Star Frosh Senator Claims Clinton "Fast And Loose" With Truth

Well! It is clear that the Democratic establishment loves Obama and is trying to protect him from any legitimate criticism.

He is the favorite of the establishment! They want the Clintons to stop examinign his record and just bow in front of him.

Fortunately, rank and file Democrats have other ideas.

Posted by SN | January 24, 2008 1:46 PM

I fear that the two Clintons' attack machine has already successfully baited the voters via race, gender, and ethnicity.

If Obama wins SC, I predict it will be a small margin (2-3%).

I wish there was a way to focus more on the Clinton presidency. It had scandals after scandals (from the first to the last day). All by the Clintons.

I wish someone from the GOP (who are in the cemetery having lost to the two Clintons) would talk about what it is to compete with them (e.g., Bob Dole).

I wish someone would dissect Clinton's senate career (e.g., voting for the war with great anguish but not reading the intelligence report).

Why is the press not working hard to be fair?

Posted by eorse | January 24, 2008 1:52 PM

Only in loony Clintonite world could a freshman Senator and Governor be considered the party Establishment.

It's clear that the real Establishment is strongly behind Clinton as Rendell's endorsement shows.

Posted by Mike | January 24, 2008 1:54 PM

"McCaskill went on to say that Clinton "tried to manipulate the facts in a way that is patently unfair," "flat wrong," and "demeaning." She did not elaborate."

Isn't that always the way? "She did not elaborate" Shocker. She can't. He isn't lying. Obama did do cocaine and the Republicans will bring this up. Obama did represent Chicago slumlord Rezko he admitted it in the last debate. Obama did take a sweetheart land deal from Rezko he admitted it and said it was boneheaded. Obama is no angel and is a huge roll of the dice. The press loves it and that's why they give him a pass.

Wake up people!

Posted by Horsehockey | January 24, 2008 1:59 PM

If the DNC establishment is getting behind Obama, it's about time! I would have voted for Hillary (in a general election if she won the primary) 3 months ago, but after seeing the campaign she has run, I would probably vote for McCain. And I am a liberal, progressive, 42 year old white female. I can't stomach the combination of Hillary's record and the Carl Rove tactics she is using to smear Obama. I'm just sick of it.
I sincerely hope I don't have to make this choice & hope the DNC will throw their full support behind Obama. I think that many feel as I do about Hillary, and there is no way she can win. It's too bad, because she has everything need to make a good president, except for integrity it seems.

Posted by anna b | January 24, 2008 2:01 PM

Could the Obama campaign be any more whiny?

Posted by JoeCHI | January 24, 2008 2:02 PM

Yeah well, SN,

It might do you well to remember that "rank and file democrats" can't win the general election alone. Democrats need moderates and Independents to win the general.

Nominate Hillary and lose the whitehouse in 2008.

Posted by jds | January 24, 2008 2:04 PM

What is even more absurd about SN is that he (or she) doesn't seem to perceive that the Clintons ARE the Democratic establishment.

Posted by wj | January 24, 2008 2:13 PM

God the Obama hate on here is lame.

From race, to Reagan, to "present" votes, to yes, drug use, the Clintons have showed no class and indeed have made flat out false statements.

They should know better.

The Clintons are killing the Party. It's what they do. They will win the nomination and lose the election. Their time has past. The did not lead in the 90s; they had their chance.

GO OBAMA GO - GO EDWARDS GO

Anyone but Hillary.

And "SN" you are so dellusional about your own candidate it is sickening.

Posted by Joe Justice | January 24, 2008 2:20 PM

Could the Obama campaign be any more whiny?

Posted by JoeCHI | January 24, 2008 2:02 PM

Could JoeCHI be more obtuse?

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 2:21 PM

My problem with the way these people are coming around and protecting Obama is that it makes me think of a child who is being bullied and cannot fight back. Think about a child whose parents have to escort him to school everyday 'cos he is being bullied.
It seems as if he is being made to be the only hope for the US and everyone is rallying round him, closing their eyes to his weaknesses and hoping that he can be all that they want him to be.
The fact is that he has to fight for this job. Others cant fight for him or for Hillary. Whoever wants this job must fight for it.
And by the way, do you think that the Republicans will go easy on him?

