0
   

Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

 
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 06:02 pm
Oops, She Did It Again
Posted 5/28/2008 5:35 PM CDT
Mrs. Clinton just can't help herself. On a day when the media focus is on Scott McClellan's book and Barack Obama's uncle, she had to get the spotlight back on her failing campaign for the nomination. But how best to do that? I've got it, say something so completely ridiculous and easily disproved that the media will shake their heads and say," Oh no she didn't."

Well, yes she did. In a speech Tuesday night in Billings, Montana, while making the case that she is the stronger candidate against John McCain in November, she said this (from CBS News):

"You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,"

One minor problem, it's a lie. Not a misspeak, not taken out of context, not a vague historical reference, a lie. And what's worse, she knows it, or at least I hope her self-delusion hasn't reached that point yet.

Maybe I'm too harsh on the Senator. I have to follow Clinton logic here. If you only look at the polls where Hillary is ahead, then I guess you could come to the conclusion that she is ahead in every poll. Only the polls that show her in the lead are legitimate, the rest are part of the media conspiracy. Yeah, that's it.

I just have one minor question for Mrs. Clinton. If you are such a strong candidate in so many states, why are you losing to a 2nd year Senator from Illinois who was a virtual unknown when this campaign began? You say that you can handily beat the veteran politician McCain when a rookie is cleaning your clock.

Maybe I need a course in advanced Clintonian Logic to figure that one out.

Here's the video, fast forward to the 3:00 mark. The first part is just the usual drivel; ready, day one, experienced, yadda, yadda, yadda. Don't put yourself through it.
link
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 07:57 am
sozobe wrote:
Actual Hillary quote:

Quote:
Now, I know that Senator Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan, and that was his right. But his choice does not negate the votes of all those who turned out to cast their ballots, and we should not let our process rob them and all of you of your voices. To do so would undermine the very purpose of the nominating process. To ensure that as many Democrats as possible can cast their votes. To ensure that the party selects a nominee who truly represents the will of the voters and to ensure that the Democrats take back the White House to rebuild America.

Now, I've heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules.

I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country - that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted. I remember very well back in 2000, there were those who argued that people's votes should be discounted over technicalities. For the people of Florida who voted in this primary, the notion of discounting their votes sounds way too much of the same.


This isn't an Onion spoof or anything, I swear.


Good for Hillary. Michigan voters should not be disenfranchised.



sozobe wrote:
As Andrew Sullivan says:

Quote:
She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries.* Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/shameless-1.html

*I'd add, and she didn't have any objection until it became clear that she wasn't going to wrap up the nomination as easily as expected.


There were no rules that required Obama to take his name off the ballot, and Hillary did not skirt any rules by leaving her name on the ballot.

If Obama didn't want to get zero votes, he shouldn't have taken his name off the ballot.

Obama had a second chance, too. There was an opportunity to have a revote in Michigan. Obama's reaction to this opportunity to campaign in Michigan was to block the revote from happening.

Don't know what Obama's beef with Michigan is, but if he refuses to run in our primary, that is no reason not to count the delegates that the voters awarded to Hillary.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 09:31 am
nimh wrote:
Hillary is going after Obama, profiling herself as the gun rights candidate - leading to a fair bit of incredulity...

Wasnt it her husband who was branded a "pander bear" back in '92? Seems like she's cut from the same cloth. Then again, he did win the elections...

Quote:
Pro-Gun Calls For Clinton In Indiana

Marc Ambinder, the Atlantic
02 May 2008

Hillary Clinton or one of her allies is reaching out to gun owners in Indiana.

Two voters report receiving a telephone call from a woman, reading from a card, who said that if the voter valued his (and in one case her) guns, they ought not "trust Obama" and should vote for Hillary Clinton instead.

One caller reports interrupting the phone banker with a question about Clinton's "pretty terrible" record on guns, but the caller was undaunted and kept reading the script.

No immediate comment from the Clinton campaign.

Andrew Arulanandum, an NRA spokesman, said that Clinton's record and rhetoric on gun issues is "abysmal. The Clinton brand is synonymous with gun control," he said.


