digg

Join DiggAbout

Dennis Kucinich makes Early Show host sound like an idiot watch!

youtube.com — As she continually attempts to turn the interview into Entertainment Tonight, Dennis stays focused and talks like someone who actually gives a damn.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lxjordanxl2007, on 11/23/2007, -6/+399Welcome to mainstream media
    • ToadLeg, on 11/23/2007, -0/+187Ok, she's been involved in international humanitarian efforts, but what I want to know is OMG CAN I SEE HER TONGUE STUD?

      How about asking her what shampoo she uses, or asking her to show her boobs?

      Could she care less about what's going on in the world?
      • demonsnake69, on 11/23/2007, -2/+20Maybe the Early Show host is a lesbo and this was her failed attempt at mackin' it to Elizabeth Kucinich.
      • ClaudiuUSA, on 11/23/2007, -3/+29I was expecting the host to say "***** OR GTFO".

        But I guess not.
    • Rice, on 11/23/2007, -3/+16http://democracynow.org
    • themastersb, on 11/23/2007, -8/+2How does he have a wife like that anyway?
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -1/+12She's smart - that's how.
      • RenZ87, on 11/25/2007, -0/+3fat *****...?
      • unitedstatians, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1If you need to ask this question, she's most likely out of your league.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 11/23/2007, -1/+10poor guy, the media asks him trick questions where there really is no right answer(he always manages to find one however), while they're busy asking Hillary planted questions such as "diamonds or pearls."
    • nytel, on 11/23/2007, -0/+8"Can we see your tongue ring?" What the *****?
  • DesignNerd, on 11/23/2007, -15/+721he doesn't make her sound like an idiot, she acts like one.
    • raydeen, on 11/23/2007, -2/+56Amen brother. Ya beat me too it. How do these airheads get jobs?! I wonder if she had a tongue stud when she applied to be a newswoman.
      • toonworld, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3She probably got the job by banging some married exec. She's probably keeping her job because she has a tape of the deed and she's using it as leverage.
    • charlietuna, on 11/23/2007, -3/+10ditto!
    • JPTheWanderer, on 11/23/2007, -1/+21"Acts" like one?
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3hence, early show
  • pintomp3, on 11/23/2007, -11/+547wtf is wrong with that host? she was so focused on the tongue stud. his answer was brilliant.
    • khail250, on 11/23/2007, -3/+9go to www.cbs.com and on the bottom there is a feedback link use the youtube link for a reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsY2pYFnB6o

      tell CBS you dont want them to turn into FOX news!!!
    • nihilite, on 11/23/2007, -2/+15what is wrong with the host? the problem with the host is she knows her audience. her audience is full of media-centric buffoons who are likely to know very little about world politics or even the functions of american politics. Her audience probably is more interested in the tongue ring and the short funny little man than the fact that Kucinich represents some strikingly excellent responses to the problems we are facing.

      When is the last time you watched The Early Show for real pertinent news? That show is a 100% fluff and entertainment.
    • dankenstein, on 11/23/2007, -1/+19don't you guys get it, the host couldn't stop thinking about having ms. kucinich munch her muff with said tongue stud.
    • fuzzynyanko, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3To me, that was like on of the worser anchors from Fox News. She was acting just like a Bushie.
    • TomTruelle, on 11/24/2007, -1/+1While i agree with your statement I believe that the answer he gave about his wife was over dramatized... for all we know she couldve been a world vision volunteer
  • mattewood, on 11/23/2007, -23/+401Hey he seems like a pretty cool guy.. and at least his wife is hot. It's been a long time since the first lady was "do-able."
    • k8tek, on 11/23/2007, -24/+4Hannah Storm may be an idiot, but I would still do her to!
    • ALXtreme, on 11/23/2007, -8/+76do-able first lady FTW!!!
    • brianbb98, on 11/23/2007, -12/+25dude, i'll take anything that moves.
    • 1town, on 11/23/2007, -27/+4I'd do Hillary in the 90's
      • childprey, on 11/23/2007, -5/+40Enjoy the frostbite
      • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 11/23/2007, -5/+13my god man... the thought of hitting that just made me gayer *barfs*

        /to be honest, gay as i am, i would absolutely WRECK jackie o. circa 1964
      • Efilnikufesin, on 11/23/2007, -2/+2her husband wouldn't
      • endora123, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Eeeeeew.
    • xTRUMANx, on 11/23/2007, -21/+4Elizabeth = FILF
    • Xyleene, on 11/23/2007, -2/+81. You seem to be the demographic she is appealing to.
      2. Wouldn't you be Canadian?
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 11/23/2007, -1/+28proper nomenclature: FLILF
    • Shivian, on 11/23/2007, -2/+9Comments like these are the reason Hannah Storm and major 'news' shows waste time on things like tongue piercings.
    • Efilnikufesin, on 11/23/2007, -1/+21at least we know Kucinich won't be involved in any kind of cheating scandal.
    • terracottapai, on 11/23/2007, -7/+3Please tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't find her attractive.
      • RuckusNutz, on 11/23/2007, -4/+7Is this you coming out? Bout damn time.
      • anjinash, on 11/24/2007, -4/+1I would, but then I'd be lying. Do you per chance still have a pulse?
      • terracottapai, on 11/24/2007, -3/+1Comon...
        She's really pale and kinda looks like a man.
      • mattewood, on 11/24/2007, -0/+5Hey I never said she was my dream woman.. I just said do-able. If you wouldn't hit that for your country, you better re-evaluate your priorities.

