The Daniel Kovach Scholarship Foundation is giving away $10,000 to a blogger this year. This 2nd Annual Blogging Scholarship offers a large prize of $10,000, which will be awarded at the Blog World and New Media Expo in Las Vegas,...

Didn't that guy in Pittsburgh go 15-1 his rookie year (waiting, alas, for the AFC Championship to begin playing like a rookie)?

Yep, although it was a run-oriented system that generally didn't call on him to win guys with his arm. Still, he did well, as did Dan Marino, who got his start about halfway through his rookie year. Both had the luxury of playing for very good teams with established coaching systems. Usually, the greats start off on awful teams.

The problem is the original contrast that was sighted. You can argue about Clark's leadership if you want, but comparing them so unfavorably to Thompson's seem a big stretch. Forgot the opinion of Democrats, Republicans like Rick Brookhiser and many others have serious questions of Thompson's depth and tenure in the Senate. Thompson didn't get a lot of bills in his name, and didn't cement a reputation for being much of a leader either, and being a lobbyist and an actor don't really demonstrate much in the way of leadership. To compare his resume to a former General who led a successful war in Bosnia seems like nothing more than a partisan conclusion.

the revolution of interactivity and user-generated content on the internet is leading to 'less culture, less reliable news and a chaos of useless information'...

The first I heard of this it was about the eerie similarity between OBL's rants and the Democrat or Liberal talking points, in this case as stated by Keith Olbermann.

Truly there are some similarities. See the clip below for more from the G...

I like your football analogy. The other stuff didn't really sink in until you used the QB. lol. Great job.

Ugh.

I read your linked opinion piece, and it's enormously to his credit that Gen. Clark can generate admiration and loyalty from staff and subordinates from his military days. No one can rise to the heights that he did within the Army without having something on the ball. Now, I have read opinions from others who have military career experience that I lack, and who also have personal experience with Gen. Clark, who nevertheless have less flattering views of him than you do; but let's put them aside for a moment and assume that he was a great, extraordinary general.

Nothing in your comment here, nor in the piece that you linked, shows that he's a "leader" other than in a military context. And even from a military context, he's no Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower.

There's a good reason so few of our presidents have been chosen based only on their attributes as military leaders. Clark had essentially no other credentials or experience. He was never a serious political candidate in the eyes of anyone who wasn't already besotted with him, and his lack of experience in the political arena is why his campaign exploded so dramatically, making him (sadly, I'd agree) a political punch-line now.

Only those who failed history and/or haven't studied since could assert that General Clark is not a proven leader. I offer the following:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12967

As to 'Publius' assertion, it appears that adopting the foolishness of others is acceptable; if you can't be original, get another job, please.

I have filled out a petition to put an end to the theives over at the ACLU. Are you aware that our very own government PAYS them to do to us what we would not allow the government do? Nice, eh? NO! It isn't. That is why we must put a stop to it r .......