JUANITA BROADDRICK [HANNITY & COLMES, FOX] BEATS HILLARY CLINTON [LARRY KING LIVE, CNN] IN HEAD-TO-HEAD 9 PM ET MATCH-UP:
O'REILLY 2.1 [RATING] HANNITY/COLMES 2.0 LARRY KING 1.8 GRETA 1.7 SHEP 1.2 BRIT 1.1 AARON BROWN .8 CNN 8:00 .5 OLBERMANN .3 ABRAMS .3 CHRIS MATTHEWS .2
I don't have much to add here, other than saying this is music to my ears. Hannity gave her the softball, sympathetic interview that everyone else gives the Clintons. You can get off your knees now, Miss Walters. You too, Mr. King.
This kind of puts RAW's ratings into perspective, doesn't it?
Over 1350 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day!
In the issues of December 16th, 2000 to November 10th, 2001, we may have given the impression that George W. Bush had been legally and duly elected president of the United States. We now understand that this may have been incorrect, and that the election result is still too close to call. The Economist apologizes for any inconvenience. --- The Economist, 11/17/01
Actually, I would take this as a reason why every right wing talk show host and their cousin should stop using every opportunity to call Clinton the great evil and act like she's the entire Democratic party. I personally would never vote for Hillary or Bill.
Originally posted by redsoxnationLooking at the complete numbers, one thought comes to mind: Would MSNBC draw higher ratings just showing a test pattern during prime time?
Probably not...they'd be better off running Classic Concentration reruns than Olbermann's show though.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." - Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960
This is -1 for science. Just when intelligent design is gaining more acceptance, to go back to the close-mindedness of Gould and Dawkins by not allowing for any questioning of macroevolution is dogma, not science.