        "It's not who your country will do for you, it's who you will do for your country!"
        • terracottapai, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1How the hell would it be 'for my country'?
    • FireAtWill, on 11/23/2007, -2/+2Oh come on, Barbara Bush is a stone cold fox!
    • endora123, on 11/24/2007, -1/+4Yep. More than 40 years. Jackie-O was h-o-t.
  • georgemason01, on 11/23/2007, -88/+11So now his wife comes with him to every interview? I think he finally figured out that the penis does play a role in the voting booth (and the vagina, for the lesbians out there).
    • Shiftgood, on 11/23/2007, -4/+19The point you're trying to make about sex as a popularity tactic is pretty valid and could be an interesting discussion because of the fragile nature of politics vs. human desire.

      Too bad you sound like an idiot when you said it. Buuuuuried.
  • byaselli21, on 11/23/2007, -6/+333That is the perfect example of a host being giving stupid condescending questions by the network with a greater agenda.
    • isukeyo, on 11/23/2007, -1/+18As well as a spineless, morally bankrupt host who goes along with it!
  • friendlyman, on 11/23/2007, -35/+9I bet she gives great helmet!
  • Rowin, on 11/23/2007, -50/+39Thank goodness people are digging a candidate that isn't bat-***** insane. (Sorry Paulites)
    • terminal157, on 11/23/2007, -18/+7A Radiohead fan has no business being uninformed enough to call Ron Paul insane. Whether you agree with him or not. You're making us look stupid.
      • leftykiller, on 11/23/2007, -21/+1Oh please. They're both crackpots.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3And you love a drag wearing hypocrite scandal magnet, so your words are easily seen as those of a huge troll.
    • leftykiller, on 11/23/2007, -19/+6That's "Paulnuts".
    • Logicexe, on 11/23/2007, -16/+3To be fair, Kucinich is just as nutty as Ron Paul, just in the opposite direction.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+6cite some facts to support that comment please.
      • alllie, on 11/25/2007, -0/+2Kucinich is the best person in the race. Clearly the media is committed to making sure the American people don't know that.
      • Logicexe, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Just kidding around guys, I like Kucinich and Ron Paul, but you have to admit that compared to the typical religiously contaminated conservatives and pussy footed democrats these guys are nutty!
  • gfxluvr, on 11/23/2007, -9/+261What the hell.

    We have the war issues like the war in Iraq, the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud?

    Isn't our media great? /sarcasm
    • OhSn4p, on 11/23/2007, -10/+12I like the way you capitalized Tongue Stud... like it's a person, city, state or country. It is a BIG issue.
    • ufia, on 11/23/2007, -50/+3With the kind of unsubstantiated answers this tool gave back, the host had not much choice but to transition to tongue stud.

      Host: "Do you have plans to meet with anyone there?"
      UFO nutcase: "I'm telling you that I would meet with anyone..."
      Host: "Are you going to request a meeting?"
      Condescending douchebag: "Well, you know, I just gave you a blanket statement."

      You know at this point the host is thinking to herself, ok genius your case is hopeless, let's talk about tongue stud then.

      Is he going for the Bush approach? You know, loudly reading the teleprompters cues about what a president should theoretically tell the press, instead of elaborating on his actual plans in practical life.

      /Watch the Diggidiots bury me in 3, 2, 1...
      • MrSpontaneous, on 11/23/2007, -2/+14I think she was trying to ask him if he had plans to meet with anyone NOW, before the election. He was saying that's what would happen if he was elected president.

        Of course, one is never too sure. The idiot host didn't do a good job of elaborating.
        • pseudononymist, on 11/23/2007, -2/+11even if she was, it's a stupid question since he's not actually president yet.
      • pseudononymist, on 11/23/2007, -2/+13A President who claims to have seen a UFO is far less dangerous than one who claims to hear God.
        If Ms. Storm was thinking what you say she was, she is an idiot. Saying he would meet with anyone should be great fodder for her to challenge him on, for example: "So you would even meet with Osama Bin Laden, a recognized terrorist?" or how about, "And what would you say to Ahmadinejad, if you had a chance to meet with him?" Either question would be far more productive that focusing on a ***** tongue stud.
        • KennMac, on 11/23/2007, -1/+8You know, the 'lunatic" stigma of the 20th century attributed to those claiming to have seen UFOs has run its course. It's no longer your typical hill-billy or redneck coming out with these claims, but thousands of retired military officials and pilots who have documented proof of their incident. Since when was documented proof not good enough?
    • MASTERPL, on 11/23/2007, -1/+9It's a good thing some celebretard didn't flash her pussy the night before this aired. Dennis would have been bumped.
    • tillerman00, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3This host deserves a serious bitch-slap.
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1I agree, this isnt journalism, its slanderism.
  • ALXtreme, on 11/23/2007, -7/+120what is with that host, what a shmuck. I mean seriously tongue stud or not that chick could run circles around that idiot of a host. not quite my vote for office but a very intelligent and impressive couple those two...
    • cmorwhat, on 11/23/2007, -4/+30well its better than hillary, obama, edwards, guiliani, thompson, romney and richardson
      • DarkSamus, on 11/23/2007, -12/+6paul
        • HypocriteDigg, on 11/23/2007, -2/+9Paul is great for a true conservative, but he's a far cry from liberal. Kucinich '08!!!
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -5/+5Yes, you're right, Kucinich IS indeed a better than Paul, as well. Thanks for adding that.
  • IHaveIssues, on 11/23/2007, -57/+18Hello trophy wife.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/23/2007, -1/+44Except she's far from being a dumb bimbo.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V5Ur2Kgam0

      "Elizabeth originates from North Ockendon in London, United Kingdom. In 1996 she went to Agra, India to volunteer at one of Mother Teresa's homes for India's poorest children.[1] Upon earning her bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Kent, she spent 16 months in a rural Tanzanian village and worked as an advocate for regional development.[1]

