What I find amazing is how inept that Clinton “hit” squad is? If they were worth a damn (or REAL) then critics like this bozo in Texas, Robert Morrow, would be a worm buffet by now (I will not link to anything written by Morrow). Ain’t it amazing that Bill and Hill are known to kill their opponents and yet so many opponents and critics are still walking around unscathed?
The evil witch, bitch caricature of Hillary is a lie readily embraced by many in America. But it is not the Hillary I have met. I am not a good friend nor a close advisor. And I am not lobbying for a slot in a Clinton Administration. I’m not ready for a pay cut and I like to sleep until 9am. But I have been in her office twice and briefed her on issues concerning terrorism and Iraq. If you had asked me before my first visit in 2005 if she could be president I would have said, “There are two ways–no way and no way in hell”. Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior.
The briefing occurred shortly after I had testified on the Hill about the harm done to Valerie Plame. Senator Clinton was aware of my testimony and congratulated me on standing up for Val. The Senator was very gracious, engaging, and charismatic. And she does not have fat legs (the number of guys who have dissed her for not having great gams is obscene). She is an attractive 60-year-old woman. But that was not what stood out for me. She is scary smart.
I was not alone at the briefing–there were two other participants who are well-known experts on the Middle East and Iraq. We had not submitted our briefings in advance. We made our respective presentations and had a genuine, in-depth discussion about viable options. She asked us tough questions and could think on her feet without having to look at notes. She focused on what could be done to achieve U.S. interests in Iraq without bleeding our country’s treasury and military.
As we talked about the limits and efficacy of using military assets to go after terrorist targets, the Senator brought up the book, Not a Good Day to Die by Sean Naylor. She did more than bring it up. She described in detail the challenges that special operations military forces actually face on the ground. I was stunned. This is not an easy book to read. It is an excellent work and provides enormous detail on special operations and CIA military activities in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda. But it is tough sledding for folks not familiar with military terminology. She had it nailed, and it was not a mere pre-planned politician’s trick. She knew what she was talking about.
I came out of that meeting and realized I could be seeing the next President. If people could always see the real Hillary she would win in a cake walk. I admit her main failing is to over-think the politics of every situation and, as a result, she has at times appeared rigid, robotic, and programmed. But that is not the real her. She’s funny, quick, and can think and talk on her feet without choking on a pretzel.
So if No Quarter appears to be a pro-Hillary site, it is simply me trying to balance out the mountain of shit tossed her way.
I also like John Edwards. But he has not tasted even a hint of the personal and political attacks that have been launched against Hillary. Therefore I do not feel as much of a need to “defend” him. However, I have given my friends–Wayne Williams and Brad Parker–full permission to publish any John Edwards piece they want. They are rabid Edwards promoters.
Who would be the strongest national candidate for the Democrats? I think it is Edwards. That’s my analytical conclusion. I worry that the hatred and prejudice against Senator Clinton is so deep that it will be a tough obstacle to overcome. But then I think back to a time when I had accepted the anti-Hillary propaganda and what subsequently happened to my thinking after meeting her. The Hillary I saw behind the closed doors of her office is a genuine, smart, very likable person. If America is permitted to see that woman then she has a chance.
UPDATE:
Further to the point that Obama lacks the seasoning and the smarts to be President, please watch Obama turn in a Bush-esque performance, brought to us originally courtesy of Taylor Marsh. We are talking moron territory here, people. Obama cannot provide a clear, cogent answer to why he declined to vote in favor of allowing sexual abuse victims to have their court records sealed and their privacy protected. My god, folks. Can we afford another dummy in the White House?
Larry said;
Larry,
why 'don't' we see the real Hillary?
December 23, 2007 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Judging from this and your last Dem. Horse Race post, I think we can safely expect many more attacks on obama, from you, for the rest of the Dem Primary season.
Check...
Good to know. I'm still wondering, do you now, or have you have ever worked for the Clintons?
Troll Bait
December 23, 2007 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we see the same Hillary over & over again, maybe that IS the real Hillary. If not, maybe it is the Hillary we would get, even though the "real one" only shows up with people like Larry
Jan
December 23, 2007 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it strange that Larry will not answer this question. I've asked it a couple of threads. And this time its at the top of the piece, so I'm sure he didn't miss it.
I'd sincerely like to know: Do you now, or have you ever worked for the Clinton's?
Is there any chance of getting a Yes or a No, Mr. Johnson? And if yes, what capacity did you work for them?
December 23, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
That's obvious.
She can't ever come out from behind the defensive mask she has to wear in public because the myriad enemies will attack her. Showing a moment of unscripted Intelligence or humor makes her vulnerable to the attacking conservatives and political media who are looking for any opening to attack. A moment of relaxation makes her vulnerable to a swift-boat attack and. the conservative swift-boats are swarming.
But as President, we won't get the mask. we'll get the extremely competent, intelligent and caring person behind the mask.
Think about it. The change will be a total reversal on every level. Competence, Intelligence, humor, and experience. The total antithesis to utter failure that is represented by Bush or any of the current Republican candidates.
I agree with Larry that I think Edwards has similar competencies.
Obama is simply too young, and hasn't gone through the fire that both Hillary and Edwards have. I don't trust his "Kumbaya politics." I think he has bought into the Stockholm Syndrome that Harry Reid and so many other Democratic 'leaders' inside the beltway seem to suffer. With experience he can become a superb candidate, but he's just not ready for Prime Time yet.
But back to Hillary - her enemies, and ours as americans (both conservatives and members of the media) don't want her to be able to display he true competence because the contrast to what the Republicans have to offer is just too great.
December 23, 2007 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rick B wrote:
She can't ever come out from behind the defensive mask she has to wear in public because the myriad enemies will attack her. Showing a moment of unscripted Intelligence or humor makes her vulnerable to the attacking conservatives and political media who are looking for any opening to attack. A moment of relaxation makes her vulnerable to a swift-boat attack and. the conservative swift-boats are swarming.
