- McCain Questions Obama's Decision to Cancel Troop Visit
- Hello Dalai! McCain Meets With the Dalai Lama
- VEEPBEAT: Caroline’s Coming to Town
- CNN Interviews Faux College Republican?
- McCain Accuses Obama of Pandering on Iraq
- Bloomberg Told to Cool Pro-McCain Rhetoric
- The Note: Barack Bids Adieu to Europe
- The John McCain Workout
- Bloomberg Bullish on McCain
- McCain at the Sausage Haus
- The Note: Obama’s Berlin Balancing Act
- More U.S. Troops in Afghanistan?
- Columnist Novak Cited for Hitting Pedestrian
- Obama: Daughters 'Won't Be Heartbroken' Over November Loss
- Bush Signs "Russert Highway" Into Law
« Pentagon Admits Mistaken Missile Shipment | Main | Nancy Reagan Endorses McCain »
Clinton Laughs Off McCarthy Reference During Warm Welcome in Kentucky
March 25, 2008 12:37 PM
ABC News' Sarah Amos Reports: Former President Bill Clinton tested out the waters in Kentucky this morning, campaigning for his wife in Frankfort, KY.
The crowd of 2500 was extremely energized to hear Clinton speak, with a line having formed nearly three hours before the former president was scheduled to speak.
While talking about his wife's energy plan, Clinton briefly made a reference to this past weekend's controversy over comments he made to veterans in North Carolina which led an Obama surrogate to compare Clinton to Joe McCarthy.
"This is really what this election oughta be about, these kind of things, not a lot of this ya-ya-ing I hear about all the time," Clinton told the crowd while talking about energy.
The extremely large applause from the crowd led Clinton to add - "You know, let me just tell you something. One of Clinton's laws of politics - the level of sanctimony in the rhetoric is inversely related to the public benefit of the policy. But let's talk," Clinton continued, interrupting his own train of thought for a quick chuckle.
"I need to quit this. Somebody will probably figure out how to call, accuse me of being Joe McCarthy again on that," joked Clinton before continuing on with more examples of how to make America more energy efficient.
Watch the VIDEO HERE.
The former president's opening acts included former Governor Julian Carroll, who talked to the crowd about why he was endorsing Senator Hillary Clinton. "I've known the Clintons since 19 and 74," Carroll told the crowd, fondly sharing stories about their friendship over the years. The former governor was so enthused during his introduction that he couldn't help but kick up his heels at one point with excitement.
Not too shabby a welcome for Clinton's first visit to the Bluegrass State.
March 25, 2008 in Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (58)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27441096
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Laughs Off McCarthy Reference During Warm Welcome in Kentucky:
Lucky for him it was not Sinbad who was the one throwing out the line.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 25, 2008 12:39:17 PM
General McPeak makes sexist remarks about Senator Clinton and it goes unchecked. Obama is not man enough to stand behind his promise to reject any of his people participating in that type of bigotry. Do we really want a President like that? (We already have one that we dont like.)
General McPeak then makes an absurd comparison of Bill Clinton to McCarthy and it goes unchecked. In fact, Obama couldnt even criticize Bill Clinton himself... Obama called McPeak onto the stage who read the accusations from a piece of paper. Obama looks pretty wimpy. LOL It is no wonder Bill Clinton laughs McPeak off. Do we really want a President who appears wimpy to our enemies?
Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 25, 2008 12:49:39 PM
Obama wishes he was Bill Clinton, a two term President of the USA. Stop the attacks and get to the issues.
Posted by: Kardasia_Prime | Mar 25, 2008 12:59:46 PM
Is the Hillary Campaign in a State of Denial? Or have they reached stage 2, Anger. Carville is here.
The Brilliant NYT Editorial Writer Sir David Brooks posits in his most recent editorial, that Hillary's shot at the Nomination is now down to 5%.