      After leaving Tanzania, she volunteered with a British Red Cross refugee unit; earned a certificate in Peace Studies from Coventry University; and got a job as a fund-raiser for a seafarer's charity in London.[1] Her volunteer work often brought her to the House of Lords.[1] At that time she heard financial analyst Stephen Zarlenga speak about monetary reform. She was impressed and soon was hired to become Zarlenga's assistant at the Chicago-based American Monetary Institute.[1] That work took her and Zarlenga to Dennis Kucinich's office.[1]

      She married Dennis Kucinich, in 2005 in Congressman Kucinich's hometown of Cleveland, Ohio."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich
      • kreneskyp, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1doesn't make her anyless of a trophy. more imo.
      • anjinash, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Except I don't think that's Kucinich's intention with her. Watch them together, it's clear that they love each other. I'm sure he doesn't mind being seen with such a hot piece of ass all the time, or that he gets more publicity for his campaign because of it... but even if he was some poor blue collar factory worker I think he'd still be with her, and she with him. Good for them, I like seeing good people happy with one another.
    • bjornski, on 11/23/2007, -2/+20Wanna talk trophy wives? Look at Thompson.
      • pseudononymist, on 11/23/2007, -3/+1Might as well throw Salman Rushdie in there
        • pseudononymist, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Dugg down? Has no one seen Salman Rushdie's wife?
    • CannedMango, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1Do you know the definition of Trophy Wife? Elizabeth Kucinich is probably the smartest of all of the politicians spouses (with the possible exception of Hilary Clinton's).
    • deadmann, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Just think, when she's his age, he'll be dead.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Yeah
  • gfxluvr, on 11/23/2007, -13/+70What the hell. We have issues like the war in Iraq, and the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud? Welcome to the media of America.
    • supdigga, on 11/23/2007, -1/+13What the hell. We have issues like the war in Iraq, and the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud? Welcome to the media of America.
      • AustinMeoang, on 11/23/2007, -0/+8What the hell. We have issues like the war in Iraq, and the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud? Welcome to the media of America.
        • AeroZeppelin, on 11/23/2007, -1/+5What the hell. We have issues like the war in Iraq, and the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud? Welcome to the media of America.
        • PyroRaver, on 11/23/2007, -4/+3What the hell. We have issues like the war in Iraq, and the problems in Iran, and this idiot of a host wants to talk about a Tongue Stud? Welcome to the media of America.
        • Archeologist, on 11/24/2007, -0/+12CCCOMBO BREAKER
  • LargeTrout, on 11/23/2007, -7/+173This reminds of the agonizing interviews they give on Sky News (here in the UK) occasionally. The news tries desperately to cater for people with low IQ by getting their anchors to ask dumb non-informative questions repeatedly.

    On a side note, I'm starting to like this guy Kucinich. He's uncomplicated, which is rare in a politician. You ask him a question, you get an answer. I'd love to see a Kucinich/Paul based election in the States. It'd show Washington that the people are fed up of ***** politicians who's only real concern is keeping the corporations happy.
  • quick2k2ecotec, on 11/23/2007, -9/+131kucinich is the man!
    • GrizzlyWG, on 11/23/2007, -56/+5kucinich is the man!...the small man in the corner with the tin foil hat...talking to himself..drooling...looking incoherent
      • Efilnikufesin, on 11/23/2007, -1/+11And Bush is the monkey throwing poo at center stage.
      • Arcesius, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Well, there's a prime example of projection.
  • monkeyboyhero, on 11/23/2007, -29/+2In the hosts defence, it's likely that she had the producer in her ear telling her to pad out the last few seconds of the interview so they could prep the next item. So she just asked some inane questions about the tongue stud. True, it wasn't the most incisive interview to begin with - just playing devil's advocate is all!
    • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -3/+22I'm curious if the NAZI host had Laura Bush on, if the host would have repeatedly asked Laura about the boyfriend she killed. Or how about the fact that the "first lady" couldn't remember the name of the huge hurricane that wiped our most of New Orleans. Corrina? Katrina? Been away on holiday too long with Bush, Cheney, Rice shopping for shoes?!

      This corporate regurgitated ***** isnt about democracy, it about distractiing the peopls from what really matters.
    • Coven, on 11/23/2007, -1/+19Last few seconds? The tongue stud was one of the first things she mentioned!
  • LimeParrot, on 11/23/2007, -11/+89Wow. Kucinich is a champion... I live in Australia and hope Ron Paul will win the election, but if a Democrats gotta have it, hopefully it will be Kucinich...
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/23/2007, -4/+36OH man, wouldn't that be a dream? Ron Paul vs Kucinich, no matter which they choose, the rest of the world would also be happy.
      • spyd3rweb, on 11/23/2007, -1/+5That would be one election i wouldn't be pissed off if I lost.
    • Efilnikufesin, on 11/23/2007, -6/+1Since you're in Australia, it makes sense that you don't know that the current frontrunners are Hillary and Giulliani. Sadly, Digg is the only place where Kucinich isn't viewed as a UFO-conspiracy-theorizing-nutjob, and Ron Paul doesn't get enough mainstream press to be elected. Sadly, in America, it's not who's good, it's who can manipulate the media, and the good guys aren't dirty enough to break the law.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+4You assume s/he doesn't know.
        • Efilnikufesin, on 12/23/2007, -0/+0I wasn't trying to insult him/her, I was just pointing out that most people in America get their news from idiots.
      • deadmann, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1You know an Australian owns Fox News, which tells you that 9ui11iani and Hilary are the front runners. And now Huckabee for some bizarre reason. At least in Australia we have instant run-off voting.
  • wil2200, on 11/23/2007, -0/+58i saw this a while back and for a while i just stared at my screen, unable to grasp the absolute crap that came out of that woman's (host) mouth - I think if it was an in person interview, either K or his woman would have bitch slapped that idiot
  • emomakesmecry, on 11/23/2007, -2/+155That interviewer should be fired, seriously. She has no business interviewing people when she insults and doesn't listen to them. What an idiot.
    • markperia, on 11/23/2007, -0/+61Problem is, thats probably what the network wanted her to say.
  • exgop, on 11/23/2007, -10/+0Like they weren't already?
  • j1337, on 11/23/2007, -0/+53People who watch the Early Show for their news obviously aren't looking to hear about important issues. The interviewer was asking about the tongue ring because that's exactly the kind of dumbed-down BS that the show's viewers want to hear about.
    • hackiavelli, on 11/23/2007, -0/+12Morning shows are to news what microwave dinners are to fine dinning.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+3and what "L"s are to spe_ling

