Condi/Clarke poll needs some major DUing!!!

[wicket]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Promos/P80484.asp

Please help!

Edited to fix link

[bkcc]

1. there's no poll on that link.

...just an article about eyeball jewelry, the idea of which scares the bejeezus out of me.

[wicket]

2. fixed!

Sorry about that!

[bkcc]

3. Thanks!

There's actually another poll on the MSNBC site that lets you rate Rice's testimony.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4693043/

(Who the hell is voting "excellent"?!? The freepers must be out in force!)

[wicket]

4. ugh!

I just voted in that, 48% think she did a wonderful job?!

[wicket]

5. now at 58/42, c'mon everyone and vote!

:D

[cosmicdot]

6. Tabloid America - where it's a soap opera every day

Whose testimony is more convincing?

Condoleeza Rice
58%

Richard Clarke
42%

[BigThama]

7. Ugh...

While I was very impressed with Rice's testimony in many ways (especially her mention of that we shouldn't stop terrorists at the cost of undermining our free society) her testimony was nowhere near as credible, or interesting, as Clarke's. Clarke was a juggernaut of facts, information, and cooperation. Rice filibustered when she couldn't answer well, and was generally boring.