From the FEMA website, under Media Info:

"For the Record--A section that provides FEMA the opportunity to respond to recent inaccuracies and/or misconceptions in the media."

Uh, what?! They have a whole section dedicated to this? At the top of their media info page?

I guess FEMA got tired of "correcting" the media so they just decided to become the media.

http://www.fema.gov/media/index.shtm

Actually, I hear Fox News' "1/2 Hour News Hour" folks are in need of work.

I'm not sure that she's dumb.

She's just... uninformed.

The White House Press Secretary is supposed to be a presidential mouthpiece to communicate the president's views to the public. The president just doesn't give a f--k anymore, so he doesn't bother to inform Perino.

Perino: like a lamb headed for slaughter. Perino wool, if you will.

Statements like this (Murray's headline) just suck. Yet reporters use them all the time.

Who sees Webb as a potential 2008 running mate? Apparently, not Webb himself, who says "I'm not in any way actively interested in doing that. Nobody is asking me about it, either."

Isn't it fun to start rumors attributed to no one and then talk them up into a story? It's like when reporters ask things like, "Senator, some people say you eat babies. What do you say in response to this?"

Argh! Cite someone!

Moist is also one of those words that sounds like what it is. Moist--pay attention to the movement of your mouth when you say it. It's kinda drawn-out and gooey. "Wet" and "damp" don't have that same kind of movement.

And just because things give us the willies doesn't mean they're offensive. A lot of people are weirded out by clowns but wouldn't say they're offensive.

Aside: anyone see that episode of CBS's How I Met Your Mother where Lily is weirded out by the word "moist," so Barney invites the gang to his one-man show where he just repeats the word "moist" for an hour?

I'm just amazed that the Washington pundits are so clueless about such ordinary nuances of human interaction.

Really? You are?

-

At best, Bush's "How's your boy?" comment had a familiar-buddy tone to it. It's how Bush tends to talk to people, making him a "barbecue favorite."

But that tone is offensive and condescending when you're not actually familiar with the person. It's like using the wrong form of "you" in French or Spanish. An appropriate way to ask that question would've been, at least, "How's your son doing?"

Sounds like somebody is waiting for the 'scandal' to die down.

You beat me to it. Right now, Philbin is too hot (no pun intended).

Or DNI decided to reconsider the offer when they realized the Philbin they offered the position to wasn't Regis.

Nothing interferes with current U.S. foreign policy quite like the suggestion of diplomacy.

Whereas Giuliani's (and Clinton's, to a lesser degree) saber-rattling over Iran is completely in keeping with U.S. foreign policy.

I almost feel sorry for Philbin. There's plenty of stink to go around on this one: the phony reporters and the one asking the questions are just a start. I'm curious to see where Philbin winds up next.

Meanwhile, from an Oct. 24 Washington Post webchat with Philbin: "Personal preparedness (and responsibility) is key and something that we at FEMA are focusing on."

Personal preparedness and responsibility. Tee hee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/24/DI2007102400890.html

First Rule of presidential campaigning: Candidates NEVER admit they would accept the VP nod while they are still running for President.

Exactly. Why say to primary voters, "it's okay if you don't vote for me now because you still have a chance to keep me later?" It sounds weak and pathetic.

And you run to WIN. I'd be like going to the Olympics and saying "I'm going for the silver" instead of "I'm going for the gold."

I still think there's a chance of a Clinton-Obama ticket. It could strengthen Clinton as a hopeful change agent (instead of just a shrewd calculator) and neutralize some of the irrational right-wing hatred of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

For Obama, it could give him the experience and leadership he needs to win the presidency in 2016. The vice-presidency is a much better path to the White House. You're fighting an uphill battle running from the Senate.

Probably, but the way I see it is this: There's a certain sector that would never vote for Obama under any circumstances. These are the same people who would never vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

However, not all Hillary-haters are Obama-haters. (All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.)

It's Hillary Clinton's name on the ticket that will turn out the "votes against," not Obama's. The sector who wouldn't vote for a "Woman-Black Man" ticket wouldn't vote for a Clinton-Jesus ticket either. It's all about Hillary Clinton.

Obama could help Clinton pick up some votes among those who find Clinton too calculating (and might sit out the election because of it) and potentially calm some of the Hillary-haters down enough that they just stay home.