        (dugg you up though)
    • phoofy, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2Sad, but most probably true.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/23/2007, -0/+3Morning shows supposedly set the tune for the rest of the day.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+5sadly it's ADVERTISERS who set the tune for the rest of the day.
  • greaseddeafguy, on 11/23/2007, -2/+28too bad the Hillary/Obama media will not even give him speaking time during the debates.
  • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -29/+4Wow...what a complete fabrication of the title and description. Buried...
  • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -13/+50Typical dumbass corporate whore ***** show host asking unimportant and trivial questions about tongue rings and age difference. This is not "news", this is T.V. made for retards.

    Global peace and diplomacy was the topic and this stupid ***** whore distractive bitch host wants to focus on tongue rings. This is whats wrong with Amerika.

    These idiots never cease to amaze me!
    • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -16/+10Wow....I'd love to know how anyone thinks they can justify such misogynistic speech while at the same time claiming any moral authority to judge a nation.
      • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -6/+13Oh STFU, where did I degrade all women? Anyone who focuses on tongue rings instead of world peace IS a coporate whore. I mean, WTF do you know? Let me guess, EVERYTHING there is to know about;

        Lindsay Lohan's drug problems
        Cat survives 3 weeks crossing ocean
        Large men in spandex die due to steriod abuse
        Missing blond, blue-eyed British baby
        Guy sleeping at Obama speech
        Anna Nicole's corpse
        Alec Baldwin's phone messages
        Hillary's fake country accent
        Duke Lacrosse rape
        ACLU courting Pedophiles
        Redneck Skanks missing in Aruba
        White Suburban Runaway Brides
        Shark and Alligator attacks in Florida
        Chinese Pandas
        McDonald's courting designers for hipper uniforms

        • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -20/+5I think your distasteful speech about one woman shows your utter disregard for all women. She's doing her job. So you imply she's a prostitute and label her as nothing more than a vagina.

          What are you talking about? Are those subjects in which you have a knowledge of? So again, what are you talking about?

          Are you saying Kucinich should have expected an appearance on the CBS Early Show to focus on hard-hitting topics? Is he that stupid? No...he isn't. But he is all about shameless self-promotion and self-importance.

          Hate to break it to you...Kucinich isn't going to be president...he's not even going to be the nominee of his party. He knows that. But yet, he'll do appearances like this because he likes them.
          • Frequency, on 11/23/2007, -0/+5Your defense of this superficial media bimbo shows utter disregard for all intelligent persons everywhere
          • thespiff, on 11/23/2007, -0/+5You think he deals with idiots like this CBS host on a regular basis because he thinks it's fun to have people belittle his wife on national TV? This isn't about having fun and feeling special because he gets to show off his hot wife. He's trying to help our country. He believes he can, and I agree. That's why he does these appearances.
            The man is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. Self-promotion is his job right now! His message, and the message of every other candidate is "I'm the best, vote for me." That doesn't make him a bad person, because the question that voters are asking is "Who is the best?" This is how an election works.
            As for your claims of woman hating, dildoolielly used insults that are applicable to women because she is a woman. You can't really extend that to mean he hates all women. If I call a man I don't like a dick, is that a blanket insult to all men? I certainly don't think so.
          • Mindzai, on 11/23/2007, -2/+3"I think your distasteful speech about one woman shows your utter disregard for all women."

            I hate to judge but...I think you're not too bright for thinking that.
        • bjornski, on 11/23/2007, -3/+2I doubt badgat knows about most of these things, but I'd bet money that all Faux News watchers know them.
        • LeadOffMan, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2"Redneck Skanks missing in Aruba"
          That was uncalled for
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2Brilliant
    • schnikies79, on 11/23/2007, -14/+8Calling the woman, who you know nothing about, a "whore *****", "bitch", etc. is disrespectful. I don't give a damn who you are talking about, calling anyone that for any reason is wrong.

      Oh yea, I can't take anyone seriously that spells America as Amerika. People who throw childish name-calling rants and misspell words on purpose to try and prove a point that they can't prove otherwise is whats wrong with America. Name calling is childish and will always be childish, no matter why.
      • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -6/+7""Calling the woman, who you know nothing about, a "whore *****", "bitch", etc. is disrespectful.""

        Do you get paid to post this *****? Keep ignoring the slaughter and displacement of literally hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis out of respect to the distractive corporate whores in the Amerikan media.

        Keep telling yourself your own version of history, Corky. Because why would you want the truth? You can't handle the truth. Obviously.

        3500 dead soldiers, 25k of our own maimed, over 150k innocent Iraqi citizens murdered all to establish a fundamentalist government with ties to Iran. Despicable.
        • schnikies79, on 11/23/2007, -4/+1And guess what, this is a daytime morning interview that has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on world events. You act like this a meeting of world leaders when it is nothing more than a simple interview. To add to that, I'm against Bush and the war, so put that in your pipe.

          Get over yourself and grow up. Was this interview worthless? Yes. Would it have been equally worthless no matter what the topics were? Yes.