Posted by Leye | January 24, 2008 2:46 PM

Widely considered the best new senate candidate of 2006? Really? Who even decides that? I didn't hear anything about her until she endorsed. I would have thought Jim Webb would win this award.

Posted by Anonymous | January 24, 2008 2:54 PM

Hear hear, Mike. The superdelegate count tells who the real establishment candidate is.

Posted by KJ | January 24, 2008 2:55 PM

Obama was upfront about his early life drug use. Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale, not to mention he did not have sex with that woman......

One is upfront, the other tells truths of convenience.

Hmmmm truths of conveninence, sounds like our current president and his administration?

Posted by Leyla | January 24, 2008 2:56 PM

SN Said: Well! It is clear that the Democratic establishment loves Obama and is trying to protect him from any legitimate criticism.

You need to take that act of yours on the road SN. That could be the most uninformed comment I've seen in, say at least a day.

Obama's plan is not to be whiny. It is to tie the Clintons together so that the voters no longer see her as her own person, thereby undermining her whole reason for running. She goes from being the first woman president, to the spouse of the former President who can't run on her own. It's a risky strategy as Bill is still popular, but we all know he is a world class liar after the finger wagging in 98 and all that "is" crap.

Will it work? Seems like it's starting to. Obama is playing hardball jujitsu.

Posted by swarty | January 24, 2008 2:56 PM

"Others cant fight for him or for Hillary"?

You could've fooled me. Bill Clinton is fighting for Hillary, and he's fighting about as dirty as it gets.

Of course, when Obama fights back and points out dishonesty, he gets accused of being whiny.

I steadfastly refuse to vote for Hillary in either the primary or the general. And I'm no shrinking independent; I've never voted for a Republican in my life.

Please, HRC fans, open your eyes to the fact that the Clintons are mean, nasty people.

Posted by whataboutbill | January 24, 2008 2:59 PM

McCaskill is half right on this issue. As ever, the Clintons are certainly loose with the truth, but it can hardly be said that they have ever been fast with it. Their strategy is to be as slow and begrudging as possible.

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 3:01 PM

Continuous complaints of lying from McCaskill, 'swift boating' from Kerry. These dems are fast and loose with the charges. Can they identify one factual lie if asked? I hope someone will ask Senators McCaskill and Kerry to 'elaborate', but I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by rreddy | January 24, 2008 3:06 PM

The posts here by the Clinton backers are very depressing. Evidently, slander and delusion are now good things in their eyes.

Well, I've had enough. The Clintons -- and unfortunately, that is what the Hillary ticket has become, Clintons plural -- will not get my vote in November. No matter what. Not even if the Republicans are deranged enough to nominate Mike Huckabee to the presidency.

For Democrats . . . . . DEMOCRATS . . . . to deploy the tactics of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater against another Democratic candidate in a presidential primary contest of all places -- it is unforgivable.

We have voter suppression, slime, slander and surrogates, and God knows what else -- it's no wonder the Clintons get on so well with the Bushes.

---------------------------

Anon 2:54PM, I think if you look at the actual performance in office, you'll see that McCaskill has actually done a lot more than Webb. To me Webb has been kind of a letdown.

Posted by DBX | January 24, 2008 3:08 PM

Right on Ana B. I feel the same way. A few months ago, I would have been happy to vote for Clinton in the general, just I would still vote for Edwards or Obama or any Democrat other than her. But after seeing the way they fight ... I just don't want to do that to the country again. The Clintons are just the Democratic version of the Rove/Bush spittle machine. We don't need it. America doesn't neet it. If it comes down to Hillary and McCain I will vote Republican for the first time in my life.

Posted by theomobius | January 24, 2008 3:11 PM

Also, it's interesting that you don't hear many people making the opposite argument, that they would have to vote GOP if Obama won. Although they try to say he's just as bad as she is, and that's the way the game of politics is played, if he's just as dirty then how is it that he's managed to make no enemies even while he's won so many friends? Another thing you NEVER hear about Hillary is that ANY independents or open-minded Republicans would consider her in the general. She has ZERO cross-over appeal. But I've got life-long Republican friends who say they'd probably vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. Leave it to the Democrats to rally around the guaranteed loser though! Hillary is the only person who can save the Republicans this year.

Posted by theomobius | January 24, 2008 3:16 PM

A definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I comment, you decide. Peace

Posted by WillyTPatriot | January 24, 2008 3:18 PM

What puzzles me is that the Clintons think that their tactics could possibly win over any unbiased neutral, far less a supporter of Obama or Edwards. All that the Clintons are achieving (as the more experienced Democrats obviously realize) is to cut into the Democratic base of support for the presidential campaign. The web is full of angry Democrats renouncing the Clintons and all their works - and that simply doesn't bode well for the future. Why else do you think that people like Kennedy, Emmanuel, Clyburn are coming out and openly warning the Clintons to back off?

Posted by wjc | January 24, 2008 3:25 PM

Well right now, I would vote for McCain over Hillary. And it's not just a "sour grapes" vote. I honestly think the Clintons are just bad for the country. It's more of the secretive, truth-parsing, back room machine style leadership that we've seen with the NeoCons. It's disaster. It's debasing.

McCain is terrible on Iraq, but Clinton isn't going anywhere either. Don't kid yourself. There is a reason the Brooks crowd thinks she's just fine and why she always talks about "starting to withdraw troops within (X)." Because she isn't neccessarily planning on finishing it. She'll do whatever the path of least resistance is at the time, just like always. Bush is planning on starting to withdraw troops in 2 months. So what?

Maybe Hillary can bring me back if she is nominated, but I doubt it. You can only be lied to so much before you start to shut your ears. The Clintons are liars.

Posted by Bupalos | January 24, 2008 3:26 PM

Check out what is happening to the party. This is disaster. And it really is all the Clintons' fault. They are simply too divisive, and too ready to jettison the party for the power. That's what the DLC was all about.

We need to extract these two clowns now. I don't care how painfull it is. The party can't move on until they are gone.

Posted by Yannis | January 24, 2008 3:29 PM

I have to say that reading some of the comments, I'm frightened that these people are actually going to cast a vote, let alone offer their "commentary" that is legitimately distortions of the truth (i.e. Obama represented a slumlord; party establishment protection of Obama; etc.)

Posted by b. daniel | January 24, 2008 3:34 PM

To me, Bill's injection into the campaign is a total warning sign. It came after Iowa, and it's been very haphazzard and very polarizing. This is what is coming back to the white house.

The Clinton's want to claim that Obama has gone gutter. Really? The fact is, Edwards has had far more strident attacks on the dynastic duo, with no response at all. The Clintons desperately need to drag Obama into some kind of ugly-fest, and they do it daily. Bill is acting like a raging drunk trying to tarnish our best candidate. We need an intervention.

Posted by Stan | January 24, 2008 3:38 PM

If Hillary is nominated, a Republican will win, no doubt about it.

They have alienated the center and the left and all they have now are people who they helped to get employment.

Note also, David Brooks said that the Bush Administration would prefer Hillary, even over the Republicans.

Posted by Jack | January 24, 2008 3:43 PM

rreddy:

You asked, I answer.

1. Bill Clinton lied about Obama's war record. He said Obama didn't know how he would vote. Obama's full quote:

"'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"

A lie of omission is, you guessed it, a lie.

2. The entire Clinton campaign continually lies about Obama's Reagan comments. Bill Clinton said that Obama said "since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas." Obama's quote:

"The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

This time, it's a direct lie, not a lie of omission.

3. The Clinton campaign lied in Iowa and New Hampshire about Obama's record on abortion rights. Obama had a 100% voting record according to NARAL, and voted present several times at their request. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs&eurl

Clinton lies. The Democratic Coalition dies.

Posted by Dan | January 24, 2008 3:45 PM

"Best new Senate candidate of the 2006 cycle"? Have we forgotten Jim Webb already? Or Amy Klobuchar? Or Sherrod Brown? Or Jon Tester? None of these newly elected senators has endorsed anyone yet, and Sheldon Whitehouse has endorsed Hillary Clinton, but I guess that doesn't add weight to your argument. Only the best candidates endorse Obama, is that it?

Posted by eatbees | January 24, 2008 3:49 PM

Obama is losing because his campaign made a fundamental strategic mistake.

Posted by it's over | January 24, 2008 3:53 PM

"It's interesting that you don't hear many people making the opposite argument, that they would have to vote GOP if Obama won." -- Maybe it's because Clinton and Edwards supporters are willing to trust Democratic primary voters to choose our nominee! We aren't the "take the ball and go home" type.

Posted by eatbees | January 24, 2008 3:55 PM

Eatbees:

I'm not voting for anyone who doesn't earn my vote. Now, Hillary may earn it after the primaries, but she sure as hell hasn't yet.

Posted by Dan | January 24, 2008 4:01 PM

Oh she will what is funny how about how dumb all of you Obama people who cry and say "I'm voting for McCain" (great Dems by the way really appreciate your help in the party) is that once she secures the nomination the media will start the first woman president ever machine and she will roll to victory .

You will vote for her because you have to. So STFU and vote for her you worthless scum. See you in November!

Posted by Horsehockey | January 24, 2008 4:41 PM

Since when has Bill ever taken advice from someone criticizing him? He has no respect for any such person, much less a woman.

"Obama is losing because his campaign made a fundamental strategic mistake."

Uh...ok. So fundamental it can't be mentioned. Is that it?

Posted by dave | January 24, 2008 4:55 PM

Horsehockey, your eloquence and powers of persuasion are so utterly negative that you are the best negative ad against Hillary that anyone could desire. In future, I shall be able to point to you as a prime example of a tedious little fascist with delusions of grandeur and say: "Behold the typical HillBilly. Now do you see why anyone else makes more sense?"

Posted by zavulon | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM

Hillary Clinton, like her husband, Honest Bill, is mendacious slime. She can trick New Yorkers into thinking that she's a winner, but the dog won't hunt in "fly-over country."

Posted by HillandBillLie | January 24, 2008 5:17 PM

Yoiks! I was first eligible to vote in 1968. As a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democrats, I proudly cast that ballot in the Indiana primary for Robert Kennedy (less than 2 mos. later he was assassinated.) I know, I know...here goes someone talking about the '60s again. But, there really is something to Santana's oft quoted statement about those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. So...Robert Kennedy was not the upstart/reform/anti-establishment candidate at the time. He positioned himself as carrying the legacy of a family member who had gone before--and, he positioned himself between the "insurgent" anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy (very popular on campuses at the time -- in fact, I was organizing the Indiana University campus for him at the time)and the incumbent VP Hubert Humphrey (associated with Johnson's war.) Of interest, here, is that Robert Kennedy had a hard-nosed reputation earned during the Army-McCarthy hearings and as a strong-arm powerful Senator from New York. But, during the early course of the 1968 primary season, it became clear to many people that he had changed to opposition of the Vietnam War and showed a softer side, a truly compassionate side, in focusing on how to help those not able to afford food and other vital necessities. While the direction of my writing may well suggest a comparison, the summary is quite accurate. The point: Things often are not what they appear at first blush. Those two Senators often headed in the same direction; but, their followers were quite adamant that the other's adherents were almost morally depraved. There are different types of changes; and, different ways of going about striving for the same change. It ok to debate/argue/contest/yell & shout. But, quite frankly, this foot-stomping, whiny "I'm gonna leave the party/I won't vote/I'll vote Republican" is rather churlish and adolescent. Life won't change as you know it if your guy doesn't succeed. Give it your all, but--hey--show some respect for both sides. While I personally prefer the specifics of Hillary's health care and economic plans, among other things, that doesn't lead me to conclude that her opposition must be the devil or some other evil incarnate. I would hope we are all Democrats; and, that, if we want to be taken seriously by the country at large beyond the blogs and campaign offices, we'll forego the "but, ma, he did it first" or "he hurt my hand when his face got in the way." And, finally, if the point is taken, try this: Make a copy of few name-calling, full-of-righteous-indignation comments...and, look at them in a few years. christinep

Posted by christinep | January 24, 2008 5:21 PM

"So STFU and vote for her you worthless scum. See you in November!" - Horsehockey

(sigh)

That sentiment captures the essence of the Clinton campaign. Well done.

For the record, I voted for Clinton in '92 and '96. While I've always supported Obama -- I was familiar with his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and witnessed his (and his wife's) commitment to progressive change (Project Vote for him, and Public Allies Chicago for her). I was proud that someone with his character and judgement would even consider running. I also knew that his candidacy was a longshot since he was going up against a popular VP candidate and a Senator with over a decade of DC/party infrastructure in place. I was ready to support the Democratic nominee, even if it wasn't Obama.

Clinton had party goodwill, tons of money, the top political talent around her -- and she still hasn't closed the deal. Throw in the cynical tactics employed (to make up for the squandering of her built-in advantage or the arrogance in severely underestimating her opponents), and I've been turned off from supporting for her in the GE.

I believe in the adage, "you govern as you campaign", and I'm not interested in 4 more years of the psychodrama and pettiness that have been the hallmarks of this campaign.

Posted by macarthur31 | January 24, 2008 5:32 PM

christinep-

The thing you're missing in your analysis is that Obama supporters aren't outraged and considering voting for McCain because of policy disagreements with Hillary, it is because the way has run an incredibly dirty campaign. She tacitly supported disenfranchising workers because an endorsement didn't go her way, even after spending several days after Iowa complaining about how the caucus system prevents people who happen to be working at the time from participating. She has brought race into the campaign in an attempt to marginalize Obama as a Jesse Jackson style "black candidate". She has lied and distorted his position on abortion, she has lied about his comments on Reagan, she has lied about his position on Iraq and she has lied about his social security and tax plans. She has has played the fear card in the same way that Bush has countless times before by insinuating that Obama may not be prepared to deal with a terrorist attack.

The anger directed towards her has little to do with differing policy positions and everything to do with honesty and integrity. It's frustrating to see Bill Clinton go out there and lie shamelessly about Obama, then play the victim and accuse Obama of many of the dirty tricks that he himself is doing. I think the most important part of your post was when you said "Give it your all, but--hey--show some respect for both sides." I agree with this completely, but I think it should extend to the candidates as well, not just their supporters. I'm so opposed to the Clintons right now because they've shown no respect for their opponent and are content with lying and smearing to tear down one of the best young stars in THEIR OWN PARTY in order to further their personal pursuit of power.

I can't in good conscience give my vote to someone who would stoop so low against a fellow party member and risk alienating key party constituencies just to get elected. We as Democrats should be better than that and I refuse to reward such behavior.

Posted by bwaage | January 24, 2008 8:56 PM

Is this the way the hillary is gonna deal with chavez, castro, osama, putin, iran, iraq, china, islamic extremists? By having "slick willy" call them names? We're are in for a world of hurt!

Posted by sneer101 | January 24, 2008 9:01 PM

Sen. Obama has some innovative and wonderful ideas.

The Clintons had a chance to make government more ethical. Hillary had an opportunity to reform health care. Bill had an opportunity to catch Bin Laden. He also had an opportunity to end genocide in Rwanda. Well, they were not able to accomplish any of those things while in office. What they offered to the American people was a balanced budget, scandal, drama and a torn apart democratic party. Then, what have you seen during this entire campaign, the same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

This should be an obvious choice. The DNC and Obama should join forces and take the party and America into the future. I do not want to go backwards.

Posted by Robyn | January 24, 2008 11:47 PM

The first time George W. Bush ran for President, every time I would talk to others, even Democrats about the reasons Bush would not be a good choice, they would bring up Bill Clinton. They'd say "look what he did when he was in the White House." And even when I would state emphatically that Bill Clinton wasn't running, Al Gore was, everyone would go back to discussing Bill Clinton's sins. I believe very strongly that too many people voted for Bush because Clinton shamed the Democratic party and the highest office in the land. And now on the campaign trail with Hillary he has shamed us once again with his lies and low down dirty style. God help us if the Clinton's get in the White House again.

The American have enough shame from Clinton and Bush, we want integrity in our leaders! Please wake up America and get it right this time. Vote Barack Obama, he will bring honor and integrity to the White House.

Posted by Samantha | January 25, 2008 2:26 AM

Horsehockey posted:"....He isn't lying. "Obama did do cocaine and the Republicans will bring this up. Obama did represent Chicago slumlord Rezko he admitted it in the last debate. Obama did take a sweetheart land deal from Rezko he admitted it and said it was boneheaded. Obama is no angel and is a huge roll of the dice. The press loves it and that's why they give him a pass.
Wake up people!'
---------------------
Horsehockey, No need to wake me, I am wide awake. While Senator Obama experimented with drugs in his teens, Clinton was doing cocaine well into his 40s. He not only was a junkie he was trafficking cocaine and laundering the drug money. The drug scandal was tied to the Rose Firm where Hillary worked. Clinton was also a sexual predator both as gov of Arkansas and while President. Maybe the news media should begin talking about ALL the Clinton scandals. Google: Video The Clinton Chronicles on the net, educate yourself before you parrot the lies of the Clintons.
I hope The Atlantic does not block this posting. If Clinton wants to throw mud at Mr. Obama for voluntarily admitting his teen-age drug use in his Book, "Dreams of My Father", the Public also needs to know about Clinton's drug trafficking in Mena Arkansas and his use of cocaine way into his forties.

Posted by NinaK | January 25, 2008 2:54 AM

If you want America moves into socialist then communist (the Clintons has tie relationship with China, they received campaign contributions from Chinese's government) then vote for the returning of the Clintons to White House. If you want the government approval to see doctor & stay in hospital and etc.. then vote for the Clintons. If you want a bad role model unethiccal / sex scam / liars, etc for your children then vote for the Clintons. I voted for Bill Clinton and Bush twice each and I regretted. I am carefull with my vote now; I will vote for the best candidate regardless party but not the Clintons. I am grandmother, I have to think my grandchildren future that will be impacted by my vote now. Think American, not only for you at present but for your children and grandchildren and next. USA does not need to be like 3rd world / new development countries, that are having dynasty: Bush-Clinton-Bush and Clintons again. I accepted dirty campaign, but the Clintons' campaign - a big NO and I don't want them to be my President. I am proud to be an American who refuse to be fooled by the Clintons.

Posted by Katy | January 25, 2008 9:43 AM

Check out McCaskill’s record and strong fight for government accountability. She is woman that will “bluntly” speak the truth, even if it offends her own party.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/460191.html “McCaskill’s comments rile Clinton campaign”

Clinton has challenged McCaskill, I am betting it was a wrong move by Clinton. I am excited about seeing the results. “I’ve seen so many generalized comments (like McCaskill’s),” said Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist. “But no specifics. The facts that he’s laid out, they have not questioned a single one of those facts.”

McCaskill’s direct approach is not surprising for anyone that has watched McCaskill in action during Senate Hearings. It is the directness this country needs. It is the tone of tell the complete truth.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” Harry S Truman quotes (American 33rd President of the United States, 1884-1972)

Posted by McCaskill for President | January 25, 2008 11:32 AM

Get more election news http://www.seferm.com/news/us/governementelection/elections.asp

Posted by Ken | January 25, 2008 3:01 PM

I have gone from being one of Bill and Hillary's biggest supporters to being completely appalled by their say and do anything to get elected campaign. Not only are they hurting the party now, they are hurting the future of the party. I have never voted for a Republican before, but there is no way I am going to vote for Hillary if she wins the general election. These are two selfish, power hungry people who epitomize everything that is wrong with our government.

Posted by Jerome | January 26, 2008 12:35 AM

Here is an analysis of both Clinton's and Obama's Senatorial records:

Of all the opportunities to vote during respective tenures:

Clinton voted 81% of the time.
Obama voted 56% of the time.

I used to like Obama, but he doesn't seem to work hard. Also, I don't hear more than vision--he has little in the way of actual ideas or plans. He reminds me of another great, inspirational person that I like very much: Jimmy Carter. Yes, I like vision, but I like the value of my home, also. And my retirement fund.

Posted by Leigh | February 5, 2008 11:13 PM

Star Frosh Senator Claims Clinton "Fast And Loose" With Truth

Comments (49)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives