Would obsessing about, or shilling with "September 11th", be grounds to disqualify a presidential candidate?
Quote:
11.15.07 -- 11:12AM // <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058951.php">link</a>
Really That Many Times?
A number of you who watched our Rudy Giuliani 9/11 commercial spoof in yesterday's episode of TPMtv have written in to ask, "Did you re-use any of those Giuliani 9/11 moments for effect? Were there any repeats? Or was every single clip a unique Rudy milking 9/11 moment?"
Well, don't tell him I told you this. But TPMtv producer/editor Ben Craw was actually kind of hurt that the question was even asked. Because, yes, every clip is unique. I actually handcuffed Ben to his editing chair and told him I didn't want to see him again until he came back with the montage of Rudy's moments trying to exploit 9/11 all the way to the White House.
Anyhow, by the time Ben was done putting the thing together he was pretty much fried. So even he didn't know how many individual clips were used.
So check it out if you missed it yesterday. And if you're a good counter, try to figure out how many individual clips are included ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7-3M-YrdA
|
<h3>Can anyone post the name of a "leading" 2008 presidential candidate who is not a lunatic, a blatant hypocrite, or "bought off" by corporate donors, or "in bed" with religious fundamentalists?</h3>
I touched on Clinton's shortcomings in the OP opinion piece, Obama can be accused of excessive corporate sponsorship and a shady residential real estate purchase, Rudy seems to be tainted by his sponsorship of Kerik and his 9/11 obsession, and his neocon advisory council, and the rest who receive press coverage have some of the deficiencies described above.
Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and even with his much maligned haricut, John Edwards, all seem to be the candidates not "on the fringe".