          Nothing you said change the fact you're a childish immature internet psudeo-12 year old that can't make a rational argument without resorting to name calling. You are the problem.
        • Mindzai, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2@schnikies

          I see his argument loud and clear.

          "3500 dead soldiers, 25k of our own maimed, over 150k innocent Iraqi citizens murdered all to establish a fundamentalist government with ties to Iran. Despicable."

          Yet the media carries on as if this isn't happening. Its bigger than one corporate whore asking the questions she's told to. This is one example of a widely controlled media.

          Name calling? Touche my friend.
    • hiddenmidget, on 11/26/2007, -0/+1You spelled America wrong.
  • More4, on 11/23/2007, -5/+32another reason to watch BBC World News
    • DarkSamus, on 11/23/2007, -5/+3bbc is trash too, except top gear
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -3/+1Meh... BBC ain't what is used'ta be. The Beebe used to be a standard for news reporting, but now it's nearly everybit as crap as American TV. Let me say, that I only have BBC America to judge by, but from relatives who've visited recently, all of BBC programming is crap and the news is somewhat sensationalist... not to the degree of American "news" but sensationalist nonetheless.
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1The BBC also "reported" and SHOWED WTC7 falling 20 minutes before it actually did. Either theyve invented time travel, or theyre part of the problem.
  • radink360, on 11/23/2007, -4/+26Host is a total asshat. Typical stupid media person focusing on the unimportant. DOUCHE BAG!
    • GhostyBoy, on 11/23/2007, -2/+2Dugg for accuracy and use of "ass-hat."
  • schnikies79, on 11/23/2007, -21/+5I would like this guy if it wasn't for his stance on the 2nd amendment. Guns should be available for personal protection as well as hunting.

    Wish I could support him.
    • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -8/+5While Kucinich claims that he's out to "protect individual liberty and privacy" that stance doesn't apply to the second amendment.
    • zeromous, on 11/23/2007, -5/+16So what you're saying is you are voting for gun rights, not the health of your nation.

      Just so you know, politics is more about compromise than it is about you getting exactly what you want. Not to mention if you have a gun for hunting, sounds to me like you could have it for personal protection, but I suppose you are a nut that wants to carry around his gun walking down a city street. This ain't the wild west, son.
      • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -7/+3There is a candidate who is against the war in Iraq and won't attempt to infringe on our rights to bear arms. Ron Paul, anyone?

        Hate to break it to you, but in the state I live in, it's perfectly legal to strap on a holster and carry a gun while walking down a city street. Not many folks do it, but some do.

        Myself...I've got a CCDW. So not only am I carrying my gun while walking down the street...it can't be seen.

        I fail to see how that makes anyone a nut.
        • DD00, on 11/23/2007, -2/+11And Ron Paul would take away more than a few things a lot of people support. Like the above poster said, compromise. You aren't going to find anyone who's getting everything they want.
        • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -5/+3Agreed...which is why I'm supporting Ron Paul. The things I disagree with him on are much less than anyone else in the race. Thus, he's my compromise candidate.
          • zeromous, on 11/23/2007, -4/+3OK that's settled, you're not a nut, you just need your gun for some reason :D
        • zeromous, on 11/23/2007, -3/+3Good for you, but you fail the reading olympics. I called schnikies a nut, not just anyone who wants to carry a gun. He is a nut, because he won't vote for someone strictly because of how they interpret the 2nd amendment. What he is saying is "I don't care what happens to me and this country, as long as you don't touch my guns!". That is downright nutty!

          Furthermore I have no problem with legally owned guns but I see no reason for concealment in most cases. If you are a proud American exercising your 2nd amendment rights, why do you conceal that to others? I thought this freedom makes you proud? Are you ashamed of your gun carry? Wouldn't you want everyone to see your desert eagle or your USP semi-automatic silenced w/ scope? Or perhaps you just don't want anyone to see your pathetic 9mm.

          Simple fact of the matter is, there is no reason for you to carry a gun other than: 1) it makes you feel like a big man 2) you are scared someone else with a gun might use theirs on you. 3) you want to bully others 4) you are about to commit a crime.

          So really I'd say you're not a nut, just having adequacy issues. Its hard to tell through the internet though, could be both. :D

          Anyway, I love and respect guns, I love to hunt (although don't get out much), but even in the worst neighborhoods but really, what do you need to carry a gun around all the time for?
          • zeromous, on 11/23/2007, -2/+1I noticed by your icon you are likely female, but I also believe female or not that is not a reason to carry a concealed weapon. Fear + Guns = someones gonna get hurt, so you probably fall in to the #2 category.

            I think you will find self defence does a lot more for physical confidence than a piece. But that's just my opinion.

        • schnikies79, on 11/23/2007, -2/+2You have no idea what my beliefs are, so don't even pretend you have the ability to interpret them. I don't have a permit to carry a gun because where I live, there is virtually no crime. Hi stance on the 2nd amendment shows me exactly what he thinks about the constitution and he is no better than Bush with his "it's a goddamn piece of paper quote."

          I'm against ANYONE that doesn't support the constitution 100%. Everything else comes second.

          Yes it comes before health care because I believe the government has no business dealing with health care. The government has a terrible track record with everything they run, health care run by D.C. would be a giant flop as well.
          • demonsnake69, on 11/23/2007, -2/+1I kind of agree with you on the healthcare thingy, but do you really trust sleazy insurance companies more than a sleazy government?
          • zeromous, on 11/23/2007, -2/+2OMG SCHNIKIES YOU REALLY ARE STUPID. I was seriously giving you the benefit of the doubt, but no one here mentioned healthcare.

            By health of the nation I meant ALL OTHER ISSUES other than gun control. But you're so stuck on gun control you actually risk the DEMOCRATIC HEALTH of the nation when you vote based on a single issue. It would be the same if it were casting votes on Abortion, or whether to go to war.

