Caroline Baum of Bloomberg News said teats (that’s the proper spelling of the word that’s properly pronounced “tits” – and Caroline pronounced it correctly) in relation to Sarah Palin’s breasts on Fox and Friends this morning.
Brian got embarrassed and walked off the set just prior to the end of the interview…
Brian: Seems like history but it is history whether they win or not.
Gretchen: She’s a governor that came from out of nowhere to help Republicans in November, but Democrats seem to be leveling their harshest attacks at Governor Sarah Palin rather than on McCain. Do they hate her? Or do they fear her? What is it Brian?
Brian: I’m going to ask Caroline Baum that if you don’t mind waiting here. She’s a columnist with Bloomberg News and has done an extensive study on this. What does your gut tell you Caroline? And where’s the hatred come from?
Caroline: The hatred comes from the fact that Sarah Palin for the first time has made the Democrats’ road to the White House less inevitable. You know, there was an entitlement, inevitable, this inevitability. “This is our moment. This is our time.” Obama has said. And all of a sudden, it went from the convention to the crowds at campaign rallies. And the Democrats are saying, “who is she to upset our apple cart?”
Gretchen: Because, by all accounts, the Democrats should win this election if you look at what’s been going on. You take the pulse of the American public if we’re talking about the war, now you’re talking about the economy. But the fact that that might not happen, what does that create for the future of the Democratic Party?
Caroline: It means they have to look into the mirror and perhaps accept that they are bankrupt in terms of appealing to the population in terms of ideas. I mean it has never been so good for a party out of power as you said. Unpopular president, an unpopular war, lousy economy, housing in the tank, stock market now falling off a cliff, and 80% of the public saying that the economy is on the wrong track. If they can’t win now, when can they win?
Brian: What I don’t understand is, if you’re a Democrat, are you a Democrat first or, for example, a woman first? That sees a breakthrough. I mean there’s no, there’s a huge breakthrough here that regardless of your party.
Caroline: If you’re asking me I think the idea that she would appeal to Hillary voters, you know, the pro-choice versus not seems to be a much bigger issue than, you know, she has teats, versus she, you know, she has another body part, that, you know, men have.
Gretchen: Did you just say that?
Caroline: Am I allowed to say that on air?
Gretchen: Brian has to leave on that comment. But I got the point Caroline. I definitely got the point. Alright. Well thank you so much. You are a columnist with Bloomberg News and it’s a fascinating article.
Hillary Clinton was set to headline at a rally opposite the UN by several Israeli groups to protest Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s annual visit to the UN.
When she found out that Sarah Palin was also scheduled to speak, she canceled.
Kate brings us the AP story “Clinton blindsided by scheduled event with Palin”:
“Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event,” said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. “Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending.”
How on earth can an event that features the top Democrat woman and the top Republican woman be remotely considered partisan?
Looking at the headline of the story and the first graf:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.
you can see what the real story is…
Hillary Clinton wasn’t consulted about inviting Sarah Palin to speak at the event. She’s miffed at that.
Update: See Fausta’s great little piece on Sarah Palin at LadyBlog.
Back when Fannie and Freddie were being taken over by the government, someone on the local CBS radio affiliate said something like:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exist so that investors’ risks are mitigated.
Fannie and Freddie are there as insurance for investors.
or maybe it was a little simpler:
Fannie and Freddie are there so investors won’t lose money if loans are defaulted on.
Investment carries risk. The person on the radio seemed to think that Fannie and Freddie were there to guarantee to investors that there would be no risk. Just reward.
In Chicago, an alderman wanted to outlaw walking and texting because people were walking into buildings or other people or out into the street.
That reminded me of the “Blackberry Helmet” videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdzUZDDi5aM
A little prescient don’t you think?
We all want to be safe. But do we really need to have the government mandate it?
Does that even work?
Look, you can tell someone that the stove is hot until you’re blue in the face, but they won’t hear you until after they’ve burned their hands.