But as President, we won't get the mask. we'll get the extremely competent, intelligent and caring person behind the mask.
--
Lol, either you have the driest sense of humor I've seen at TPM or this is the funniest thing I've ever seen in print.
I cannot imagine which is more morbid. These comments as humor, or as hardcore HRC backing. Really, I hope you're joking... Please god... Let him be joking...
All the best
Troll Bait
December 23, 2007 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
We keep seeing this statement and it's many permutations over and over again. It simply does not make any sense to me. Obama is older than Kennedy when he was elected in 1960. Obama has more years experience as an elected office holder than has either Hillary or Edwards. I certainly do not count 8 years as first lady as leadership experience. When Bill tried to give her a job she so botched it that health care reform was set back 20 years.
I am not impressed that she has gone through more fire than Obama. Yes she is unfairly attacked but if my recollection is correct much of this fire was the result of her own bad judgment. Though these events are way down on the list of petty corruption it was she that was involved in Whitewater, Tyson Beef futures, travelgate and losing her Rose Law firm files.
December 23, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like Edwards says, Obama is a negotiator rather than a fighter. He has also never gone through a tough campaign. It isn't a case of time-in-service. It's a case of someone who has faced the worst the enemy - the conservatives - try to throw at him, and that is not Obama.
We need a fighter against the conservatives. Conservatives do not negotiate in good faith. Anyone who believes they do is a fool.
Which, sad to say, includes Harry Reid and much of the inside the beltway Democratic leadership.
I didn't start out with this view on Obama. He has shown me that he isn't up to the job of getting elected, and whoever does get elected is going to face an even tougher fight trying to clean the obstructionist Conservatives out to the rat holes they have dug themselves into for the last seven years.
I've seen nothing about Obama that leads me to believe he is up to the job.
December 23, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
December 24, 2007 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, well said and much needed commentary. Thank you for the guts to say this.
December 23, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know that the "real Hillary" is just waiting for the election to be over so she can relax and show her wit and intelligence? If she is pretending constantly, and can turn herself on & off I don't find that a reassuring quality.
I think she IS intelligent, witty and competent. I simply don't trust what she says, and that is her fault for putting up a facade, using her "man voice," (which completely disappeared when she did her most recent soft-Hillary tour with mother and daughter) Frankly, I think an unscripted moment of intelligence would stand out to everyone. I think that is why Biden is still in the race. Who wouldn't like to hear someone actually give a thoughtful response to a question now and then?
And as to the sudden transformation on January '09 that you are predicting -- January 10th she would begin her campaign for her second term. You wouldn't want the Swift Boaters to have a chance to deal with the real Hillary then either, would you?
Jan
December 23, 2007 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
She will show who she is in her actions in office. As with bush, we won't see what is behind the actions in the first term at all.
And why do you expect a transformation in her public appearance - ever? Her public appearance has nothing to do with doing the job of President. Think about Bush and his public appearance. Nice guy, someone you could be comfortable around - how often has he let slip that he is in fact at heart a rotten, self-centered little weasel? He didn't show it when he spoke in Jackson Square, New Orleans, after Katrina. He made all kinds of nice promises then. He showed it when he failed totally to live up to those promises. He hasn't shown his core self when he praised the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has shown it when he shafted the wounded when they came home to inadequate health care and reduced disability pensions.
Remember when the Army released a National Guard Brigade one day before the two years needed to get the larger GI Bill benefits that they would have gotten upon completion of two years service? That's when Bush let HIS mask down. But, you see, behind HIS mask, Bush has no empathy or consideration for others. Behind HIS mask, Bush is a self-serving weasel.
I think it is clear that Hillary - behind her mask - is a much better human being. It is also nice that she is capable of actually accomplishing things, something else that Bush-behind-the-mask has never demonstrated and never will.
December 23, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rick B, you said:
Don't be silly. That isn't going to happen. She will show who she is in her actions in office. As with bush, we won't see what is behind the actions in the first term at all. And why do you expect a transformation in her public appearance - ever?
Actually, I don't expect a change, which if you read what I wrote, you would know. I think we are seeing the real Hillary every day. I was responding to a quote from you that I have cut and Pasted:
...But as President, we won't get the mask. we'll get the extremely competent, intelligent and caring person behind the mask.
So, to your first statement we'll get Hillary, sans mask. But now you say she can't possibly transform herself. You say that after all she WILL be herself, or maybe she shouldn't -- well, I'll let you say it...
I think it is clear that Hillary - behind her mask - is a much better human being. It is also nice that she is capable of actually accomplishing things, something else that Bush-behind-the-mask has never demonstrated and never will.
Can you list some of Hillary's actual accomplishments? As horrible as George Bush is, he has accomplished many many things -- all negative, in my book, but he has remained in charge. Hillary has supported much of this, so we can't just say it is the rogue republican party giving him everything he wanted. I guess the "fake Hillary" was aiding and abetting George.
George Bush has not been called to account for his signing statements, his lying to get us into a bogus war, and his shredding of the Constitution. Hillary is a senator, and had a responsibility to oversee the Executive branch. She is not the only one to fail in that responsibilty, but fail she did. And she wants us to entrust her with that very same office.
Could it be she wants all that power if she should get what she considers her due?
Jan
December 23, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a big fan of yours, Mr. Johnson, but I have a problems with this article.
First, I'm not sure I understand why you feel it is your duty to defend Senator Clinton against attacks from Scaife and his ilk. These manufactured urban legends are ridiculous on their surface, and virtually no one likely to vote in a Democratic primary gives them the slightest credence.
Second, are you really boosting the Senator's campaign because she didn't have Vince Foster killed as some claim? Will you also promote Mitt Romney due to the fact that he is falsely accused of being a member of a pagan cult, and because what his critics call lies are actually mere figures of speech?