Both Hillary and Obama are pretty bad on guns. A case can be made that Obama is a bit worse, given his call for a federal statute outlawing state-issued carry permits, but Hillary is by no means a friend to gun owners.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 09:34 am
Maybe Obama's beef with Michigan is that us Michiganders, whether right or left, consider Illinois to be communist territory?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 09:37 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
I think that Obama assumed that Hillary would at least kinda-sorta follow the rules.


A safe assumption. The rules didn't require her to take her name off the ballot.



hawkeye10 wrote:
He was naive, he did not think that she would go so far as to claim the delegates of a ballot with out his name on it.


Naive indeed. His voluntarily taking his name off the ballot did not invalidate the results of the election.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 10:09 am
cjhsa wrote:
Maybe Obama's beef with Michigan is that us Michiganders, whether right or left, consider Illinois to be communist territory?


After the Supreme Court comes down with the Heller ruling, the next step is to sue Chicago, to try to secure Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 05:15 pm
http://action.credomobile.com/comics/052108_original_image.gif

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 03:28 pm
Dont know whether to shake my head in disbelief, or yell in exasperation, or just roll my eyes...

Quote:
Scenes From Today's RBC Hillary Protest

Howard Dean may hope that the "healing will begin today," but two blocks away from the northwest Washington Marriott where the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting right now to try to figure out Florida and Michigan, the Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally's speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of "promoting equality and fairness for all"; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.

"They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there," the blond Sinclair--who's looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket--says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of "Obama's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, "I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!"

He's not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. "You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair's credibility doesn't seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he's treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is "good in bed."

Earlier, he claims, he even got to take a picture with Charlie Rangel. "I love him!" Sinclair chirps, though, it must be said, not as much as he loves Lanny Davis.

Has it come to this? We tend to assume the Hillary camp's hot rhetoric--that Obama's less ready than McCain to be commander-in-chief, that the DNC in Florida is like Mugabe in Zimbabwe--is studied, purposeful, that they can't really believe it. That may be true at the Lanny Davis level, but by the time it trickles down to Hillary's most grassroots supporters, it becomes deadly serious.

Of the eight Hillary supporters I quiz at the protest (six of them women), only one says she'd even consider voting for Obama in the fall. "It's sad. I'm a lifelong Democrat and the party's been taken over by these Obama people who say they want 'change,'" gripes Linda of Horseheads, New York, outside the Marriott as a honking car decorated with a painting of Hillary, a glued-on bust of Cleopatra, and a tampon drives by. Linda, she says, has already gone to the state Board of Elections to learn how to write Hillary's name in in November. "So much has been stolen from her."

Justine, a self-described "diehard Democrat" from Greensboro, North Carolina, objects to the write-in idea. "It's gonna help Barack if you don't vote against him," she says. She and her friends got Sinclair to autograph their copies of the "Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" flier. One of those friends, Jeannie, is living proof that, at least for some people, the long primary has done its damage. "When [Obama] first came out, we just thought he was too young," she explains. "But now I don't think he's qualified at all."

It's easy to sink into despair here. Standing and watching all these Democrats chat up Sinclair--who's retained Montgomery Blair Sibley as his lawyer and says the Republican National Committee has also been in touch with him--makes me want to fall to my knees, rend my garments, and start insanely screaming, "Wake up! Wake up! You'll hate a President John McCain!" But the rhetoric from the top has imparted its poison below, and the bitterest criticisms of Obama gain traction as they circulate through the virulently-pro-Hillary echo chamber. "Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?" Jeannie, the Greensboro Democrat, asks a fellow in a floppy Tilley hat and Hillary buttons. "That's a good point," he replies.

Following instructions from Obama HQ, almost no Obama supporters have shown up to protest, amplifying the impression of the alternate Hillary universe. But around the edges, a few small signs of the other universe peek through, the one in which Barack Obama leads and most Democrats don't suspect him of multiple felonies. Inside the Marriott's gift shop, the sales clerk tells me that Democratic bumper stickers have been selling like crazy today. "Mostly Hillary?" I ask.

"Actually, mostly Obama," she giggles.

