My favorite part is around 18:50.
Hat tip to @kerim.
Here are my results from the 2008 President Selector at SelectSmart. My top two candidate picks rose to the top – Obama and Kucinich. I’m disappointed Kucinich didn’t even win, place, or show in Iowa, and it looks like he won’t be impacting New Hampshire as well. Interestingly, Clinton, Gore, and Edwards fared much lower on my radar – I thought they would have been right up there and especially I thought that Edwards would have been closer to my top rankings:
1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100 %)
2. Barack Obama (79 %)
3. Dennis Kucinich (78 %)
4. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (77 %)
5. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (71 %)
6. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (70 %)
7. Hillary Clinton (70 %)
8. Al Gore (not announced) (70 %)
9. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (70 %)
10. John Edwards (67 %)
11. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (59 %)
12. Mike Gravel (58 %)
13. Bill Richardson (57 %)
14. Ron Paul (45 %)
15. Elaine Brown (42 %)
16. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (41 %)
17. Rudolph Giuliani (31 %)
18. Mike Huckabee (25 %)
19. John McCain (24 %)
20. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (24 %)
21. Alan Keyes (22 %)
22. Mitt Romney (21 %)
23. Chuck Hagel (not running) (19 %)
24. Fred Thompson (14 %)
25. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (13 %)
26. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (12 %)
27. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (12 %)
28. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (11 %)
29. Duncan Hunter (10 %)
30. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (2 %)
Predictably, Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and the rest of the weenies were way down the list. And look they included Stephen Colbert! I would vote for Colbert in a heartbeat if he would just choose Papa Bear as his running mate!
I back this guy for prez:
Amazing speaker – I’m convinced this is the guy to lead the reconstruction of our country.
Where the word “sharp” means being a purely hypocritical tool:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued an unusually sharp rebuke to Taiwan, pointedly calling its planned referendum on United Nations membership “provocative.”
So a referendum on calling Taiwan what it is and requesting due recognition from the world community is provocative – hmmm… So then what do you call the hundreds of missiles in China pointed at Taiwan? Can we call that provocative too? How about threatening? Unnecessary? Intimidating?
During a State Department news conference, Ms. Rice said: “We think that Taiwan’s referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name ‘Taiwan’ is a provocative policy. It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage.”
Where being recognized diplomatically as a country is seen as a bad thing, rather than languishing in limbo due to the ludicrous machinations by the gigantic political entities that your island is subject to and having to deal with the difficulties resulting thereof, such as indirect travel issues, WHO membership, participating in the Olympics, oh and that ever-persistent threat of aggression from China. I’m sure some British monarchs were saying the same thing about us back in 1776: “They don’t need that silly democracy! Independence? That is for fools!” Is it not ironic that a nation so supposedly devoted to the ideals of freedom and democracy has completely lost all trace of its foundations when it comes to this issue?
I’m sorry- I’m re-reading that last quote and can’t help but laugh: “We think that Taiwan’s referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name ‘Taiwan’ is a provocative policy.” Does that not just bleed irony? Calling Taiwan “Taiwan” is now considered harmful. Rolling. On. The. Floor. Laughing.
I love reading Michael Turton’s blog, and I admire both the volume and the quality of his posts on Taiwan and the jostling of this wonderful little place between the political whims of two giants, China and the USA.
In response to the Kitty Hawk debacle, he posts something about a pattern emerging from China which I’d just like to quote here:
Anyone who has observed China’s relations with the outside world for any length of time has seen this pattern again and again. In the midst of negotiations with the Vatican, it consecrates two bishops for the state Church. In the midst of negotiations over the Torch coming to Taiwan, it denies a visa to the representative of the city of Kaohsiung to discuss games held there in 2009. Arriving in India for negotiations, its ambassador announces a whole Indian state is part of China. Some months back the Chinese government shut down an expat magazine in China that was widely considered the most sympathetic and supportive expat rag in the nation. China gets the Olympics, and crackdowns on the internet, and journalists intensify, while state security arrests double. Catch the pattern?
Is anyone in charge over there? Seriousy – why are we even bothering with these people anymore?
I just saw that Japan has now refused Chinese access to tour an an advanced combat ship.