Finally, you are minimizing all the legitimate reasons to dislike the junior senator from New York, to wit (among others):
In short, while I deeply appreciate your service to our country, respect your knowledge of security issues, and admire your commitment to progressive causes, I find you well off-base in your support of Senator Clinton.
December 23, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I've been thinking about this latest from L Johnson. I think this is exactly what he should be writing about if he's going to jump into Dem Primary coverage. And I appreciate him telling us what he knows about HRC.
It is an opinion born of personal experience. And shows why he is backing her. It is thoughtfully informed, as is his CIA, Plame and Foreign Policy writing is in formed, which I too love to read.
And it is NOT, the ham handed anti Obama nonsense that has littered the last few Dem Primary articles written by Mr. Johnson.
Please, Mr. Johnson, keep writing about Hillary. More information about her Foreign Policy experience may convince Obama supporters that they have the wrong horse. But do not insult us with heavy handed attacks on Obama at TPM. We are not sheeple…
All the best.
Troll_Bait.
Full Disclosure: Obama is my first Choice, Hillary is a close second. I think John Edwards is kinda… Better not go there.
December 23, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we know that Joe Wilson is pro-Hillary and very much anti-Obama (Huffington Post). I want to know what Hillary has promised the Wilsons, since she obviously hasn't helped them so far.
Jan
December 23, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious? Do you think we are all stupid? Or is your blog name half-right?
Please, Mr. Johnson, keep writing about Hillary. More information about her Foreign Policy experience may convince Obama supporters that they have the wrong horse...
Full Disclosure: Obama is my first Choice
If you honestly thing that Obama is the "wrong horse" to back, why is he your first choice?
Are you completely dishonest, or just delusional? Please give at least a lame response!
Jan
December 23, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not kidding. Mr. Johnson has become a voice in lefty politics covering Plame and Foreign Policy. He is now trying his hand at Political Coverage. It is obvious, that he wants to sway voters to HRC. If he's going to try, he should stick to what he knows. And explain what he sees in Hillary using his Foreign Policy and other unique experience.
He should stop with the ham fisted anti Obama rhetoric.
L Johnson Write previously:
Obama is "Bad News."
"Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?"
"Is Obama wearing a wrist bracelet that says, “what would Karl Rove do”?"
"Why would Obama, the candidate of “hope,” pump up the claims of Novak, “the prince of darkness”?"
"Obama’s tactics appear in sync with Rove’s script. His feigned victim hood is a negative attack on Senator Clinton’s character to drive the numbers, which in turn Obama hopes will determine the nomination. While posing above the fray, but executing Rove’s strategy and exploiting Novak’s innuendo, Obama has embraced the audacity of hype."
"If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Hillary Clinton’s campaign told him that they had some dirt on Obama, would Obama’s staff react as they did to the Robert Novak column of November 17?"
--
This crap, has no chance of convincing anyone that L Johnson is an honest broker. If he actually wants to sway Obama supporters to his cause, he should write more articles like the one today. Agree with it or don't, but its the first time I begin to understand what L Johnson actually believes, rather than the red hot anti Obama slime of his other recent pieces.
Troll Bait
December 23, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll-Bait, Sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. I agree with your sentiments, and those of several others on this thread. Thanks
Jan
December 24, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to say I'm sorry about giving L. Johnson the benefit of the doubt today. His original piece did not contain the Obama is GWB Dumb video update.
I guess I gave L Johnson too much credit. Obviously he is unable to use his space at TPM to simply promote HRC and give us informed reasons for his support.
He seems to have a compulsion to taint whatever compelling Pro HRC coverage he might add to the debate, with Obama slime. It's a pity. I guess I must go back to my original conclusion from another L. Johnson hit piece on Obama.
L. Johnson is an HRC water carrier. As informative as his posts usually are, and as entertaining the comment threads that usually follow, nothing he writes this Dem Primary season can be taken seriously. He is going to be HRC's Obama attack dog.
December 23, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a time whan I was a 100% Hillary backer, willing to forgive her 'political cover your ass' vote for the Iraq war.
Since then I'm now under the impression I had about Kerry, she's an equivacator, unwilling often, to answer a question honestly lest it offend someone, somewhere.
Her non-answers at times are maddening. Then, her vote for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment came along and it infuriated me and so I started looking for a different candidate. I chose Edwards because I don't think Obama can win the General election, but whoever the Dem nominee may be, they get my vote.
I formulated an opinion on the upcoming Presidential election about 6 months ago and it goes like this:
The Republican movers and shakers are scared shitless of Hillary winning the
nomination, scared because they KNOW they can't beat her. There's nothing left to throw at her; the public, the non-republican ideologues, has heard it all ad nauseam.
The Republicans wanted to run against Obama, fresh meat. They knew they could beat Obama. Republicans believed America may be ready for a woman President, but not a black President. They wanted Barack.
The attacks on Obama will make the Swift Boat Attacks look like Sunday School.
This is why you see the conservative media, who, by the way, makes the liberal media look like babes in the woods, selling the "Hllary can't win", "her negatives are high" "No one wants Bush Clinton dynastys"
Hillary's laugh, her smile, her clapping, her cleavage, blah blah blah, all being sold by the right wing and the Republican party and being picked up by the MSM.
Remember what the Conservative Media and MSM did to Gore? Kerry? well, they're back doing it to Hillary.
December 23, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strangely, I have the exact opposite opinion for the last 6 to 9 months. I do not doubt, HRC’s ability, knowledge, dedication, super computer mind or progressive instincts, (well… she’s kinda K-Street but lets forget that for the moment). I really really like HRC. I’m confident she would be an able leader of the free world.
But… There is nothing on earth that would lash the broken raft of the Republican base back together again, like Hillary R Clinton can.