            If you discount a politician based on one issue (gun control or anything you deem important in the constitution), you are hurting the democratic process. Fortunately for you, it's your prerogative to be that initiated. I'm very glad that you don't carry a gun.

            Do you even realize what it takes to change the constitution? Just because a politician has a position on something doesn't mean he has any political capital on that issue whatsoever. You are voting blindly.
      • Treoinmypocket, on 11/23/2007, -6/+4You don't vote for candidates who you know are actively looking to take away are freedoms by changing the constitution.

        How is taking away the right to bear arms (the ability of the people to protect themselves from the oppression of government) voting FOR the health of the nation?

        You clearly don't understand what the 2nd Amendment stands for.
        • bigfatphony, on 11/23/2007, -6/+3Hahaha! Oh really? Enlighten us. What does it stand for?
          • b1gm1ke, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2Ok, since you asked. I just watched the Naomi Wolf talk "The End of America". According to her reading (and many others) the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens can protect themselves against government tyranny. It's also interesting that Blackwater just signed a billion $ deal to operate IN THE US (like they did during Katrina). They will be deployed at the President's say-so in the event of a "national emergency" which he can unilaterally declare.
          • Treoinmypocket, on 11/23/2007, -2/+1You commented on what I wrote so I can't quite figure out why your asking - I stated the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

            I suggest you read my comment again.
    • JetWolf, on 11/23/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately, if you're waiting for that one candidate who you can agree with and support in all things, then I fear you'll have to settle in for the long haul. Now obviously for you the second amendment may be important enough to be a deal breaker, and that's of course every bit your right. But I personally feel that -- particularly at this point in history -- there's a lot more at stake. It would certainly be refreshing to worry about losing only ONE right for a change.
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Yes, and weve found one, Ron Paul. I like Kucinich very much and respect his statesmanship, but Im not giving up my guns. Perod. Ever.
    • MrSpontaneous, on 11/23/2007, -1/+6While he is against the sale of semiautomatics for personal use, he hasn't spoken out against shotguns, which is the best gun, imho, to protect one's home with.
  • PeppermintPig, on 11/23/2007, -0/+42Hard hitting journalism! Not. There are ways to give a fun interview WITHOUT being condescending. This is not one of those interviews.

    "Hello little girl, what do you plan to do if you make it into the White House?" Age stereotypes, yay!


  • MunkeeBoy, on 11/23/2007, -1/+23That has top be the most juvenile performance I have seen from a 'news' presenter ever...
  • coffeebot, on 11/23/2007, -4/+64The same morons who critique Kucinich politically are the ones who benefit from his personal fights against big business taking everything over. When he was mayor of Cleveland, he successfully fought to keep the electric company from passing into private hands and the city has suffered from massive corruption since he left. You'll never see a Bush or Bush-lackey receiving a Gandhi Peace Award.

    The Kucinichs are two of the most intelligent people in this election. I just lost 2 points off my IQ watching CBS.
  • pleiadianagenda, on 11/23/2007, -2/+24Mainstream media is paid by our idiot elite to marginalize the underdogs in our society, whether it be Kucinich or Ron Paul or anyone with an actual opinion or quest for integrity and truth. That's why the Hannity's and O'Reilly's and other left wing/right wing gatekeepers always jab and TRY to tear them apart.

    The good news is is most people don't fall for it anymore, and realize what jackasses these media figureheads are. Their tricks are old, and they KNOW their days are numbered. Thank god for that, since mainstream media is one of the saddest, sickest jokes of our time.
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 11/23/2007, -3/+85She has a British accent?! Oh my god, that seals the deal.
    • pathy, on 11/23/2007, -1/+87That's a common side effect of being British.
      • Matt2k, on 11/23/2007, -1/+17Ah *****, I can't believe you've done this.
      • Arcesius, on 11/24/2007, -1/+3Same goes for the dry humor, huh? =P
    • Goobernutz, on 11/23/2007, -2/+3It sounds more like an aussie or kiwi accent to me. Especially the way she says "global" and "politics". Any aussies in the room to back me up on this? Or am I hearing things?
      • tk0680, on 11/23/2007, -2/+5A Brit who lives in the US long enough to pick up some of the accent often comes off sounding something close to Australian.
        • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2meh, maybe one who's lived in Oklahoma.
  • judgesuds, on 11/23/2007, -4/+37Hmm Kucinich is pretty cool, I'm impressed
  • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -15/+4Is this interivew making America any SAFER, FORGET IT. Saddam was NOT a threat to America. Saddam had NO CONNECTION to Osama or al Qaeda. Saddam had NO WMDs. The CLINTON bombing had already destroyed whatever he MAY have had left from what RUMMY and REAGAN gave him. AND the Iraqi oil will NOT likely ever make it to America. Traditionally MOST of the Iraq oil goes to...ASIA. It is THEIR economies that are on fire, NOT our which is CONTRARY to the Bush tax giveaway.

    Do the Iraqi people profit??? NO! Certainly NOT the tens of thousands who have died or the hundreds of thousands who have suffered greatly. And even WORSE, the future of Iraq seems to be head for continual war and destruction.

    SO, WHO actually benefits from this war? Oh yeah, tongue stud manufacturers
    • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2What you say is true, but dude, you're WAY off topic here.
  • HappyScrappy, on 11/23/2007, -10/+3No need to be too proud of himself. Making morning show hosts look bad isn't difficult.
  • swoopdog, on 11/23/2007, -9/+34Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul in 08!
    • DemonWasp, on 11/23/2007, -5/+9Both? Pleeeeeeaaaase?
      Whichever one wins...maybe have the other as their VP?
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Dennis as Rons Veep would be awesome.
    • da_bradler, on 11/23/2007, -2/+4all the people saying they would like either really proves that people don't care about policy they just want someone who isn't a douche bag
    • LeadOffMan, on 11/23/2007, -4/+3they are total opposites, Ron Paul in ' 08!!!!
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Theyre more similar than they are different, they only really differ on some small issues, and Ron has a more thoroughly thought out plan.
    • yahoofrom, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1I want the hobbit and Magneto in White House while Hillary and Obama French kissing each other and Guliani dialing nine one one
  • thomasprebble, on 11/23/2007, -2/+28What a ***** bitch that reporter is. She was told once the tongue ring didn't matter but she had to push it. We're talking world peace here and all she cares about is a stupid inconsequential piercing?
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2I think it would be great to have someone who isn't a stuck up ***** to tight to have something like a piercing or a tatoo.
  • TwwIX, on 11/23/2007, -18/+8Go Dennis!
    He's getting some pussy tonight alright.
  • smthop3, on 11/23/2007, -16/+6Haha, the anchor sort of burned him at the end
    "Well...when you poll in third or meet with Ahmadinejad, we'll have you back."
    • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -9/+4It's the truth...why should they have him back?
      • pseudononymist, on 11/23/2007, -1/+8Why would he want to go back?
  • jdmcadam, on 11/23/2007, -2/+24Anyone else get the feeling like the network slipped her a memo 5 minutes before air time saying "Let's focus on random ***** that makes Dennis Kucinich look like creepy old guy, and try to stay away from any talk that puts him in a positive light."
    • badqat, on 11/23/2007, -2/+3Nope. By the way, is CBS on the Hillary bandwagon like most everyone else?
  • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -2/+11Figured out who the "Terrists" are yet?
  • macaddictr, on 11/23/2007, -1/+27What a pleasure to see a candidate who is willing to tell a reporter that their questions are stupid and insignificant. I couldn't care less if his wife has a tongue ring and I don't care whether Hillary Clinton prefers diamonds or pearls. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/ ...
  • dildoolielly, on 11/23/2007, -15/+10Meanwhile the host has 2 clitoris rings dangling. Lets talk about those, whore!~
    • paulisnotdead, on 11/23/2007, -2/+7I buried you for putting nasty images in my head.
    • Funpolice2050, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2I dugg you for revealing the truth.
    • LanEvo, on 11/24/2007, -1/+1pics or didn't happen
  • bratterscain, on 11/23/2007, -16/+4If you're a candidate for office, you leave yourself open to beings asked stupid questions. Especially when you have a tongue ring and you're an old man with a lady 3 times younger. Quit yer bitching, people.
    • dext3r, on 11/23/2007, -0/+6no. it was a dumb question that was asked like 5 times.
  • halfemptyfilms, on 11/23/2007, -2/+6Any one else realize that the Interviewer was Hannah Storm? She is the one who spent the first 10 years or so of her career co-hosting that awful saturday morning basketball show with, was it, Ahmad Rashad? It was on NBC...

    doesn't seem like the best prelude to discussing international diplomacy, but maybe Christian Laetner was smarter than I remember...
  • Demitaka, on 11/23/2007, -4/+31Wow Kucinich just completely owned her. I have a new perspective on Kucinich.
    • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Kucinich is an extremely intelligent statesman.
  • mrzack, on 11/23/2007, -22/+09/11 = INSIDE JOB
    Kuc knows. so does his english bride. probably new world order puppet she is.
  • Dukaso, on 11/23/2007, -6/+20I love Kucinich.
    • deadmann, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2Me too. Wait, which one are we talking about?
  • kickarse, on 11/23/2007, -17/+2Man how old is his wife! She's like 20 and he's 60! lol...
  • sugarhigh4242, on 11/23/2007, -21/+57I wish the internet/digg/geek community hadn't spent so effort propping up Ron Paul when the real serious candidate has been right here the whole time. And unlike Paul, his attractive message isn't a cover for a disasterous radical libertarian agenda that would roll back every progressive advancement of the last 75 years.

    Kucinich '08.
    • matador3, on 11/23/2007, -6/+37Or maybe we just happen to agree with Paul's radical libertarian agenda. However, I can appreciate Kucinich without being an *****.
    • brianary, on 11/23/2007, -4/+5I like both. I'm leaning toward Paul since, as Ralph Nader put it at http://www.newsgroper.com/ralph-nader/2007/11/13/r ... , America needs the enema.
      I'd have a hard time deciding between Kucinich and Paul, though one or both parties will probably just put a potato on the ticket.
    • superyounan1, on 11/23/2007, -2/+14what people like about both Kucinich and Ron Paul is that they're very principled and idealistic, and they don't care so much how what they have to say "sounds". They're secure in what they believe because their arguments and positions depend less on interest group pandering and corporate sell out and so they don't have to speak in riddles, evade, and beat around the bush. These traits they both have in common, and nothing would make me happier than a Ron Paul Vs. Kucinich vote, because even though they're COMPLETE political polar opposites, they would be the first to point out to you that they have more similarities than differences, and both of them would put the interest of the nation above even (gasp) personal agendas personal gain
      • TheLoneHoot, on 11/23/2007, -0/+3But Kucinich doesn't mask his agenda the way Paul does - Paul likes to sound all warm and fuzzy but his social views are VERY conservative.
        • superyounan1, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1i never found him an ounce less than direct and in complete command of his opinions. He seems crystal clear to me, and its accentuated by how "radical", as many people say, he is about his policy toward privatizing everything and shrinking the government down to its bare essentials. Not so radical in a broad historical perspective, and is very much worth debate. It scares me a bit though, but if he has convincing rational arguments, I would be a fool not to listen. And he does
        • brad3378, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2I think we're getting side tracked - can we talk about the tongue stud again?
    • Siraf, on 11/23/2007, -1/+3Thank you
    • geoboy, on 11/24/2007, -1/+5Yes, liberty sure is radical and disastrous. Best we let the government control our lives.
    • brad3378, on 11/24/2007, -0/+3While I respect Kucinich intellectually and as an all around good person, my main problem is his support of Socialized Health Care system. Our national debt is currently $9.1 Trillion yet only 177 million people pay more than $0 in taxes. (Total US population is 303 Million) That's $51,000 per taxpayer - - and 80 million baby boomers will start retiring soon! Ask yourself - As a taxpayer, are you prepared to handle the burden of effectively paying for your own healthcare AND somebody elses via higher taxes? Haven't the baby boomers had a free ride on younger generations long enough?
      Don't get me wrong - I'd rather see Kucinich get the Democratic nomination than anybody else, but I'm saving my vote for somebody who promotes an even smaller government.
      • OneAndOnlySnob, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1I'm willing to bet Kucinich's presidency would be far more fiscally responsible than Bush's (not saying much, I know), even with single payer health care. I bet it would be far more affordable for our country and our citizens. Why? Because war is ***** expensive. Kucinich is big on peace. Also, single payer health care generally is much cheaper than private health insurance.