--Eve Fairbanks
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 06:10 pm
Don't Vote Chromosomes: The First Woman Must Be The Right Woman
by Peggy Drexler

I was talking to a friend about the tortured persistence of the Clinton campaign and she said: "She needs to stay in. This will be the last chance in my lifetime to vote for a woman for president."

There are a lot of women of a certain age saying the same thing. And I can only ask: what?

Could this really be the reason that Hillary polls best among older white women? Will we really vote for a woman simply based on the fact that she happens to be one?

Don't get me wrong. After a combined 16 years of intern abuse, lying to Congress, bullying, and macho posturing, I would love to see a woman's imprint on the Oval Office. But not to score one for our side. That makes as much sense as choosing Pepsi over Coke because Pepsi is run by a female.

Female management styles swing from the neighborly Meg Whitman of eBay to the head-butting Carly Fiorina, formerly of Hewlett Packard. But across the spectrum of types, women do bring a more collaborative style to leadership - a more even-handed willingness to form consensus and consider opinions counter to our own. Before she went before the cameras to scare us with tales of weapons of mass destruction, might a woman have listen more closely to evidence that didn't exist? I think so.

And I also like the idea of voting for a woman who truly cares about women's' issues. Without that, I'm not sure why women should get all that excited. In fact, a Yale study looked at voting records and found that legislators most likely to favor women's issues are men - with daughters.

Before we vote for someone simply because of chromosomes in common, it might be helpful to put the candidate to the test on both counts.

Leadership style? I see in Hillary the same calculating, "bring em on" swagger of the last eight years: Dick Cheney - only better accessorized.

With Hillary we're talking about a woman who added assassination to possibilities of the early summer political season; who threatened to "obliterate" Iran; who declared herself the candidate of "hard working Americans - white Americans."

As for her concern for women's issues, Hillary has made promises on choice, reproductive services, expanded women's health care and pay parity. Where in her Senate career do we see any serious tenure-defining effort to protect or achieve any of that?

In fact, Hillary is not nearly as progressive as some might hope. She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, she co-sponsored a flag burning amendment, she voted to send our sons and daughters into the meat grinder of an unnecessary war. And with close to 70 percent of women in most polls favoring stricter gun control laws, what are we to make of her snuggling up to the NRA with tales of her childhood shooting lessons?

You can argue that Hillary would roll back George Bush's assaults on humanity - like denying US aid to any organization that even talks about abortion as birth rates of the world's desperately poor explode. But I would answer: so would any other rational human being not in the talons of the lunatic right.

I would also kind of like to vote for a woman who earned it. It's true that a woman with Barack Obama's skimpy bona fides could never have launched a campaign. (I can't name another man who could have pulled it off either.) But you can just as easily argue that Hillary Clinton would not be where she is without a Senate seat gained largely on the fact that she was married to the former leader of the free world.

As Kate Zernike pointed out recently in the New York Times, there are more women in the pipeline than the last-chancers fear: in the Senate, in the House, in governors offices. Three years ago, who knew the name Obama? One of them might, in fact, find their way onto the ticket. I hope so.

I really do believe that America is ready - more than ready after eight years in hell - to elect a woman. But we can't simply pick the one who happens to be available, especially when she is so divisive and brings along a time bomb of a husband. Instead of moving us forward, it could set us back decades.

Our women president is out there. And I believe we'll find her sooner than we think.

Let's wait and get it right.
link
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 06:12 pm
Well, that was that. Clinton gets a net lead of 19 delegates from Florida, and one of 5 from Michigan.

Onward.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 May, 2008 06:45 pm
nimh wrote:
Well, that was that. Clinton gets a net lead of 19 delegates from Florida, and one of 5 from Michigan.

Onward.


Onward to the Credentials Committee in August.

Quote:
Clinton's chief delegate hunter Harold Ickes angrily informed the committee that Clinton had instructed him to reserve her right to appeal the matter to the Democrats' credentials committee, which could potentially drag the matter to the party's convention in August.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble_40&printer=1
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 05:00 am
We'll see. She has "reserved the right" to do so doesnt mean that she will.

