Dodd & O'Lielly battle; Dodd gets the KO

This one got my blood boiling, but not in a bad way. Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democratic candidate for president (who'd not doing so hot in the polls), really takes it to O'Reilly about his laughably absurd jihad against the Website Daily Kos. Watch the hilarity ensue as BOR's crossed eyes nearly go straight as he foams at the mouth in the wake of Dodd's calm, steady barrage. BOR gets even angrier when his usual tactic of shouting someone down falls flat.

Quite frankly, Dodd hits the nail right on the head - it's not the few offensive comments on the site out of tens of thousands that BOR is mad about, it's the site's prevailing political point of view. (This is the same reason O'Lielly hates Media Matters, The Huffington Post, too; they expose him for the serial liar he is, period.)

I've written it before and it bears repeating - if Fox News is so Fair and Balanced, where was Billy's outrage when Rush Limbaugh accused the Clintons of murder on numerous occasions, when Ann Coulter accused 9-11 widows of enjoying their husbands' deaths, or when Dick Cheney and George Bush asserted on an almost daily basis leading up to the '04 election that "if the Democrats win, the terrorists win"? Of course O'Lielly was nowhere to be found, because calling out those agents of hate would have gone against his right-wing agenda. But, I won't let facts get in the way of a good Billy rant. It just occurred to me what BOR really is - the Jerry Springer of political talk shows. Both productions share similar traits: a few million watch, but each show enjoys about the same amount of nano-credibility; all but a few know the shows are staged bullshit to entertain; and even fewer say the words credible and either O'Reilly or Springer in the same sentence.

Hey Bill - aren't there some women you need to sexually harass? Better yet, go home and polish your Peabody Awards you didn't win (yet you publicly claimed you did).

Bill O'Lielly - giving hope to losers & liars everywhere.

Talking clock from Dem debate

Here's the talking clock from last night's Democratic debate from Chris Dodd's Website. I can't say that I have much issue with it - it's pretty evenly spread, and the two candidates lowest in the polls got the least amount of speaking time. Honestly, who among us wants to hear 10 minutes of Mike Gravel? I don't.

Wolf Blitzer has verbal diarrhea

As Crooks & Liars calls them, the Prez-Dispensers are back. Someone over at Chris Dodd's campaign HQ must be awfully angry at how the CNN debates were moderated. Taking this information at face value, Wolf Blitzer really earned his stripes as a Talking Head this week.

I have to say again though, that just like last Sunday's Democratic Candidate Debate, Blitzer gave the three leading candidates the most time, which, in my opinion, he should do. If he just closed his mouth and gave all of the candidates even more time, he would do an even better job.

Speaking of Blitzer - I bet if he hosts any more presidential debates, he won't be posing any more absurd hypothetical questions again. I'd like to think he's learned his lesson.

Dem debate talk clock

This chart was created by Chris Dodd's campaign - a chart on how much talking time each candidate received during Sunday night's Democratic Presidential Debate in New Hampshire.

Some people have complained about how much talk time Wolf Blitzer received. I watched the entire debate, and I have to confess, I didn't notice it during the flow of the debate, but if these numbers are accurate, he did receive entirely too much airtime.

Many more people are taking Wolf to task on how he moderated the debate. Frankly, I think he did a good job moderating, but his choice of questions, at times, was absurd, specifically his ridiculous hypothetical questions. I'm anxious to see how Blitzer frames tonight's debate between the GOP candidates. I'll have much more on the upcoming Republican debate later today.

Other than Blitzer's time, I think the balance of time among the other candidates is about right. Mike Gravel received the least amount of time, as he should have. Really, he should have been happy to even get an invite; Osama bin Laden has higher poll numbers than Gravel.

Also, notice that the top three candidates in the polls got the most air time.

Dodd won't support Iraqi War funding; will other Dems follow his lead?

Each and every Democrat running for president should listen to Sen. Chris Dodd and think about what his words mean - the majority opinion of the American people.

I'm sickened, disgusted and appalled that the Democratic Party is caving to President Bush on funding this mindless, ill-conceived and seemingly endless war (that's now lasted longer than World War II). Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves. As usual, the Republican Party has successfully undermined democracy by demonizing anyone who dares disagree with their strategy of perpetual war. Their Support the Troops campaign slogan has taken the word cliché to new lows. If you Google Support the Troops, I wouldn't be surprised if you find a synonym that reads, "Shut your mouth - Bush knows what he's doing. Only traitors criticize a policy while troops are in the field."

My optimism (but not hope) has all but evaporated following the Democrats' victory in November - my party is quickly reverting to the pathetic party it was in the 1980s - spineless wimps who won't stand up to a president who's leading us down the path of consolidation of wealth, belligerent nationalism, runaway military spending, a disastrous foreign policy, crushing debt and a middle class that's shrinking quicker than Dick Cheney's approval ratings.

Well said, Mr. Dodd. I hope all of the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates listen to your thoughts. But I'm not holding my breath.