst of a messy divorce case).

Honestly, is there a Republican *anywhere* with a clean record? I'm starting to think no.....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

it makes me think about obama's support for ethanol, liquified coal, mountain top coal removal (i'm assuming this since that's the cheap way to get coal), his FISA vote and giving telecoms legal cover, etc...

only fanbois are blind to this boatload, and others, of washington insider gerrymandering.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but where did you uncover this information? Sharper than.....? More disciplined than....? Listen I've been to Alaska.

I agree with you 100%. Obama's speech seemed slapped together, triangularized and a bunch of mushed together sentimentalities and platitudes whereas Palin's speech was very witty, original and compelling.

i.e. she sounded like the original obama before he started trying to broaden his support through speech writers and advisers.

I'll be watching Palin some more and hope that her "compositions" seem like her own.

Thirty-eight million people watched Obama's speech — more than took in the Olympic opening ceremony, itself a record tune-in.

I watched the speech last night and not only did I think it was much ado about nothing but I also felt nauseous when obama was compared to MLK since, in my mind, Obama is neither an MLK nor a JFK.

I say this based on a quote from DemocracyNow:

JEREMY SCAHILL: We heard Senator Obama invoke the name and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King tonight. At the same time, he called for an escalation of a war against another country. Martin Luther King was a pacifist and didn’t believe that war was just. Do you see a contradiction there?

REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE: There is—these are tough times, and Martin Luther King did oppose the Vietnam War. I worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I knew him as a man that did not bow down to pressure. I think what Senator Obama is saying, that in this climate of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan is where the crux of the crisis started, as it relates to 9/11 and where Osama bin Laden is. And I think he simply said tonight that we need to finish the job so that we can gain again the moral level and the moral angel of being able to speak, if you will, to diplomacy and peace.

Specifically: I lost a little more faith in the dems since "violence begets violence"-- according to MLK, and wars can never heal since they're based on racism and povery-- according to MLK, and I agree. Instead, wars have become the crack cocaine which drives our crazy, unsustainable economy into a dysfunctional funk and the democrats aren't calling a spade a spade.

At the very least, supporting the McCain/Palin ticket is simply siding with a man who's honest about where america's culture is headed-- with or without the democracts in charge and with or without the republicans in charge.

Moreover, JFK said this:

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."

-John F. Kennedy

and I think that bush will be remembered for bringing about change even when the nation kicked and screamed against it.

I'm a ...believer?

That'll get the editors who've dealt with my nitpicking for years rolling in the aisles.:-)

But your post is about your beliefs not mine, so go right ahead......

_{"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert}

yeah; you said: "I didn't find that to be so."

my infatuation with obama's speech lasted for, ohhhh, about 30 seconds.

In general, I liked Stirling's observation that obama's speech was mostly "kerry rehash" but presented better; thankuflly, mr "i'm reporting for duty kerry" set the bar low for obama.

McSame is turning himself into a hypocritical flip-flopper and making incredibly bad decisions trying to hold the Reagan coalition together. It isn't working because that coalition has already been coming apart for some time. The issues on which it was founded have changed.

Given McSame's age and health history, even the most died in the wool Rethugs are going to be thinking about the possibility of a President Palin — and the consequences thereof. Probably before she could be sworn in, America's enemies around the globe would launching prepared pans to test her, knowing she has zero experience as "the decider" and probably little tolerance for high pressure, having only been the major of a small isolated town and governor of a backwater state for but a year.

She was in lots of beauty contests so the rumor goes. And those E-vangelicals are seeking forgiveness for something!

The fertilizer will hit the fan if/when they find anything untoward.

Getcha popcorn ready.....

not palin...but her daughter...the moderate voice spreads the rumor that palin's down syndrome baby is really the child of the eldest teenage daughter...

he could have chosen Liddy Dole. She probably going to lose her Senate seat anyway.

The GOP bench is astoundingly thin - let alone the "first string". It amazes me that the choices winnowed down to McCain. As far as bringing in conservative votes, I thought his team would have given Huckabee strong consideration. WRT Palin, with whom I have no history and no quarrel, I just have to say - there's no there there. If the supposed hordes of PUMAs want to vote for a woman, any woman, despite her anti-choice and pro-creationist positions...well, please do so. I think the McCain ticket nets perhaps 100K votes on this selection.

After the GOOPvention, the level of discourse will get even nastier and slimier. I hope Governor Palin brought her foul weather gear along.

_{"What we have here is, failure to communicate"}

the GOP convention is put off until after Gustav hits and then Palin will have family issues and will be replaced. However Operation Chaos continues until then ;)

tho i know you are quoting the sfchron, i will point out that palin did not fight the bridge to nowhere until it was obvious that the fed wasn't giving enough money for the project.

and then, she (as alaska's gov) kept what fed money had come their way.

Just meant to point out that not everybody thinks it was a bad decision. Maybe we should have Senatorial oversight so that such Harriet Miers choices don't get made.

That she pulled support for the bridge only late in the game, then claimed to have stood up to Washington proves that she's a politician, "ready to lead".

except he's not hot

eom