Hillary's only interest in this was to extend her race. Once the last primaries are done next week and most of the remaining superdelegates take sides, Obama will have a Michigan-proof majority of delegates, that no Credential Committee decision can overturn. At that point Hillary has no political interest in pursuing this matter anymore.

Moreover, sometime between then and August, Obama will likely announce that the Michigan delegation will be seated with full voting rights after all, rather than with the half votes that have been decided on now. That will give Hillary 69 votes and him 59 votes, which is the very compromise idea that the Michigan Democratic Party has been proposing for something like a month now. So then you'll have the Michigan Democrats and Obama on the same side, and only Hillary still saying that Obama shouldnt even get those 59. Without even the Michigan Dems on her side, any appeal at the Credential Committee will be dead in the water.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 06:46 am
"On Saturday a video surfaced on YouTube containing an audio recording of Bill Clinton from a private fundraiser said to have been held on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 in North Carolina in which he discusses the Michigan and Florida delegate situation. After delivering an explanation of how the delegate deadlock came to be, Clinton concludes by saying, ""probably the only option is to seat them under our rules, as half delegates." This is significant in that the Clinton campaign has publicly insisted, right up until the DNC meeting today, that it wanted each delegate restored in full.

Listen to the recording." link
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 06:52 pm
nimh wrote:
We'll see. She has "reserved the right" to do so doesnt mean that she will.

Hillary's only interest in this was to extend her race. Once the last primaries are done next week and most of the remaining superdelegates take sides, Obama will have a Michigan-proof majority of delegates, that no Credential Committee decision can overturn. At that point Hillary has no political interest in pursuing this matter anymore.


Unless she wants to go on the record as making a stand for the voters counting.

But if she drops out, Michigan Democrats will still press for full voting rights at the credentials committee, although they won't press for basing the delegates on the choice of the voters.



nimh wrote:
Moreover, sometime between then and August, Obama will likely announce that the Michigan delegation will be seated with full voting rights after all, rather than with the half votes that have been decided on now.


I'll believe it when I see it.

If Obama really gets an insurmountable lead, there would be no downsides for him if he gave Michigan full voting rights based directly on the results of the Michigan primary.



nimh wrote:
That will give Hillary 69 votes and him 59 votes, which is the very compromise idea that the Michigan Democratic Party has been proposing for something like a month now. So then you'll have the Michigan Democrats and Obama on the same side, and only Hillary still saying that Obama shouldnt even get those 59. Without even the Michigan Dems on her side, any appeal at the Credential Committee will be dead in the water.


I am quite willing to vote a straight Republican ticket in general elections for the rest of my life if the Democrats disenfranchise me.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 07:56 pm
oralloy wrote:
If Obama really gets an insurmountable lead, there would be no downsides for him if he gave Michigan full voting rights based directly on the results of the Michigan primary.

'Xactly.

oralloy wrote:
I am quite willing to vote a straight Republican ticket in general elections for the rest of my life if the Democrats disenfranchise me.

I dont think there's all that much chance of you doing anything else for the foreseeable future either which way.

Meanwhile, here's PA Gov. Ed Rendell, who campaigned for Hillary so hard:

Quote:
Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Clinton, said on NBC's "Meet The Press" no decision had yet been made. "I have not had a chance to talk with Senator Clinton at any length about it, and obviously this will be a big decision. But her rights are reserved," he said.

But one of her strongest supporters, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, sounded uninterested in a further challenge.

"I don't think we're going to fight this at the convention, because even were we to win it, unless it's going to change enough delegates for Senator Clinton to win the nomination, then it would be a fight that would have no purpose," Rendell said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2008 11:55 pm
nimh wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I am quite willing to vote a straight Republican ticket in general elections for the rest of my life if the Democrats disenfranchise me.

I dont think there's all that much chance of you doing anything else for the foreseeable future either which way.


I've only voted a straight Republican ticket once in my life so far.

I usually vote for some Republicans each time, but not a straight ticket.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:31 am
Tom Vilsack is not just a stalwart Clinton supporter; he is actually a national co-chairman of Clinton's campaign. And he says it's time to go:


Quote:
"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee," said Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor and a national co-chairman of Clinton's campaign. "After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."