He is being honest of course, but the point is the same nonetheless. Hillary is done. She can do the honorable thing or try to drag Mr. O and her party down to her level.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 25, 2008 1:00:03 PM
So the attack dog in chief swipes at people who haven't even attacked him yet. Can you say PARANOID!!! I'm worried about Bill. I think he needs some medication, with all these mood swings in all. Thank GOD he can't be commander in cheif now, oh wait, Hilliary's is gonna count on him for advice. We're screwed. Between him and "Madman McCain" I think the next war is inevitable. After all Hilliary's gotta look tough, and be one of the boys. Don't hold your breath folks, the troops will be in Iraq and IRAN for the next 100 years. Don't play dumb, you let it happen. Not once, not twice but soon to be three times. The fault lies with yourselves. Face the music.
Posted by: cba | Mar 25, 2008 1:00:35 PM
I had to go way back in time to figure out the "sexist remarks" you were referencing, DC Voter!
After all, so many millions of words a day, just from Hillary Clinton!!!
What are a few tears at 3am from a Commander-In-Chief, eh?
Yes, let's get to the issues and beyond Bill's lame attempt to recover from last week's blunders!!!
Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 | Mar 25, 2008 1:03:30 PM
DCVoter the question is
"do we want a candidate that once again takes down the party just like the 90's?"
and you all are helping her in your blind faith for a couple that is not worthy of your loyalty.
Posted by: dl | Mar 25, 2008 1:10:29 PM
Every decision Sen Clinton has made has been tactical for her candidacy...show me one that has been otherwise.
The Clintons first...
the Party third
the country maybe second...
Posted by: dl | Mar 25, 2008 1:12:30 PM
I have no idea why you guys think Obama is even remotely close to being who he claims he is.
Every single major analyst now says Obama is the easier opponent for John Mc Cain.
Posted by: tomdavie | Mar 25, 2008 1:21:17 PM
McPace’s comments were reprehensible and yet another sign of desperation in Obama’s campaign.
They are desperate to change the subject away from their “Pastor Disaster” and the fact that Obama did not have the will or the guts to stand up to the outrageous remarks of Reverend Wright.
Yes, he’s some change agent – he thinks he can change the ways of Washington but he couldn’t change the mind or the rhetoric of his own crazy Reverend Wright.
Then the fact that he lied about it – said he had never heard the remarks. Yet he disinvited Wright to his presidential announcement knowing full well of his controversial remarks.
The GOP is foaming at the mouth in anticipation of running against Obama in the general election – how many times do you think you’ll see Reverend Wright’s outrageous and hate filled statements played over and over again in campaign commercials? Or how about his designation as the “Most Liberal” senator? How many commercials will we see about that?
As for Bill Clinton – thanks for the 22 million jobs created during your administration, the best economy in my lifetime, the respect we had around the world, the budget surplus and the greatest First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt.
Posted by: ch | Mar 25, 2008 1:28:33 PM
So now lying to the American people is a "minor blip"??? Like the "minor blip" of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?
Come on people stop trying to ignore this....
Posted by: Lawrence | Mar 25, 2008 1:30:29 PM
I am entitled to the presidency. So say Hillary and Bill..
Posted by: james | Mar 25, 2008 1:31:30 PM
In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular vote by 4%.
In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won 5% in popluar vote.
Now, will you guys change the general election to caucus? Yes, you can?
What does the number tell us? If we transfer all the caucuses to primaries based the data from TX and WA, Obama would be defeated by Clinton in popular votes with a large margin.
Conclusion? Obama has zero chance winning general election. Senator Obama, please bow off right now before you hurt the democratic party too much.
Posted by: No More Caucus | Mar 25, 2008 1:33:19 PM
I think we will soon see how the very pointed media bias for Obama plays out in the long run. The worshipful and pandering talking heads are telling us that Wright is a saint and Obama has good judgement.
We are also learning from them that it's OK to lie repeatedly about Rezco and Wright, but it's a crime to exaggerate a trip to Bosnia.....
The thing about the Clinton's is that they have dedicated their lives to getting things done for Americans....The thing about Obama is he may not be Bobby Kennedy after all...and if he is perhaps he is the Bobby Kennedy that sat at McCarthy's side without ever getting tainted with the "Blacklist" era.
It's all relative...Take Obama's advice and turn off the TV! Don't you wish he had taken his own advice and not exposed his children to such blatant extremism and sepratism....Oh yeah he wrote a speech that demands America have a conversation instead.
Posted by: Jackie | Mar 25, 2008 1:39:30 PM
I agree with DCVoter. Obama appears more and more weak and ineffective. How are world leaders going to perceive the man? Does he have the stamina for an election campaign? I cannot see the man energized and ready on Day 1. He's wimping out at this early stage. Word is his wife MADE him take last weekend off. I certainly hope her neediness never clashes with world issues and responsibilities. And now Oprah is jumping back into the fray. She most likely sees him tattered around the edges as do we. He is not as robust mentally or physically as McCain, man years his senior. Hillary can run circles around him as well.
Posted by: Bill Elliott | Mar 25, 2008 1:40:29 PM
Clinton lied. Big deal. They have been doing this for years. The Clinton brand is based on lies and more lies, they live off low information voters...
Posted by: ao | Mar 25, 2008 1:44:52 PM
Way More Caucuses
The reason Obama only won the WA primary by 5% is that his loyal footsoldiers stayed home on primary day. All the foot soldiers showed up, it would have been another WI, VA, GA, LA style beatdown.
The O people knew it was the caucus vote that counted...so they acted accordingly.
Ms Ready On Day One instructed her people to turn out for the primary, I heard anyway. Not a good move.
As far as the TX vote goes, dcv, all the Dittoheads who turned out in droves for Hillary during the day at the instruction of Bill42 and El Rushbo, did not stick around to vote in the caucus. Too much work for someone they were not going to support in November.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 25, 2008 1:47:28 PM
Lies and insinuations.
If the Clintons (ostensibly only Hillary is the candidate) are qualified for the Presidency, then, for heaven's sakes SHOW it by proper policy speeches, signs of good leadership and signs of proper social conduct.
What is coming out is a bad combo of McCarthy and Nixon - our brightest and best!
Posted by: Sara | Mar 25, 2008 1:50:03 PM
Have you noticed that the Obama people always apologize when something derogatory is said, and the Clinton people do not? I think that says a lot about the candidates. Hillary proves over and over that she has no scruples or integrity and neither do the people around her.
Posted by: JoAnne | Mar 25, 2008 1:53:12 PM
The Commander Guy: Your explanation is really a twist, simply as the way Obama explained why he voted against a bill that puts an interest cap.
Posted by: No More Caucus | Mar 25, 2008 1:55:19 PM
The Commander Guy: Let's change general election to caucus system. Yes, we can.
Or you can ask Obama give a nice speech to all law makers, voters, and judges, then we can achieve this goal.
Posted by: No More Caucus | Mar 25, 2008 1:57:34 PM
The NAACP is not allowed to endorse a candidate but does issue a legislative report card. Let's look at just how the dem candidates did on civil rights since they both claim to be pro-civil rights:
Senate - 15 pieces of legislation
Both voted the same on 9 votes with NAACP approval. Both missed a few votes on debate day so those were a wash.
Three votes were definitive:
Vote # 272 Making College Affordable Act, which increases Pell Grants and adds a category for the poorest of Americans to afford college, something I have heard both candidates speak a great deal of lately. The NAACP strongly supported this Act. Clinton voted "yes" and Obama did not vote.
Vote # 257 An amendment to the education bill that would have removed student loan forgiveness for certain public sector workers such as Americorps/Peacecorps and teachers in inner city schools. The NAACP strongly opposed this amendment. Clinton voted "No" and Obama did not vote.
Vote # 184 Requiring a government-issued photo ID for anyone attempting to vote in an election. This was an amendment to the immigration reform bill. The NAACP strongly opposed this amendment. Clinton voted "No" and Obama did not vote.
Both talk about these issues, but only Clinton cared enough to do her job. Obama chose not to vote on controversial issues much like his record of "not present" votes in IL state senate. Too bad so many people who see benefit in these issues are voting based on race instead of on record.
Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 25, 2008 2:07:09 PM
What happened to the change message that all you Obamites were chanting for months I guess reality sets in eventually even the blindest of people see the light.
Ralph Nader,the only change candidate.
Posted by: Rico | Mar 25, 2008 2:08:58 PM
Way More Caucuses
Hillary has 5% chance at the nomination. Facts can be stubborn.
Time for her to do the right thing and throw in the towel. Yes SHE Can.
And BTW...rules for political party nominations are determined by the political parties. You may not like the rules. Fine. But you gotta play by the rules.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 25, 2008 2:21:09 PM
The Commander Guy: That is nonsense. Neither candidate can close the nomination with the required 2025!
So, a vote for Obama is a vote for Rev. Right!
If you want a BLACK guy in the White House, find someone who is honnest with integrity and does not have an association with the racist Rev. Wright!
Posted by: Steve_Iraq_vet | Mar 25, 2008 2:28:22 PM
You people are just trying to talk yourself into supporting the losing candidate and can't admit that Hillary has the super delegates. She will win and you'll all riot. America is for Hillary and Hillary is for America. She will do what it takes to get what she deserves and she won't let someone like you or BO get in her way. She loves this country too much to let someone like BO destroy it.
Posted by: Jenner | Mar 25, 2008 2:29:16 PM
I can't wait for the moment in the general election that Republicans take Obama's comments on how words matter and inter-space them with Wright's comments.
HA! I can almost hear Kennedy and Kerry crying now.
Come on Democrats, wake up!
HILLARY INDEPENDENT 08
Your party betrayed you, but your supporters won't!
Posted by: Ben | Mar 25, 2008 2:43:32 PM
Hillary has 5% chance at the nomination.....as stated in the NYTimes
Time for Hillary to show some class and bow out.
Time for the flailing five percent to admit they are in a State of Denial.
Posted by: The Commander Guy | Mar 25, 2008 2:44:50 PM
Rush Limbaugh's campaign to have Republican reregister as Democrats to vote in the Democratic primaries in order to cause mayhem has sunk in. More than a dozen readers commented on what could happen if John McCain wins the election and Arizona governor Janet Napolitano (D) has to appoint a successor, which according to (probably unconstitutional) state law must be a Republican. Everyone suggested that she could follow the Limbaugh spirit and pick a Democrat (possibly herself) and have that person reregister as a Republican to be appointed to the Senate. After being seated, the person could then switch to being an independent, as Jim Jeffords did. That is probably 100% legal, albeit not quite what the framers of the Arizona law had in mind. Still, politicians do change parties after election. In fact, if the Democrats end up with 57 or 58 seats in the Senate, Harry Reid will no doubt try to entice a couple of moderate Republicans, like Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) to jump ship.
That said, while probably legal, this would be a dumb thing to do. The new senator would have to stand in a special election in 2010 and the cries of hypocrisy would reach the moon. A better approach would be for Gov. Napolitano to state that the law is unconstitutional, appoint whoever she wants, let that person be sworn in, and defy the Supreme Court to get it reversed.
Posted by: Pete | Mar 25, 2008 2:45:00 PM
cba, where have you been? When someone calls you McCarthy, should you answer? I thought Bill Clinton showed his great sense of humor and his great mind as well. We need his kind of intelligence leading this country again, and Hillary certainly has it.
If Obama calls McPeak on stage to compare Bill Clinton to McCarthy, should Obama admonish him, and why? It works both ways. We should, however, be talking more of energy and economy solutions. We love to do our own spinning, don't we?
Posted by: georgia | Mar 25, 2008 2:46:24 PM
Everytime the truth is told about Obama, he an his worshipers goes nuts, and call it so9mething entirely diiferent from what it is. It just kills them to know the truth. Obama constantly plays the race card, and then says the Clintons do. Why won't he grow up, and take responsibilty for his actions?
Posted by: John | Mar 25, 2008 2:49:30 PM
I hope Clinton takes your 5 percent chance and shows Obama what she can do with it!
Run as an independent!
HILLARY INDEPENDENT 08
Your party betrayed you, but your supporters won't!
Posted by: Ben | Mar 25, 2008 2:49:48 PM
Let me think about this.....do we have caucuses in the general election to elect the President? No? Then how does Obama hope to win against McCain? He has all these people saying "yes, we can", but, how? With his lack of experience, his Rezko background, and his hopeful and uniting pastor? The Party is really in trouble.
Posted by: georgia | Mar 25, 2008 2:52:01 PM
Gee, we’re seeing a lot of Bill lately. Who exactly is running for president here? If elected who would be running things? Can you imagine Hillary in tough negotiations with other world leaders and them saying, “What does your husband have to say about this”?
Posted by: Don | Mar 25, 2008 3:05:00 PM
Yeah yeah, Hillary might ask Bill for a bit of advice now and then.
Obama, on the other hand, will be asking Wright for advice!
Sounds like a clear choice to me!
Posted by: Ben | Mar 25, 2008 3:07:47 PM
Yeah, Hillary will be asking Bill for advice...between ducking sniper fire.
Posted by: Don | Mar 25, 2008 3:15:31 PM
The super delegates will go with whoever has the popular vote and most delegates.
Posted by: ll | Mar 25, 2008 3:17:15 PM
Ben why do you feel the party as betrayed Hillary. Are you saying she is entilted to this
Posted by: ll | Mar 25, 2008 3:19:52 PM
I wanna know how and why Mrs. Obama's salary tripled after Obama became a US Senator!
Posted by: Ben | Mar 25, 2008 3:20:38 PM
She is betrayed when a party that has always stood for justice and fairness wants to eliminate FL and MI!
She is betrayed when a party that has always stood for justice and fairness has a caucus that undoes the results of a primary!
She is betrayed when a party that has always stood for justice and fairness supports a RACIST for President!
I could go on, but why?
It's not just her that is betrayed. All Democrats have been.
HILLARY INDEPENDENT 08
Your party betrayed you, but your supporters won't!
Posted by: Ben | Mar 25, 2008 3:24:35 PM
Hillary as an Independent -- and she can still get Joe Lieberman as her running mate (before McBush scoops him up!).
The Audacity of Hopelessness!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 | Mar 25, 2008 3:25:27 PM
BLAM, both barrels from Hillary:
"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."
BTW about Iraq, in an interview with the Oregonian in 2003 Gen McPeak said, "We’ll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right."
Posted by: carl | Mar 25, 2008 3:30:03 PM
She is betrayed when a party that has always stood for justice and fairness wants to eliminate FL and MI! .........................
Ben this not betraying Hillary it's about punishing those states, not that I agree but it has nothing to do with her. And caucus' are not new so why is that betraying her.
Posted by: ll | Mar 25, 2008 3:41:09 PM
Ronald reagan would be disgusted with today's republican party.
Posted by: Louis | Mar 25, 2008 3:46:19 PM
Q. When does Hillary drop the Big One?
A. Pretty Darn Soon, says Jake Tapper of ABC:
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, D-IL, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" an un-named DNC official said.
Posted by: carl | Mar 25, 2008 4:31:22 PM
Bill Clinton is the best speaker this country has ever seen...You can disrespect him...but he knows what an average American is thinking...that is exactly why he is always talking about issues!!!!
Posted by: MattOhio | Mar 25, 2008 7:28:52 PM
Is Hillary a monster? Naw I don’t think so. She looks pretty tame to me and not too hard on the eyes either. When I watch this woman on the television I see some one who really cares about this country. I see a person who says the pledge of allegiance and who is proud of this country. She is someone who loves children, takes the time to listen to what people say to her. She does not deserve the bashing she gets from the media. Hillary and Bill Clinton have done a lot of good for this country. Still when she is out giving speeches she is not covered by the main stream media and 99 percent of the time she is ignored, pushed aside, humiliated, enduring personal attacks, and yet she fights on. This is truly a quality that is outstanding in a Presidential candidate.
Posted by: Doral | Mar 25, 2008 7:58:15 PM
When I watch Hillary I see a person who wants to be president so badly that she will villify and tell lies about the other candidate to do it, even though he is a fellow Democrat. She should bow out now unless she is actually staying in to aid McCain, they are old friends and they share some of the same lobbyists dollars as well as similar stances on some of the issues. As for Doral's comments about Hillary being ignored, it's just not true. Look under politics on NBC, CNN or ABC and you will see many more stories about her. And where the heck are her tax returns from 2000 through 2006. Those tell the story of who paid Bill for his influence during his administration and after. And since half of Bill's assets are hers, they were paying her, too. It can't take months to find them. Their net worth went from 1-2 million in 2000 to a reported 20 to 40 million since Bill left office. What doesn't she want us to know?
Posted by: Lydia | Mar 25, 2008 10:19:44 PM
Lydia - all former presidents make many millions after leaving office for speakign engagements and books. Both of them in this case have books. Senator Clinton has 3 of them. When you have lots of money you use that to make more money quickly. The differences in income you see are not unusual. Compare it to other former presidents. What about Obama claiming to identify with the lower and middle classes? Obama was a silver spoon baby with money, plenty of parental figures, and private schooling. He is already a millionaire with lots of heritage related to several politicans in both parties including the current President and his VP and family.
Senator Clinton grew up middle class and went to public schools and worked for every dime she has ever made. Her heritage is to a long line of humanitarians. No big surprise considering she has been a humanitarian all her life with documented accomplishments. Perhaps you could step back and stop discriminating against her because her husband is a cheater and look at the real facts?
Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 25, 2008 10:47:01 PM
Many of your “facts” are the way you wish things to be.
Posted by: Don | Mar 25, 2008 11:11:45 PM
There are facts, and then there are “facts.” Real facts stand alone and are readily verified. Hillary Clinton is a woman, Barack Obama in an African-American male, the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be held from August 25 to August 28 in Denver, Colorado – these are facts. They stand alone. Their truth-value cannot be called into question.
Some people loosely use the term “facts” to describe statements whose truth-value cannot be readily verified. These are not true facts. They are merely statements, many times slanted to conform with someone’s personal preferences or point of view. One must think carefully before representing a mere statement as a fact.
Posted by: Don | Mar 26, 2008 10:50:03 AM
so lets get this straight. First she is against the votes in FL and MI becaue they broke the party rules she agreed to. Then she was for those votes being counted because the voters should not be disenfranchised, now she says that the pledged delegates so pledged by the voters, are free to vote against the popular vote.
Which is it HRC? Do the voters count or not? Or is this, as is becoming painfully clear to even the densest HRC supporter, you want to win, for no other reason than you want to win. You don't care who you hurt, disenfranchise, or what you do to the nation or democratic party, as long as you win.
We already have a President with that attitude, we have seen where that path leads.
Posted by: Louis | Mar 26, 2008 2:11:38 PM
Which drawl did she FAKE on this trip???
Posted by: cba | Mar 26, 2008 2:56:45 PM
"In TX, Obama won caucus by 10%, but was defeated in popular vote by 4%.
In WA, Obama won caucus by a stunning 37%, but only won 5% in popluar vote."
my friend was chosen at the caucus because he was the loudest and wearing the special obama shirt. obama supporters are very loud and willing to push for what they want. it was seen way at the caucus my friend went to. the system is broken in my opinion.
Posted by: in WA | Mar 26, 2008 4:15:27 PM
As long as we are quoting people as to Hillary's chances. According to Pat Buchanan (someone not on either side) Hillary's chances are 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 of getting the nomination. Some of the unnamed democratic sources who say the party is being hurt by the bickering also say if they were Hillary they would not quit either!! I say Obama needs to get out for the good of the party and come back when he has proven himself.
Posted by: Firefighter | Mar 26, 2008 4:36:36 PM
When Sen. Hillary Clinton tells voters, while pleading for their votes, that Pledged Delegates are free to vote against the will of voters, her voter supporters applaud!! No wonder she and Bill Clinton behave as they shamelessly do...
Posted by: NorthCarolinian | Mar 26, 2008 8:38:59 PM
You are sooo right Ben. I feel betrayed by the Democratic Party. For all the same reasons as well as not having people like Pelosi be put in check. That's right, put in check....she represents the head of our party in the House, not Obama's party. She can't use her power as a pulpit to campaign for Obama. Not that her backing is all that impressive, she's on shaky ground with her own leadership position.
Posted by: irma | Mar 26, 2008 9:11:42 PM
Obama is already a has-been.
Posted by: Paulus | Mar 26, 2008 9:31:11 PM
Post a comment