The Right Wing, loves to hate her. At the moment, they are basically destroyed and wandering directionless. Romney? Huckster? McCain? Guili9/11ani? Nope…. There is only thing on the political map, I can image, that could Unite them in vileness and purpose once more.
The right wing can agree on is that HRC can never be president.
I think, if she is the Dem nominee, we can beat this vileness and still win the day against what’s left of the right wing wreckage. But it will be very very hard…
For Obama? Well every national pole says he beats each Repub. candidate handily. Hillary… Not so much.
We would do well with either candidate in office, but I see Obama winning this thing without breaking a sweat. With HRC, well it will be a 51% shit fight that I don't look forward to, though I will fight it if we have to.
December 23, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing about Hillary galvanizing the right seems to suggest that the right wing will go easier somehow on Obama, Edwards, or any other Dem who wins the nomination.
The Republicans and the right wing didn't need any symbol other than the word "Democrat" to attack, and then get to the polls against Gore and Kerry.
The Republicans and the right wing will pull out all the stops regardless of who the Dem. nominee may be because their worst nightmare isn't Hillary, its a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress.
December 23, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question that the Rovians will fight a dirty, lie-and-innuendo-filled campaign regardless of the candidate. But the question is which candidate makes the best target to energize their base and convince the near right. Nobody is gonna provide that kind of target the way Hillary Clinton will.
This is ironic, since she is their creature at heart and in practice. But given that she will lose votes on the right and in the center because of what she is not, and that she will lose votes on the left because of who she actually is, I really expect that her Republican opponent will waltz into the White House.
December 23, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard said:
Tank, not to be ornery, but what can they throw at her that hasn't been heard 1,000 times before?
If they attack her connection to Bill they may be shooting themselves in the foot.
In the general election, Hillary has only to appeal to Democrats and Independents, the wingnuts can throw all kind of crap at her, but will it influence the Dems; or Independents who have just about had their fill of "conservative government'?
December 24, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't make my point very well. On Hillary, they can make the crap stick to the satisfaction of all those voters that are already doubtful about her. The others simply don't provide the kind of lightning rod that she does.
December 24, 2007 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, The problem isn't that Hillary can't take it; the problem is that people who might otherwise be on the fence BELIEVE it, and they don't like her.
Let me turn this around:
...but what can they throw at her that hasn't been heard 1,000 times before?
What other candidate has had 1,000 negative things said about them?
Jan
December 26, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess What? We aren't going to win over the right-wing. Huckabee has them. Those we need to win over are the reasonable, financially conservative people who recognize that the Bush regime has used them for votes, pretending concern for their issues.
Small government? A government that pays billions to private soldiers (BlackWater) and gives gas companies tax breaks is not small government.
Guess what? The VOTING base (as opposed to the financial base) of the Republican Party has problems with health care too. They are uninsured, or underinsured. Their gas bills are high too. It is their kids who are fighting and dying in Iraq, have myriad health and mental problems, and come home to an indifferent VA system.
Can Hillary inspire these people? Since she doesn't inspire me, a yellow-dog Democrat, I doubt it, but our party needs to grab those many thousands of reasonable people who simply want a government that works for them. Elected officials who see themselves as EMPLOYEES of their constituents...what a concept! I don't think Hillary is there, because she sees herself as entititled.
My impresssion may be wrong, but if so, it is the impression Hillary has given from day one as a senator. Did anyone ever doubt that she would be running for president? I don't think I am smarter than many here, but am I wrong? I have the same deja vu now that I had when she and many others voted to let Bush invade Iraq (of course they all say they didn't know then that he would do that!!!!)
And FYI, It's a "Democratic President with a Democratic Congress. " Don't fall into the Republican disrespect of our name!
Question: If the ratios stay the same, wouldn't we still have the same filibuster threat that we have now? Is anyone taking notes? Just askin', because when the tables were turned it seemed like the Democrats were losing all the time, just like now. Is it because we want to be thought of as everyone's friend?" We need to grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan
December 23, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem said:
Ole dopey John. :-)
By the way, I'll vote for Edwards in the primary.
December 24, 2007 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda? Don't forget this for one second!
~OGD~
December 23, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll_Bait said:
In my opinion the majority of the Republican "base" are blue collar racists
and you won't have to go far to find racism
among white collar Republicans. The blue collars, those who live and die by conservative talk radio and FOX are Republicans because they see the Republican party getting the "ni**ers off welfare". The "I work hard for my money" gang. The mile wide half inch deep crowd.
If you think Hillary will galvanize this gang and get them to the polls in droves, wait till you see what a black man does to them. Wait till they see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson appearing with Obama as the 08 election nears. I can see already Republican Swift Boaters putting Ads for Obama on TV, "Hussein" Obama addressing black crowds and in the background, Al Sharpton.
The Republicans KNOW then can beat Obama, its Hillary that scares them shitless.
December 24, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strangely, the only one's using racist fear in this primary to date... Are Hillary supporters.
Please note, I'm not saying HRC or her campaign.
Notice who stokes the fires of xenophobia and fear.
You are a sick little cookie JohnW. It is not blue collar workers or Republicans that are race bating. No John, it is you.
Think about that before you say anything heinous sleazy thing in the world to defend or support your candidate of choice.
Again, I am sorry that this kind of sleaze is being said in support of Hillary. She would never condone this.
December 24, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong; why, darkies, spics, micks, and kikes are some of my best friends.
I was wondering how long it would be before someone would call me a racist, and I knew it would be someone with an agenda which would certainly not be altruism.
If you had your eyes open you might have read my post telling why I DON'T support Hillary, but do support Edwards, but if you did that you wouldn't have a high horse to mount. As a matter of fact, I just checked, you DID read that post because you posted to it.
Here's what you read in my post:
By the way, you're the Republican right wing mole I spotted posting here about 10 days ago. Your passive agressive undercover tactic is obvious. My outing your party as the racists they are kind of got your goat, heh? You are quite the devious one, little man.