After all, even Clinton supporters at the party rules committee rejected her demand to count both of the rogue primaries of Michigan and Florida in full, and not assign Obama a single delegate from Michigan. Instead, they used the allocation that the Michigan Democrats had been arguing for already for months (69/59), when they decided to halve the voting rights of these delegates. Such Clinton backers within the committee included Don Fowler:


Quote:
Indeed, observers believe Clinton is simply trying to keep all options open until Obama is declared the winner, at which point she'll reassess.

"I think it's a position the campaign is taking until the primaries are over. Until then, I don't think it can be seen as anything more than posturing," said Don Fowler, a Clinton supporter and Rules Committee member who voted for the Michigan compromise.


And make no mistake: this was already a compromise the rules committee opted for. The Obama campaign had argued for a 50/50 split of Michigan delegates, and apparently Donna Brazile said yesterday on ABC with George Stephanopoulos that he had the votes on the committee to get the 50/50 split. But he took the high road and compromised for the 69/59 split.

This is probably also what NBC's Chuck Todd was referring to when he wrote that during the extended luncheon meeting the committee broke for, "Florida was not a problem," but on Michigan "it looked as if the agreement they were going to come to was going to pass by a razor-thin, one or two person, majority, [so] they went back because they didn't want that. They wanted a closer show of unaninimity."

And that's how they got to the current solution. There was a majority for an even stricter rejection of Hillary's claims.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:47 am
oralloy wrote:
I've only voted a straight Republican ticket once in my life so far.

I usually vote for some Republicans each time, but not a straight ticket.

But you just said in the other thread that you only ever voted for a Democrat once -- Clinton in 1992?

Oh wait, sorry -- I understand. You mean you wont vote for any Democrat running for Senate, House, state senate, lieutenant governor, whatever -- school board, dog catcher -- anymore either.

Got it.

Dont quite see the logic -- I mean, you'll vote against Michigan Democrats because they pleaded to have their slate of delegates seated with full rights but were overruled by the national rules committee? And when faced with the choice of two candidates for state Senate, for example, in 2020, you will vote for the Republican regardless of the individual candidates' qualifications and politics ... because the Michigan Democrats were seated with only half voting rights at this year's national convention because they broke the primary rules? Even though there's no practical effect either which way: even with full votes they wouldnt change the outcome?

Okay.

But how come you didnt already make that decision after the previous times this same thing happened? Because apparently, Michigan has a bit of a track record in breaking the primary rules. At least, that's what one commenter on FiveThirtyEight.com says - but please correct me if he's wrong:

Quote:
Michigan has tried holding early, illegal primaries since at least 1980. Back then, Carter and Kennedy pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, which meant that the Mitten State was the only primary state won by Jerry Brown that year.

Same thing happened in 2000: Michigan tried holding early primaries, and both major candidates Gore and Bradley pulled their names from the ballot, leaving "uncommitted" and Lyndon LaRouche as the top vote-getters. Dismayed at this turn of events, the Michigan Dem leadership quickly organized a caucus, which Gore won.

They wanted to try it again in 2004, but then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe made Carl Levin back down. (Now, of course, Mac works for Hillary, so he's done a 180.)

When Michigan broke the rules AGAIN in 2008, Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and later Kucinich, all agreed to pull their names from the primary ballot in the state. Hillary, however, broke decades of precedent and chose to stay on the ballot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:49 am
Just drama, nothing more.

One would think the anti-war stance of the Dems would be a bigger turnoff to warmongers then whether or not their vote counts for full or half in the nomination process...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 09:54 am
Yep.

I actually watched some of it -- I didn't catch anything too exciting. I'd hoped for more from Donna Brazile -- all I saw her ask was whether the delegation was diverse. Later (or earlier?) she evidently got off the kind of thing I was expecting from her:

Quote:
"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide to change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin.'"


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1090183.aspx


Meanwhile, interesting article here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=1

It's most likely a moot point, except for the vice presidential issue, but the article has a lot more info on a point I keep making -- that just because OBAMA hasn't gone after Bill and Hillary in terms of personal life/ business ventures since they left the White House, one can't assume there isn't anything to go after.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/03/2025 at 10:55:54