        On the other hand, I presume from your post that you are a Ron Paul supporter. You want a small government and all the other republicans are big brother big government Statist. Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS! What's fiscally responsible about that, given that we owe $9.1 trillion dollars!
        • brad3378, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1I'm on your side - Any presidency would be more fiscally responsible than Bush's, especially if that presidency is against the war. Generally speaking, I am in favor of smaller government, but maybe I could be convinced into supporting Socialized Health Care if I could be convinced that we would be taxed fairly. If only taxpayers (or others paying into the system) received the benefits, I might buy into it, but at that point, why get the government involved at all if I could just pay for my own insurance? Call me cheap or call me insensitive, I just don't like the idea of paying somebody else's way and giving them a free ride. I only want a system that is fair to those paying.
          • OneAndOnlySnob, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1If I understand Kucinich's plan, his system would remove the health insurance industry and replace it with a nonprofit entity that provides health insurance to everyone. Hospitals operate the same as always. Doctors would be mostly unaffected. If they are affected in any way, I would guess that it would simplify their lives, as insurance companies have incredibly complicated rules to make sure patients receive the cheapest possible treatment. Hopefully, single payer health insurance would mitigate that, but that has yet to be seen, and our health care must still make some sort of financial sense.

            "If only taxpayers (or others paying into the system) received the benefits, I might buy into it, but at that point, why get the government involved at all if I could just pay for my own insurance?"
            Because not all tax payers can currently afford health insurance or have jobs that provide it. Lots of people work honest jobs and don't have health insurance. I'm an educated guy and I've worked jobs that paid well but provided really poor insurance policies where the insurance company pays half your medical fees or something. Sure, that helps, but if I was ever seriously in need of insurance, I'd still be screwed.

            Also, single payer health care is cheaper overall in theory and this bears out in other countries that have implemented it.

            "Call me cheap or call me insensitive, I just don't like the idea of paying somebody else's way and giving them a free ride."
            Unless you're in the richest 5% or what ever, you don't have much to lose here. What's more accurate to say is "I just don't like the idea of getting a free ride from some rich dude." Whether or not you think that's fair is a trickier debate, but I personally don't have a problem with it. I'll be paying in, and I like the idea that everyone would have access to medical treatment that they need.

            "I only want a system that is fair to those paying."
            Like it or not, progressive tax money spent on good social programs like this benefit the most people. That's just a mathematical fact of a situation where the richest 1% own 40% of the wealth and the richest 10% own 80%. By my logic, anyone below the 50% mark would receive more than they pay in even with a flat tax, which means that 95% of the population would benefit. Progressive taxes skew things even more towards the top 1% paying for things. I'm not in favor of crazy income redistribution schemes, but this makes good sense to me.

            Please don't give me any crap about punishing people for being rich. It's not like the top 1% (who control 40% of all wealth) can't make do with just half their income. You probably don't realize how exorbitantly rich these people are. Imagine you work at a company with 99 other people. All those 99 people make roughly whatever you make now. Now imagine that you make almost as much as all those 99 people put together. Are you going to be hurting if you spent even 75% of your salary on health insurance for the people you work with? No. You'd still be making about 25 times as much as everyone else. I'd like to think I wouldn't be such a greedy prick if I was in that situation.

            Wow, that got long. Sorry!
        • brad3378, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1Good arguments above! Thanks for your reply!
    • Wronghead, on 11/24/2007, -0/+2They are opposites. And most of us who oppose Ron Paul are fine with personal liberties, it is the deregulation of companies that already have a strangle hold on this country that I completely disagree with. And on the subject of health care: please do not invoke the national debt that your party racked up feeding companies while supporting a bogus war. We have plenty of money for health care. Plenty. We are just spending it on other things. And I would MUCH rather spend that money saving the lives of children than ending the lives of children.

      Someone is going to have to explain this whole no-you-can't-get-an-abortion-but-*****-YOU-AND-YOUR-CHILD-AS-SOON-AS-IT'S-BORN mentality to me, because it seems... I don't know... stupid?
  • teh_techie, on 11/23/2007, -3/+29WHO GIVES A ***** about the fact that she wears a tongue stud!
    • demonsnake69, on 11/23/2007, -1/+23Dennis probably does!
    • DestroyFascism, on 11/24/2007, -1/+2Love Americans....
      Your president has killed millions in an illegal war....Americans respond...meh!
      Your future presidents wife has a toung stud...Americans respond....OMG! OMG! A Toung Stud! OMG!.....
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.