|
Has the media already decided who will
be the Democratic candidate?
From Pookyshoehorn for Ramblings
of a Madwoman
Did you try to watch the Democratic debates last night?
If so, I'm sure you were scratching your head at the beginning, thinking
“Are they only going to ask questions of Clinton and Obama?” And,
“Will Tim Russert ever shut up?”
It sure seemed that way, and well, that's not far from the truth. Sen.
Chris Dodd's folks have been keeping track of debate time with a “Talk
Clock” to track how equitable the airtime is that's given to the
candidates. Last night's results:
Should the moderators really have more airtime than 4 of the 6
candidates in the debate?
Dodd Wins Points, But Will It Help?
From Ron Chusid for Liberal
Values
It’s been a good couple of weeks for Chris Dodd, at least in the
blogosphere, but it remains to be seen if this will translate into
meaningful support in Iowa and New Hampshire. The National
Journal has moved Dodd up to fourth place behind Clinton, Obama, and
Edwards, admitting that this is not justified by any of the polls. Bob
Geiger has outlined some of the arguments for Dodd at Huffington
Post including his leadership in opposing domestic surveillance and
defending Constitutional liberties. Dodd received similar praise from Glenn
Greenwald last week.
Dodd made a point during last night’s debate, which he previously
stated in response to a question from Bill Maher, which so far is
getting little mention in the post-debate media coverage. Dodd supported
decriminalizing marijuana:
We’re locking up too many people in our system here today.
We’ve got mandatory minimum sentences, they are filling our jails
with people that don’t belong there. My idea is to decriminalize
this, reduce that problem here. We’ve gone from 800,000 to 2 million
people in our penal institutions in this country. We’ve got to get a
lot smarter about this issue than we are. And as president, I’d try
and achieve that.
It was fitting that the opposite view was presented by John Edwards.
Edwards once again showed his disdain for freedom along with the
vacuousness of his thought. In a remark reminiscent of his opposition to
same sex marriage because it conflicted with his religious upbringing,
Edwards chose to continue the failed drug war because to do otherwise
would send the wrong message. Perhaps some day he will realize that he
is as wrong on the drug war as he originally was on Iraq and apologize
again.
Otherwise the highlight of the debate was showing that Hillary
Clinton is vulnerable on issues ranging from Iran
to illegal immigration
to her personal integrity. Kucinich made two controversial comments,
with his UFO
sighting receiving more coverage than his call for the impeachment
of George Bush. Richardson clarified during the post-debate interviews
that his recent comments on Roswell were purely for the benefit of New
Mexico tourism.
Debate: The Claws Were in Fine Form
From Sumo for Sumo
Merriment
Know a blog that
deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report? Contact Robert.
Going Negative on
Clinton is a Mistake
From Scarecrow for Firedoglake
 If
one of the cardinal rules of progressive politics is that
you never repeat the talking points by which your opponents
beat up on your own party, then what are we to think of last
night’s Democratic debate, in which a principal tactic
used by some of the non-Clintons was to repeat Republican
talking points about Hillary Clinton?
I can understand why the non-Clinton Democratic
candidates, having watched her pull away in recent national
polls (though not in Iowa), feel obliged to challenge
Senator Clinton on the merits of her positions, her Senate
votes on Iraq and Iran, the soundness of her ideas,
judgments and statements in contrast to their own. Drawing
these contrasts is certainly legitimate, and it probably
helps voters make up their minds, though it’s frankly
still a mystery to me why voters like or dislike and
eventually come to favor one candidate over another.
But the argument that Clinton in unelectable
because her “negatives” are too high — that
she’s so disliked Americans won’t vote for her — has
always seemed one of those unproven Republican talking
points that I suspect they only wish were true, even while
they ignore the margin of her last Senate election victory.
To be sure, early polls have shown high negatives for
Clinton, but it’s also true that part of that has been
driven by 15 years of incessant vilification by a right wing
unable to cope with a strong woman candidate, a liberal or
anyone who had the temerity to tackle health care reform
before its time. There has always been something deceptive
and despicable about the rightwing attacks on the Clintons,
the dishonorable Starr prosecutions and the unrelenting, but
unsuccessful efforts to link the Clintons to Whitewater
“corruption.” Are the Democrats now to feed that
hate-filled frenzy by hinting those are valid arguments, or
by making undifferentiated attacks claiming, with nothing
more specific, that because she swims in America’s
money-drenched politics, she is so inherently corrupt as to
disqualify her, but not them?
The Republicans can be expected to try this again, but
their motivation is as much diversion as anything. What I
suspect is that all of the Republican front runners have
significantly higher “negatives” — and deservedly so
— than Hillary Clinton or most of the Democrats. Wasn’t
there a poll not long ago that tested how many voters would
refuse to vote for each candidate — and Hillary turned out
to have the smallest problem on that score?
[Update: see this comparative
“negatives” poll. (h/t cinnamonape)]
The Republican right wing has been mindlessly fixated on
its dislike of the Clintons for over 15 years. But the high
approval ratings Bill Clinton held even during impeachment
tells us that the right wing hatreds do not automatically
transfer to the general electorate. And yet the right
apparently believes that if they repeat the “Hillary
can’t win because everyone hates her” mantra often
enough, and have it amplified by the Establishment talking
heads, the inevitable debate question, and an all too
unquestioning media, it can move from mantra to
self-fulfulling prophecy. If that’s the strategy, why are
prominent Democrats feeding that theme?
If they want to talk about “negatives,” perhaps
Democrats should note that the Republican field is littered
with candidates awash in “negatives” — important ones.
We find men who, like George Bush, are grossly uninformed
and even less curious, and who, like George Bush, hold
dangerous, authoritarian views about government’s power
over individuals, along with arrogantly imperialist views
about how American should interact with the world. We see
political chameleons — Guiliani, Romney, McCain — who
abandon long-held principles and openly pander to those they
once abhorred. Can anyone trust these people with our
national security or anything else that matters?
At a time when the American people are crying out for
effective, honest and fair government, the Republican
candidates come across as mostly anti-government, biased
against the middle class and the poor, and especially
immigrants. Americans respond to tolerance, but these men
are intolerant Christianists, sometimes anti-non-Christian
and often anti-science. And to a public sickened by
lawlessness, these men come across as anti-Constitution,
arguing the President is above the law. Most are indifferent
to how America must look when it sanctions torture,
rendition, indefinite imprisonment without habeas corpus.
Where the public wants accountability and limits on abusive
powers, the Republicans support unchecked spying,
amnesty/immunity for lawbreakers and aggressive wars.
In short, the Republican candidates are walking
billboards for “negatives” that could well make them —
not Hillary Clinton — unelectable. They personify
virtually every character trait that a large majority of the
Americans have now rejected and want to see removed from the
White House. And their only plausible strategy for winning
in 2008 is to engage in personal character assassination of
the Democratic candidate, hoping to turn off and drive away
an electorate that is not merely willing but anxious to
throw the Republican bums out.
I can’t think of any reason why any Democratic
candidate should help the Republicans keep their last hopes
alive. Clinton, like any politician who has actually tried
to accomplish something against the political tide, has
“negatives,” but I think the notion that they’re
disqualifying or make her unelectable, or that she can’t
overcome them is just nonsense; it flies in the face of her
own history, her struggles, and her steady rise in national
polls. And I think it’s a mistake for any of the
Democratic candidates to buy into this, perpetuate it, and
enable it, no matter how badly they want to be President.
Democratic Debate
Review
From NY Texan for BlueBloggin
Well another debate where the
moderators focusing their attention on Hillary, the elephant in the room.
It appeared to me that Tim Russert was so focused on
Clinton
that he forgot to bring enough questions for everyone else. For all the
anticipation and hype about Obama being more aggressive with
Clinton
, he seemed to miss his mark right out of the shoot.
After Edwards took two sharp
blows at
Clinton
, Obama seemed to chime in on the attack. It was obvious that
Richardson
was carrying his olive branch to stop the guys from jumping on
Clinton
.
Should
Clinton
get the nomination,
Richardson
was again applying for the vice president slot while boring us once again
with his resume.
Edwards and Obama made it clear
the saber rattling with
Iran
and
Clinton
being the only candidate that voted to class the Red Guard as a terrorist
group emboldens Bush. Clinton’s response about Iran really bothers me;
she stated that she “would not rush to war with Iran” that bothers me
because Clinton didn’t say that she would not go to war with Iran or
that she would do everything to avoid war with Iran. For me using the
world “rush” mean it will happen but not this week.
Dodd made a good showing with
several valid points on his record, experience and energy plan. Biden made
several good points on
Iran
and
Pakistan
again showing his experience and foreign relations and of course his sense
of humor on Giuliani. Kucinich unfortunately was mostly left out.
Richardson
again was very reliable in telling us his resume and applying for the vice
president spot
I think it would be refreshing if
the moderators asked questions beyond
Iraq
, attacking
Iran
and not being so focus on their darling Hillary. With all the important
issues facing the country, I thought the question to Kucinich about the
UFO was stupid and unfair. But then, what would expect from the MSM who
actually had to focus their attention away from Britney Spear for two
hours.
From
the transcript:
Clinton
: Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war. I was the first person
on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor
of the Senate back in February and say George Bush had no authority to
take any military action in
Iran
.
- Secondly, I am not in favor of
this rush for war, but I’m also not in favor of doing nothing.
-
Iran
is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in
the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism
Edwards made some very good
points about
Clinton
which seemed to set the pace for Obama.
Edwards:Let me talk a little bit
about what I see as the choice the voters have. I think that from my
perspective, President Bush over the last seven years has destroyed the
trust relationship
America
and its president. In fact, I think he has destroyed the trust
relationship between the president of the
United States
and the rest of the world.
- I think it is crucial for
Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust,
who’s honest, who is sincere, who has integrity.
- And I think it’s fair in
that regard to look at what people have said. Senator Clinton says
that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends
a broken system that’s corrupt in
Washington
,
D.C.
- She says she will end the war,
but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in
Iraq
.
and continue combat missions in
- To me, that’s not ending the
war, that’s a continuation of the war.
- She says she’ll stand up to
George Bush on
Iran
. She just said it again. And, in fact, she voted to give George Bush
the first step in moving militarily on
Iran
— and he’s taken it. Bush and Cheney have taken it. They have now
declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and
a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.
- And then, finally, she said in
our last debate that she was against any changes on Social Security
— benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on the Social
Security tax — but apparently, it’s been reported that she said
privately something different than that.
- And I think the American
people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve
a president of the United States that they know will tell them the
truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a
different time.
Edwards:
Well, here’s what I want. I want to make certain that voters in
Iowa
and
New Hampshire
and all across
America
, Democrats and Independents, understand that you have choices in this
election, very clear choices.
- If you
believe that combat missions should be continued in
Iraq
over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain
stationed in
Iraq
, and if you believe there should be no actual timetable for
withdrawal, then Senator Clinton is your candidate.
Russert asked
Clinton
about her experience as first lady but her records are not being release
to check her experience. Russert stated that President Clinton has asked
the National Archives not to do anything until 2012.
Clinton
: Well, that’s not my decision to make, and I don’t believe that any
president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we’re move as quickly
as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.
Obama: Well, look, I’m glad
that Hillary took the phrase “turn the page.” It’s a good one, but
this is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one
of the most secretive administrations in our history.
- And not releasing, I think,
these records at the same time, Hillary, that you’re making the
claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a
problem.
- Part of what we have to do is
invite the American people back to participate in their government
again. Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government
again.
Dodd: Well,
first, I think electability’s a very critical issue. Look, at the end of
this process here, we need to have a Democrat in the White House come
January 20, 2009
. That is essential in my view to get this country back on its feet again,
to restore our moral authority in the world. It is a critical question.
- Whether
it’s fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague
from
New York
, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that
say they’re not going to vote for her. I’m not saying anything
that people don’t know already. I don’t necessarily like it, but
those are the facts.
Best
statement about Rudy Giuliani:
Biden:
I’m not running against Hillary Clinton. I’m running to lead the free
world. I’m running to lead this country. And the irony is, Rudy
Giuliani, probably the most underqualified man since George Bush to seek
the presidency.
- Rudy Giuliani — I mean,
think about it. Rudy Giuliani — there’s only three things he
mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11. I mean, there’s
nothing else.There’s nothing else, and I mean this sincerely. He is
genuinely not qualified to be president. Here’s a man who brags
about how he made the city safe. It was the Biden crime bill that
became the
Clinton
crime bill that allowed him to do that.
Best
statement from a politician to the media:
Kucinich:
With all due respect to our friends from the media here, the media itself
has to be careful how you frame these questions. We don’t want to be put
in a position where we are taking this country to the threshold of war.
The media did play a role in taking us into war in
Iraq
. And I’m urging members of the media — urge restraint upon you and
our president, whose rhetoric is out of control.
Most
irrelevant and stupidest question of the debate:
Russert:
Congressman Kucinich, I want to move to a different area, because this is
a serious question. The godmother of your daughter, Shirley MacLaine,
writes in her new book that you sighted a UFO over her home in
Washington
state. that you found the encounter extremely moving, that it was a
“triangular craft, silent and hovering,” that you “felt a connection
to your heart and heard directions in your mind.”
Now, did
you see a UFO?
Full
transcript
"I'm Really
Happy to Be Here Tonight ..."
From Tengrain for Mock,
Paper, Scissors
(Larry Downing/Reuters)
“…Can’t you tell?”
|
UFOs and Flights of Dementia
By Gottlieb for My
Left Wing
Denny's
seen a UFO. Who hasn't? Who hasn't seen something in the
heavens we could not identify?
Not me. I've seen things. I've seen the Klingon cloak, the
spinning lights, the cat and mouse, hide and seek, search and
destroy. I've seen them watching me as I watch them then
disappear into thin air to make me crazy.
I know their game. I've been taken. Fiddled, diddled and
riddled with in the dark's blue-black and then cast out, left
standing naked in the wood without bus fare or prospects or my
Rolex.
Denny's seen what we've all seen, been diddled, fiddled and
kiddled like the rest of us with TV brains and American ideals
and slow burns.
Dennis Kucinich is a fucking American Hero and that's why
we should heed his words.
My Disappointment of Hillary
From Stormbear for My
Left Wing
"Meanie ..."
From Tengrain for Mock,
Paper, Scissors
(Larry Downing/Reuters)
The tougher, hard-hitting Obama.
Democrats Still
Clueless on Iraq
By Christopher for
From the
Left
Democrats are debating
whether to approve $50 billion to $70 billion for Iraq and
Afghanistan, less than half of Bush’s $196 billion request
but enough to keep the wars afloat for several more months.
Such a move would satisfy party members who want to spare
the Pentagon from a painful budget dance and support the
troops as Congress considers its next major step on Iraq.
But it would also irritate scores of other Democrats, who
want to pay only to bring troops home and who say their
leadership is not doing enough to end the war.
At least one Democrat gets it. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of
California said:
“I cannot vote for another dollar that will
be used to continue the president’s occupation of
Iraq.”
But on the table are estimates of $40 billion to $70
billion — with $50 billion considered the most likely
scenario.
Many Democrats say the money is necessary if Congress
passes an annual defense spending bill without any war
funding. If left without a “bridge fund” to fill the gap
until Congress takes up the full $196 billion request, the
Pentagon would have to divert money from less urgent
accounts to pay for immediate war requirements — an
approach military officials warn is disruptive and
inefficient.
These Democrats also say they want to avoid giving the
public perception that the party is turning its back on the
troops.
BLOG RECOMMENDATION
A Hat Tip to Betmo of Life's
Journey for directing us to Post
Secret. An "art project" that asks people to
mail in their "secrets" on the back of a postcard.
Go ahead, let your voyeuristic side loose for a few
minutes
Democrats gang up on
Clinton in debate
Posted by The Editors of The
Poor Man Institute
The Democratic Debate - 10/30/2007
By TomCat for Politics
Plus
In my opinion, this was the best of the Democratic debates
so far, because the candidates, as a whole, presented
themselves do much better than any of the GOP candidates
have ever presented themselves in so many of their debates.
There were few stupid questions from the moderators, and in
the early segments, the candidates had time to express
themselves. On the down side, MSNBC skewed the
attention heavily toward Hillary Clinton, as you will see by
the number of questions asked the candidates.
Here are the Politics Plus
BS Ratings. Remember that they do not reflect on
the veracity of the candidates' answers. They rate
only whether the candidates answered questions as asked or
ducked them.
|
Candidate
|
Answered
|
Ducked
|
BS
Factor
|
|
Biden
|
6
|
1
|
14.29%
|
|
Clinton
|
3
|
16
|
84.21%
|
|
Dodd
|
5
|
3
|
37.50%
|
|
Edwards
|
10
|
2
|
16.67%
|
|
Kucinich
|
5
|
3
|
37.50%
|
|
Obama
|
12
|
3
|
20.00%
|
|
Richardson
|
7
|
1
|
12.50%
|
As you can see, Hillary was the BS
queen by a huge margin.
The candidates did not reveal
anything significantly new about their positions on the
issues. Here is a brief comment on each.
Joe Biden: This
was probably his best debate yet. He came across as
well informed on the issues, but did not threaten the
leaders.
Hillary Clinton:
Challenges seriously for the first time, Hillary fared
poorly. Instead of meeting the challenges (about her
votes on Iraq and Iran, her lack of genuine experience, her
close relationship with corporate money brokers, and her
inconsistency on issues) head on, she evaded them. At
times she sounded shrill. She contradicted herself on
at least a couple occasions. Over and over again, she
claimed she had plans and solutions for all the issues
discussed, but over and over again, she refused to state
what those plans and solutions are, even after being asked
point blank by the moderators. The last time I saw
such shameful obfuscation was the Mukasey hearings.
Chris Dodd:
Dodd did well. He stresses his experience and
demonstrated his knowledge, but like Biden, there was no
real break through. He ducked too many questions.
John Edwards:
This was his best performance to date. He finally
stopped acting like a wimp and went after Clinton's record
and practices, emphasizing that the US needs a real choice,
effectively demonstrating that Hillary is the candidate of
the status quo.
Dennis Kucinich:
Whatever good Dennis did in his last debate performance, he
undid yesterday. He rightly called for impeachment,
but he overplayed it, ducking important questions to repeat
the call over and over. For example, as much as I
favor impeaching Bush and Cheney, we need to do more that
that to solve the crises we face on energy and education.
To make matters worse, MSNBC sandbagged him by asking him
about a UFO sighting, which he admitted. The wingers
will drool over thet for weeks to come.
Barack Obama:
Barack came across as Presidential for the first time.
He joined Edwards in holding Clinton's feet to the fire and
distanced himself from the status quo.
Bill Richardson:
Bill will never have a smooth style. That's just not
who he is, but on the whole, he acquitted himself well,
painting himself as the most effective leader in the group
on foreign policy. I still think he may be campaigning
to become Clinton's running mate, because he was the only
one to come to her defense.
There was no clear winner in this
debate, but there were two big losers. Sadly, Kucinich
was one because he avoided issues to concentrate on his own
talking points. The other was Clinton, because she
failed to rise to the challenges presented by Edwards and
Obama, and because she refused to define her stand on any of
the issues. Somehow, I doubt my view on that will be
shared by the broadcast MSM.
All of the
following are from GottaLaff at Cliff
Schecter
The
biggest loser: Chris Matthews
Tweety's so hyped up, he's already made my TV screen
cringe.
After only 3 minutes of post-debate commentary, he
loses.
UPDATE: He's actually following
up on the UFO debate question to Kucinich, here with
Richardson. He's going nuts because Richardson said the
U.S. government isn't handling the UFO question well.
Tweety: Are you saying the U.S. government is hiding
something??!!!! Richardson feels the need to keep
saying that he doesn't believe in UFOs.
Tweety is now spitting and screaming that he'll ask
Biden about UFOs. What wonderful interviewing skills. This
is what he thinks the people want to know about the
candidates?
UPDATE #2: Biden, after being asked
the UFO question: "This is going downhill real
fast." Tweety changed the subject.
Biggest
applause line: Obama
Barack Obama is asked if there is life beyond earth, on
other planets.
"There's life here on earth..."
Big laugh. Then went on:
"And we're not attending to life here on
earth."
Big applause. Then he goes on about various needs
of various people. He continues:
"These are the people I will be
attending to first."
Biggest applause of the evening.
Obama
wasn't listening
How could Obama not know there was a lightning round?
It couldn't have been clearer.
Not the
best quote of the night, but one worth noting
Bill Richardson:
"Finally, education is coming up in a
debate."
Democratic
debate: Quote of the night, so far
Joe Biden on Rudy Giuliani:
"There's only 3 words he mentions in a
sentence: A noun, a verb, and 9/11."
My Jack-O-Lanterns
From Polishifter Pissed
on Politics
SPECIAL
REPORT BY JOINER
Because of
Bush's soon to happen plan all our efforts will be wasted as he
will declare martial Law, Pleas read the facts!
By James Joiner for An
Average American Patriot
 There
is important work being done at kos and other left wing
Political Blogs and under normal conditions they would be very
important to our party especially in 2008 when most think it
will be important. However these are not Politics as usual we
are experiencing. Nancy Pelosi and others are squashing any
efforts to out bush and hold him lible for what he has done to
our America and what he is about to do. His worst damage is
yet to come.
There is Bush agenda complicity going on here and I have to
believe it is because Politicians of both partias are vying
for positions in Bush's new Government. Check out the chilling
Utube video The
eve of destruction
The please watch Ralph Nader's short video on Representative
Olver declaring Impeachment off the table as Bush threatened a
Declaration
of martial order
First the latest underhanded stealth maneuver: President Bush
has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the
President to declare federal martial law as we keep
discussing.(1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a
set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy
troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10
U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse
Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict
prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law
enforcement.
With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo
those prohibitions.Public Law 109-364, or the "John
Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2),
which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th,
2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President
to declare a "public emergency" and station troops
anywhere in America and take control of state-based National
Guard units without the consent of the governor or local
authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder.
"President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the
very same day that he signed the equally odious Military
Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement
one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad,
while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home,
preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.
Remember, the term for putting an area under military law
enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial
law." Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act,
which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its
ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed
Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333,
"Major public emergencies; Senatory
Leahy and Congressional record
We discussed Bush's purposeful drive to WW3 and how he must
attrack Iran to get it going and subvert average Americans
during the process and he is almost done. WW3
And Bush's subversion of American's
We discussed how the scenario Bush is following in his drive
to start WW 3 was developed 3 decades ago and asked that you
pay particular attentionhj to the undeniable truth in Acts
1-6. Pay
particular attention to Act 1-=6
Amongst many other things we discussed the purposely building
reasons for Bush to find the excuse to declare martial order. Reasons
building for Bush's martial law
We discussed that the entire world is allying to face Bush
down in his endeavor to begin WW3 and allow him to declare
martial law and Congress particularly a fillibuster proof
Congress would be powerless to stop him. Bush's
Forever War Congress will not stop
Lastly months ago i posted a story Anon wrot about the FEMA
concentration camps along with a list of the top 25 cencored
laws passed this year. There were some who responded
ridiculously despit never looking at the link, checking the4
source, or reading the horriblerights squelching Bush
empowering laws that were passed. So here it is once again. FEMA
concentration camps I also posted the top 25 censcored
laws for 2008 and hope they are teken as serious as they are. pay
particular attention to 1 and 2
As I said, I tried to alert people here before and had some
luck but there were many curt answers without checking the
facts, who I assumed to be trolls, so I thought I would give
it another shot. We can not afford to allow Bush's nightmare
to come to fruition and there are many true, caring, patriotic
American's here who want to save our America and avert the
nightmare that is about to occurr.
|
It
seems from what I heard in the pre-debate time that Obama
intended to extend the claws of friendliness to the Hillary
and make her feel right at home. It seems that tonight's
entertainment was actually for grilling her poor bottom on the
stage of world opinion. Isn't that just like a man?!!
So
let us forget about all the nasty talk and concentrate on
something good to eat. To heck with the politicians...they
cannot satisfy your cravings now can they! Oh and...Happy
Halloween to my blogger friends!