Are you by any chance David Bossi?
December 24, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, feel free to go through all of my posts, show me one thing I've said that makes me a troll or an Undercover Republican Operative. I think what you’ll find is that I am Pro Obama, Less Pro (but still pro) Hillary and not pro Edwards.
My positions are not passive aggressive. The are pro Obama, anti L. Johnson for the hit pieces he keeps writing.
They are not anti Clinton.
And you ARE doing all that you can in your own passive aggressive way, to stir up racism and xenophobia.
Congratulations sir. You must be very proud. I find your posts at best strange and paranoid and at worst pretty despicable.
December 24, 2007 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
December 25, 2007 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, since this idea is gaining traction amongst rogue HRC supporters, I think it’s worth a proper debunking. Racism is a grumbling ugly part of the Neanderthal base of the Republican Party. It is not the majority of the republican base. Nor is it remotely acceptable to swing voters, which would be essential for a 51% Repub Majority in a presidential race. The repubs simply could not afford taking Obama on in that way.
Yes, there are 500,000 Stormfront subscribers, spread across the country, whom I’m sure are all Repubs. They are rancid, but are decidedly not in any political mainstream.
Racism does not get the Republican Base up in the morning. Nor does it get them to the voting boots in massive numbers. Yes the southern strategy is real, and it does help Republicans control the south. But no Democrat is going to take the south. Not Obama, and certainly not HRC.
Since a wide section of the Republican Party finds racism repugnant, this racist pandering must remain subtle “States Rights” or defense of the confederate flag style pandering. It is impossible for the Republican Party to outwardly or openly use Race against Obama. I’m confident that folks that would never elect a black man President, would not elect Hillary either.
You will NOT find Racists tombs littering your local Borders book shop. You will NOT find Fox News or the mainstream press, filled with conservatives, espousing the virtues of racism, nor stoking fear that a Negro might take the White House. Even our favorite Neanderthal Rush, is extremely guarded in how he stokes the fires of Racism. Racism just isn’t fashionable these days, and certainly not in the Republican Mainstream.
But you WILL find a pack of ruthless pundits giggling, as they pump Hillary fear into the masses. Your local bookstore WILL have 30 hard cover books with smiling conservatives on their covers, 20% off stickers and titles like “How HRC and the Left Destroyed America with Liberal Fascism.” You will see right wing and mainstream media figures casting Hillary as a ruthless, characterless, bitch who’s hell bent on destroying America. (As near as I can tell, they see her as some sort of terminator cyborg in pantsuit.)
Like it or not, HRC is a walking talking wedge issue, as powerful as Abortion, Gay Marriage or the Liberal Judiciary. And Hillary DOES get Repubs out of bed in the morning. Hillary Sucks book do make hundreds of millions of dollars for right wing blowhards. Hillary hatred will pack butts in voting booths.
At the moment, the GOP is cracking apart. There is no front runner. Repubs are at each others throats. The coalition is finally getting torn apart at the seams. And, I personally think Hillary is THE only issue in our entire political landscape that could potentially, unite the GOP in the upcoming election.
Now, as I said in my original post, I like Hillary a lot. I think she is a capable, even brilliant politico. We would do very well if she makes it into the White House, and she would be an extremely able leader of the free world. And I don’t mean she’d be better than Bush. I think she would be a very capable President.
I think, if she wins the Dem Nominee, Hillary can still beat most of the republicans on the field. But she is very polarizing figure. And it will be another 51% ratfuck election cycle. It will be the ugliest campaign in living memory. And we would go back to the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty.
Personally, I would RATHER not have that fight. I would rather field Obama. If Hillary is the Presidential Nominee, I will fight like hell for her.
I simply think there is an easier, way to win the presidency. And America would probably be better off, not having that particular shit fight.
PS: If only I had a nickel for every casual racist that blew off offensive race bating remarks, saying crap like, “My best friend is black.” Get back to me when your brother is black…
December 25, 2007 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have any facts to support this assertion? Afterall, all of the GOP candidates boycotted Tavis Smiley. It is pretty clear that the GOP as a party feels no need to represent the interest of Americans of color when it comes to a domestic agenda.
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
December 25, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
White,
And don't forget the Republican's "caging" operation which targeted mostly black voters. There was a "caging" operation being run out of the Bush administration's Justice Dept., Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin to name just two.
December 26, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone seriously support Joe Biden after Biden helped usher in the very bankruptcy reform that's hurting people right now?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 23, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, the real me is also very much nicer, I swear.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 23, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too! I'm actually a really nice person! I have been cooking all day for Christmas treats! Salmon Mousse! I have the best recipe!!!!
Jan
December 23, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that characterizing Obama as a "dummy" (comparable to W) completely destroys the personal voucher credibility your defense of HRC personally might have. I think that there is something to be said from views of people who have observed someone (not in just a meeting or two) close hand but without any commitment seen or unseen to loyalty. But then, in the same column, what another commentor aptly termed 'ham handed' attacks on Obama simply undermine this credibility.
Should the CW prevail and HRC get the nomination (after all, Obama and ANYONE else surging at this point faces an almost insurmountable 'firewall' on Feb 5 -- something that should be discussed more in places like TPM Cafe, as the outcome of the primaries could be structurally pre-determined) I will in all probability be referring to observations such as yours myself (those without credibility-dashing references to Obama) in the general.
Point of Info: My internet doesn't work so well with videos, so I haven't seen the particular video that was linked to). But I've seen enough thoughtful performances by Obama in the debates to see that this former managing editor of Harvard Law Review is surely no dummy.
December 23, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really. Well watch the video and then tell me how "brilliant" this guy is. Reminds me of George Bush struggling to name foreign leaders back in 2000.
December 23, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't remind you of Jimmy Carter? He has many of Carter's supporters either adivising or ohterwise supporting him. More to the point like Carter he is a very smart and arrogant neophyte. Carter carried his own clothes and talked about a government as good as its people. He then accomplished very little because he never seems to know why he wanted to be president only that he wanted to be president. Obama strikes me that way. He thinks people should agree with him because he is so smart but not what he actually wants to move the nation and the goverment.
Carter gave us Reagan I am afraid of the long term consequences of an Obama president. Even if I would happily vote for him over any Republican.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 24, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Johnson thinks Obama is a dummy.
Lawrence Tribe describes Obama as "brilliant", "the best student I ever had" and "the most exciting research assistant."
Who is right?
Of course Larry worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, so that must make him really, really, really intelligent. And maybe he has a CIA decoder ring and brain scanner that reveals Obama is only a dumbo affirmative action baby and Tribe is just lying.
Larry's judgment is based on a TouTube clip in which Obama, a former constitutional lawyer and law professor, fumbles an answer and avoids going into a no-doubt involved explanation of why he once felt some well-intentioned bill was constitutionally defective. On this basis, he conlcludes Obama is a "dummy". Why is Larry in bed with Karl Rove?
What's interesting is that Larry's dislike of Obama doesn't seem to come from anywhere definite. It's not just like he has provided us with a foundation of substantive policy agreements or a string of alleged personal failures by Obama. Somehow Larry has picked up a profound, belittling contempt for Obama, and yet his writings reveal very little about what this contempt could possibly be based on. His columns here reveal an angry, temperamental man with a tendency toward vendettas, and a black and white likes and dislikes. So maybe it just comes from his gut.
So far, it looks like the Larry Johnson War on Enemies moves in a tight, emotional circle that goes something like this:
I am CIA
Valerie is CIA
Novak attacks Valerie
>I defend Valerie
>I attack Novak
Novak attacks Hillary
>Hillary = Valerie
>I defend Hillary
Obama attacks Hillary
>Obama = Novak
>I attack Obama
I am smart
>Novak is dumb
>Obama is dumb
It looks like Larry is a very chivalrous guy, and hates to see the little ladies attacked. He was also totally impressed that Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, whose job it is to study and provide Congressional oversight to the armed services, actually new something about military terms and soldiers and stuff. pretty good. I hear she also doesn't throw like a girl.
Hillary Clinton is certainly very intelligent. Unfortunately, her fundamental commitments and values, based on the actual foreign policy positions she has taken, do not match mine. I also don't trust her and her motivations, and don't trust a lot of her top friends and top advisors.
December 23, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain the video to me. I've spent 7 years watching a moronic performance by Bush. Obama gives the same vibe. Please explain.
December 23, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't know. Please explain how a guy who has worked in the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department, earning plaudits for work in both operations and analysis, occasionally pens spiteful, injudicious, adolescent rants full of vindictive bile and barroom beligerance. It happens. Sometimes people have a bad day.
These politicians spend long hours on the road, answering dozens of questions like this every day. They do the same thing in the unending series of pointless debates to which the electorate has been subjected. Usually, in 99 out of 100 cases, they produce a solid well-rehearsed answer. Every so often, they flub one.
Maybe Obama couldn't remember exactly why he decided to vote "present" one day back in the Illinois state legislature. Or maybe he remembered what his constitutional objections were, and was considering explaining them, and then thought better about that and decided to change the subject. Or maybe he knows Republicans have been loading up to play off classic white fears and stereotypes about black men and dangerous sexuality, and he's trying to avoid making comments that come too close to that area, so he doesn't inadvertently manufacture a clip for the upcoming GOP "save our Christian white women from this Muslim buck" commercials. Anyway, you're going to have to do a lot more digging than this to substantiate your "dummy" claim.
Anyway, I'm calling bullshit on you. You have been running straight feeds from the Clinton campaign, paralleling your good friend Joe Wilson, and yet you want us to believe that you're just an undecided in all this? You've been running with stuff that is clearly coming from the campaign, in one case using your space to pass on a cheesy broadsheet from a friend, written in robotic campaign-speak with nary a trace of independent thought. Why is it you suddenly "discover" these issues at the same time they hit the street from all of the other Clinton mouthpieces?
The games you have been playing are really beneath you, and an insult to the intelligence of your readers, and yet they're so easy to play: How come in seven years in the Senate, the only trip Hillary Clinton has made to Southeast Asia was on an overnight constituent services trip to Singapore as part of Mayor Bloomberg's delegation to present a pitch for NYC to host the 2012 Olympics? Doesn't she realize how important the role of Southeast Asia is in 2008? Or does she just not like those yellow devils? Or how come the only African country she has visited is South Africa? Does she only like African countries with lots of white people? Why is it she only seems interested in visiting Europe and the Middle East? Is she actually wrapped up, to the exclusion of other international problems, in the right's perceived civilizational struggle of white, Western "Judeo-Christendom" against the heathen Saracens? And is that what this European subcommittee and European travel fuss is about: a way of insinuating to white America that Obama doesn't like white people enough, and is too partial to Africans?
By the way, I don't believe a word of my insinuations in the previous paragraph. But you see how easy it is to play these idiot games? Maybe you learned in the CIA to consider the rest of us mere mortals too stupid to see through these information games. But your scamming is showing.
December 23, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 25, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is obviously very smart. So was Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. They were terrible presidents. It is blend of knowing where you want to lead the country and the world combined witht the political skills both to persuade and to compromise that are the key to good and great presidents.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 24, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found a glint of sincerity in this piece.
If, in the age of television, only the telegenic can compete, in the age of the internet, only the sincere can compete. This, I think, explains Dean, myspace and especially TPM. The authoritarian eye of television gives way to the democratic voice of the internet.
National polls reflecting the will of the people seem scripted and pointed as if respectably dressed push polls. They are used, like well-funded RW websites, to inject viral memes into the body politic. Establishment themes masquerade as "common wisdom", serving as debate chaff.
Much of the debate surrounding the Democratic candidates seem a variation of one or another of these establishment themes; e.g., inexperience v. expertise; pro-war v. anti-war; secular v. religious; political v. authentic, electable v. unelectable etc. Many of us label ourselves as this or that dialectic -- symbolized by our chosen candidate -- without discussing our common problem: an authoritarian regime that has no intention of relinquishing power.
Not a single Democratic candidate addresses this primary issue. (Kucinich excepted, another story.) But as the age of the internet replaces the age of television, as we're seeing, stooges like Gonzales or Bush become political liabilities.
Until Democratic candidates explicitly oppose the criminal behavior of the Bush regime we'll not have a viable political alternative. If Hillary cannot call them criminals, she has no credibility for me, no matter how intelligent and well-read she might be. Same for the rest of them.
If they lack the gumption to call a crook a crook , they are unfit.
MW
December 23, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter being interviewed on CNN today. After comments about the Bush gang Mondale made a comment on how honest the Carter administration was, he was then asked:
'Are you calling this Bush administration dishonest?'
Mondale didn't answer for a few seconds,in the end he wouldn't say 'Yes'.
His answer was more of the Democrat's spinelessness in reacting to the Bush gang as he hemmed and hawed and gave a roundabout, polite criticism. Now why could he not have answered with a simple "Yes", its not a frikkin secret that the Bush gang is dishonest?
December 23, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a problem with credibility that should be addressed.
The piece “Obama Talks the Talk, But Where’s the Walk?” was a compilation of negative research developed by Clinton’s campaign. The writer’s status as unaffiliated with the Clinton campaign was misrepresented. Not to mention, it was a dishonest character smear.
December 23, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is that the priorities of the public in the general election are different than those of the Dems in the primaries (voting on electability). I think that if Dems really believed that the Repubs have no chance (and I think only Romney and McCain have very slim prospects), they’d be freer to demand certain planks from their candidates.
Hillary is now assuming Bill’s legacy (from WaPo). Claiming Bill’s experience as her own, I can see where the lesbian rumors would arise (please-it's just a joke). I don’t see any attack points from Republicans on this, as don’t ask-don’t tell and healthcare are already out there. And, of course, this is where many claimed the Gore campaign failed. It seems to me that she can claim to embrace those policies and positions but not the accomplishments or the experience. According to the report:
I think this is the one area where progressives have a negative view of the Clinton years, much less the post-9/11 Bush years. My lowly and very humble opinion, we don’t need another war president or any more of this “marshal law” from whoever we elect.
December 23, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton plans to make the case on national security grounds, citing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as evidence that unexpected crises can arise"
And I guess we'll respond to those crises by a full-scale military invasion of a country that had nothing to do with those crises. Good to know, Hillary. As if we needed more reasons not to vote for her.
December 24, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
On ABC's "Good Morning America," Clinton was asked if she agreed with her husband's comments.
Hillary: "Well, I'm very proud to have Bill's help in this campaign. He is working hard; he's providing a lot of energy as he goes around the country on my behalf. But this campaign is about me and my ideas" and as we all know Bill's ideas and mine don't always correspond, like when he suggested he wanted to assume the role as an illegal immigrant to understand their plight versus my idea of him assuming the role of a terrorist so he could experience waterboarding. (please-it's just a joke)
December 25, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, WRB, you’re going to pull a one-line joke (admittedly, a bad one) out of everything I said and try to make some PC infraction out of it? It’s déjà vu from the last thread. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, let me know, but I won’t be baited anymore.
PS On second thought, now that I see you going back to downrate my comments on a past thread you weren't even involved in (where I was defending Muslims), please do not respond at all.
December 25, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I thought it was funny and was joining in on the humor. Guess mine was a bad one too cause you didn't get it. Sorry, if you took it as criticism, it wasn't.
January 7, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuredly this is not a dummy talking in the Obama video, it is someone backpedalling away from an awkward political issue. I assume anybody that has come out of Illinois statehouse politics will have a bit of lingering odor. He might have just plain not noticed that bill, might have been keeping some distance away from the sausage-making, and trying to stay above the typical Springfield action of payoffs and party girls.
So the stammering is merely an unprepared politician. Hillary has not been nailed down in that fashion yet, and may be savvy enough to never face a question for which she lacks an easy answer.
But if Mr. Johnson, whom I admire and to whom I am grateful for his efforts to date, thinks there is any similarity here he is dreaming or disingenuous. If this is the worst of Obama I'm not worried. No one who is 1) not a Republican and 2) not W, can't be as bad. Let's see some of that Reagan party loyalty and not speak ill of our future allies.
Personally I like Edward's policies, but I won't lose sleep over Obama or Clinton. Get real, it's not Kool-Aid drinking GOP zombies.
December 23, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting thread. It brings together a number of contradictory feelings that I have experienced over the past six years. Let me explain.
When I read Michael Scheur's Hubris it was a real revelation that members of the CIA could share with rational progressive people that there was something seriously wrong with much of US foreign policy. Then came the Plame affair and Joe Wilson and again I found it strange to find myself supporting CIA operations. In any case it now seemed almost natural that I would read with interest and a feeling of common purpose the views of another CIA agent Johnson. Previously I had thought of the CIA in almost completely negative terms. The reasons are obvious -- Mosagegh in Iran in 1954, Arbenz in Guatamala, Allende in Chile, encouraging the Hungarians in 1956 and betraying them, death squads in Central America in the 1980's to just name a few things that come to mind.
This is a good reminder that things have not changed. Hillary does represent those aggressive and militaristic urges within the Democratic Party that has led us to wars in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq and almost Iran and we shouldn't be surprised that she is being backed by the more 'enlightened' factions of the CIA. Nor should we surprised about the devious nature of that support as well.
I will remain a democrat but recognize that the political struggle against against war mongering will have to be conducted here as well.
December 23, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Larry, explain to me: If Hillary is so damn smart, why does she come down on the wrong side of every foreign polcy issue? Because thinking that an all stick, no carrot approach to foreign affairs seems dumb to me. Bush-level dumb, if you will.
Oh, that's right. she can't be as dumb as Bush. She's read a book.
December 24, 2007 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't limit that comment to foreign policy.
December 27, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would, for the record, be thrilled if Clinton were our next president, just as I would be thrilled with any of the other democratic candidates.
But, if Clinton is so smart and exercises such good judgment why have her surrogates, Shaheen, Kerrey, Wiener, that pig Mark Penn, and President Clinton, engaged in Rovian type whispering campaigns about Obama, each of which have backfired on the Clinton campaign?
Senator Clinton is either a bad manager of her campaign, allowing her surrogates to offer such gaffes; or she is so rawly politically ambitious that she will engage in just the type of slimy politics to which she has been subjected. I think it is the latter.
With all due respect, Mr. Johnson, I find this statement amazing "Sadly, much of my initial opinion about Senator Clinton was based on the filth I had heard about her lack of character and private behavior."
I really see no reason to take to heart the advice of someone who admittedly believed the crap proffered by the billion dollar anti-Clinton industry.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
December 24, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a bit like having trouble selecting your favorite religious leader from among bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Jesus Christ.
Your choice is your own, Larry, and your own responsibility. I have no criticism of that but this mixed bag of favorites is a wonder to me.
Best, Terry
December 25, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of comments here indicate a belief that some favorite candidate could win the nomination and start in to set things right in this country. Nobody that actually might win the nomination (the "top tier" candidates) really fills this bill.
Top tier politicos are always running. Take off the mask? Ha! They are the mask! The best we can hope for is a president who can steer us away from where we are headed, which is the abyss. If we get that person plus a heavy majority in congress, activists at the grass roots might be in a position to force some change.
Looking for a savior? Think it over.
Kevin Russell Cook
December 26, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm puzzled by your view and Marsh's view of Obama's answer to the question about the sexual victims law as "Bush-esque" and "moron" territory.
If you don't understand his answer, which it seems to me he delivers with calm poise, then it's not Obama's who's the moron.
He makes it quite clear that he supports the goal of the law but thought it was badly written and wouldn't fly in court. So rather than vote for a bad law with a good goal, he voted present to indicate that he didn't oppose the goal just the law -- perfectly legitimate.
The fact that you and the people at Marsh's blog seem unable to understand this distinction is disturbing. And that you think his response plays poorly suggests you don't have a clue how things play with ordinary -- non-partisan --citizens.
It also explains why you can't see just how much integrity Obama has. Here's a bill that was enormously popular and that potentially gave enemies a way to hang the worst kind of rap on him. My bet is everyone else voted for it despite constitutional objections precisely for that reason, but Obama wouldn't back what he considered a bad bill just for political gain.
The strength to push back against opposition comes from that kind of integrity, and I don't see that in anyone else. This video strengthens my support for Obama.
December 26, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
seems to me you're giving way too much credit to obama here. he only implied - with uneasy stumbling - that a present vote could have meant that he might have had an issue with how the bill was written. but he did NOT clearly state that he did in fact have an issue with how that particular bill was written let alone share what that problem with that particular bill actually was if that was the case.
it is certainly possible that he did indeed have a problem with how the bill was written but that clip doesn't explain anything. or come across at all how you describe it. (of course, it doesn't come across how marsh and johnson describe it either...)
( and for the record: i don't think obama's dumb, i just think he's out of his weight class politically and could stand to pack on a few pounds in that respect. i also think there are a lot of obama supporters who imagine him to be a lot more liberal than he actually is and i haven't quite figured out exactly why that is. [/ot] )
full disclosure: edwards and dodd are the only candidates i would even consider voting for in the primary.
December 27, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think everyone who thinks he's "out of his weight class" is grossly underestimating the man. This is after all a guy who was president of Harvard Law Review and who worked for years in the trenches as a community organizer and advocate against established interests.
And I saw no stumbling in his answer at all. I really don't know where you get that.
As far as him only implying that the reason for his present vote was probably such and such, rather than saying it explicitly, so what? He's being asked about one out of hundreds, maybe thousands of votes over his 12 years in the state senate. He's supposed to remember on the spot exactly what went down with that!! I think he's hedging just in case his memory is faulty. That's all I see going on.
And yes, you can say that's me just assuming the best, but then the critics are just assuming the worst. So we're all assuming here.
As for your confusion as to why people think Obama is a liberal, it's because of his voting record. Just google Obama voting record and you'll find out that in 2006, he was rated as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate, ahead of Edwards. You'll also find numerous conservative sites talking about how he only appears conservative in his rhetoric -- apparently even to many Democrats -- but is in fact very liberal.
December 27, 2007 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
umm... don't see how those experiences puts him in the weight class politcally to lead a campaign for president. in fact those experiences seem kinda laughably inadequate. if i were you i would've listed his actual political victories, like maybe getting elected to the US senate.
'well, err, eee, uh, uh, ah, see...' x2
and yet, that is NOT what you said:
yeah, 'cause that's what i said. oh wait, i said: 'i also think there are a lot of obama supporters who imagine him to be a lot more liberal than he actually is...'
i don't know what google you use, but john edwards was not in the senate in 2006.
December 30, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Hillary wasn't all the bad things people say about her, there is one compelling reason for her to not get the Democratic nomination: of all the Dem candidates she polls as the most likely to lose to the Republican choice, no matter who that is. While I'm not happy about the conduct of the Democratic party over the last few decades, we simply may not survive another Republican president as a free nation.
December 28, 2007 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink