Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of

A capable, experienced candidate well-liked by Democrats runs headlong into a mysterious, almost trans-political force whose supporters just won't listen to reason. Sound familiar?

Well, I'm talking about the 1990 Texas Democratic gubernatorial primary, the one in which Ann Richards beat seasoned former Congressman and state Attorney General Jim Mattox.

Ann and Hillary were friendly. So it's a table-turning circumstance we're seeing here, as Hillary is acting like Mattox did as all his political advantages turned to dust when confronted with a charismatic candidate he didn't believe deserved to win.

Also, the late Richard's popularity isn't helping here like Clinton might have imagined. The problem is, when Hillary took to the national stage, Ann Richards was already standing on it. Ann was the icon for women. They didn't need Hillary the way they had needed Ann. That's just another of the odd and unexpected difficulties Clinton is forced to confront.

Mattox, by the way, was also one of Paul Begala and James Carville's candidates. In fairness, when Mattox refused their disciplined advice and took to hour-by-hour, off the wall attacks on Ann, they backed away from the campaign.

Mattox had been a solid attorney general. There were stories about his heavy-handed fundraising. He was notoriously mean. But his biggest negative was his ongoing negative attacks on Richards.

I get the sense that Clinton's frustration is just like Mattox's in 1990. Voters are simply not being rational by supporting Obama. Rationally, she's the better candidate, she thinks. Choosing against her is choosing against reason itself.

And that frustration is visible in an erratic campaign style, conciliatory at a debate, shouting "shame on you" a day or too later; mocking Obama's supporters as people waiting on a choir to descend from heaven to sing the world to peace.

That Hillary would fall victim to the same sort of disbelieving myopia that plagued Mattox's campaign against her friend Richards presents an odd kind of symmetry.

Mattox this year is supporting Hillary Clinton, the friend of the woman he believes denied him the governorship of Texas.



Display:


Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Can't compare the two because the picture of Obama wrapped in swaddling seems to have changed the equation. Candy Crowley said that it is extremely damaging to Obama. It's apparently the new "dukakis in a tank" only 10 times more damaging.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

I doubt it.

New polling by republicans show that people wont stand for their tactics of "racial insensitivity".


www.functionalforums.com
by TerraFF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:43:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Sorry, it's not about "racial insensitivity" it's about making Obama a laughing stock. And to be honest, every time I see that picture I start laughing. And Obama made a big mistake by the hysterical reaction. If his campaign had laughed it off then it might be different.

And if you think the GOP won't play those same old games then you are beyond clueless. All they care about is getting 50+1%.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 1)

     Are you fighting the right-wing in your mind?  Obama is fighting Hillary in the press, and he is winning.  Hillary is such an amazing fighter that she's lost 11 contests in a row, and has let the right-wing define her a shrill hanger-on (which she is not).  It's about the results.
    I can't understand why laughed at the Obama photo.  There's a picture of Hillary dressed up in Pakistani garb.
Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

I saw the picture of Hillary. And you guys aren't getting it. Obama looks downright silly whereas Hillary looks like she's dressing for the event. I'm sorry but I just can't help bursting out laughing every time I see that picture.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Man, this transparant shit gets old quick.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

   Okay then...I'm going to slowly walk away to a different diary.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Could you please elaborate why this picture causes you to be in a state of "bursting out laughing" because I am one of the "guys" not getting it. Silly to me is worth a haha at best and not a belly laugh, and yet you are busting a gut. Please detail.


by Tunk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"There's a picture of Hillary dressed up. . . (none / 0)

. . .in Pakistani garb."

Yes, and Hillary and Bhutto look like queens. And Chelsea looks like a princess.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

then you just KNOW it's gotta be true.


by zonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

Well considering that she's been in the tank for Obama I figured it was worth a mention.

Did you like Dukakis in the tank?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

Of course not, but I don't think it was even the worst moment of the Dukakis campaign.

There were so many wonderful Dukakis stumbles.  His message changed daily... except for entire periods where he couldn't seem to decide what daily message to roll out.

It wasn't one image, it wasn't Willie Horton, it wasn't the god awful debate, it wasn't spending weeks hemming and hawing about whether he was a "liberal" -- then finally all but "confessing it".

In fact, it's why I'm increasingly more confidant in my choice to back Obama.   His message discipline, campaign thematics, and overall campaign discipline have run circles around Team Clinton.


by zonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

Thanks for reminding me of how Obama is more like Dukakis than I already thought.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

You know, I don't choose a candidate on who has the better campaign manager, nor on who has the better speech-writer or handlers.  I also don't choose based on who is more like a "rock star", (which is just a substitute for the republican's version of a "cowboy.")  

I choose based on substance. If my candidate has thick ankles, or bushy eyebrows, or bad toupe, I could care less. Heck, I don't even care if they can't give good speech.

Because I understand that the person taking over the White House this time is going not only expected to lead us forward, they've got to get down in the trenches and dig us out of this hole, I can't afford to take a flight of fancy with someone that makes people weep and chant. That doesn't cut it anymore. I was an Obama supporter at first (been there, done that, got the tingle, moved on.)

I lean toward a candidate that is more of a manager than an figurehead.  Bush and Reagan are the last two non-managers we got, and look how well that turned out!  Bill Clinton managed the country.. that's why we were in such good shape.

Heck, I've seen Dukakis speak since he's been out of the political scene, and I tell you.. we blew it letting the media and the republican define him. That guy is brilliant. His grasp of complex issues and his economic skills are staggering.  I met both he and Kitty after the event, and they were just the nicest and funniest people.  

America's obession with celebrity, and the media's need for ratings (and then their ties to the GOP), have perverted the process of defining candidates and choosing a president.  There were several people in the Democratic lineup that would have been amazing in the White House... but the media defined them, and they didn't have a chance.

If my team was behind by 6 points and we're at the the 2 minute buzzer, I don't put the Most Inspirational Player in, I choose the MVP.  It's time to get back to a manager president.


by Catriley sez on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the problem with your assumption (none / 0)

You and a lot of Hillary supporters have this impression that people like me voted for/support Obama because we really are some sort of "cultists"; they're like moths drawn to Obama's rockstar like flame.

I'm not supporting Obama because he's a rock star, I'm supporting him for reasons you might be surprised are just as cogent, relevant, logical, and heartfelt as the ones you have for supporting Clinton.

The fact that Obama is a rockstar and teflon political candidate that just seems to charm the socks off the electorate and press alike is icing on the cake.


by zonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

Your contention is that because Barack is a talented retail politician, that must mean he's not substantive. He impresses most people (i.e., people who haven't made up their minds and aren't sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA) when he discusses policy.

As for "managers"... um.... Barack put together the campaign that, at this moment in time, is kicking the ass of the one put together by Hillary Clinton.

As for MVPs.... when has Clinton ever hit a home run? Scored a touchdown? Seriously. I like Clinton. She will get my vote and my money if she pulls out this nomination, as I still think is at least a 40% possibility.... but when has she ever won a serious political battle?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jabba the Crowley speaks (none / 0)

Could you make your point without the sneer on Crowley?  We're Democrats, remember...


by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton (none / 0)

Crowley speaks.  Thus it is so.  Do not attempt to argue with this person's logic.


by Skaje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (2.00 / 1)

I think it's also like when Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush.

Bush famously said he wasn't into "the vision thing."  Clinton countered, "Without vision, the people perish." Carville wrote on the board in the war room, "Change vs. more of the same."

The Bushies couldn't believe this charismatic upstart could beat a man with so much experience, particularly foreign policy experience.  Sure, Bush was no orator, but certainly the people, they thought would go for experience.


by mainelib on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:38:54 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (none / 0)

You're forgetting one fact:
Bill Clinton was a fighter. Obama is not.
No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0)

he fought back quickly enough when the photos surfaced today. I don't think that the Republicans could swiftboat him very successfully.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (2.00 / 1)

You call that fighting back? Whining and blaming Hillary? LOL! It was pathetic. And he made it worse by making it more damaging than if he had just laughed it off. Stupid.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

is to ignore it when your opponent might be smearing you?

Then again, you count Bill Clinton as a 'fighter', and considering how many issues he caved in to the Republicans on, your definition of a 'fighter' is probably far different from mine.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

BAAA WAAAA

No, it's not to ignore but it's not to help them out either. An inappropriate response is just as bad if not worse lots of times than no response.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When a candidate faces ridiculous attacks, (none / 0)

I expect them to fight back against it forcefully. To use an example that you would understand, if pictures are released tomorrow that supposedly show Clinton killed Vince Foster, I would expect her to fight back immediately against it and question whether the Obama campaign had anything to do with it.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there is a difference... (none / 0)

between fighting back forcefully, and fighting back effectively.  To swing wildly, blame the Clinton campaign, and miss is pretty sad.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there is a difference... (2.00 / 1)

How sad? As sad as a pathetic loser eleven times over retreating into a fantasy world in which their candidate is not being owned in the media and failing like a stone in the polls, or some other kind of sad?


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there is a difference... (none / 0)

oh take your crap elsewhere and sell it.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there is a difference... (none / 0)

Barack has a 16 point lead among democrats nationwide (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/pol itics/26poll.html?hp). When it comes to the hard truth about a candidate who is being deservedly scorned by the voters and a minority of her dittoheads who are even more disconnected from reality than she is, I'd say it's a seller's market -- everywhere.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there is a difference... (none / 0)

You know, for someone who hasnt been here very long, you talk a bit too much without knowing any facts.

First - I dont go around making idiotic statements and insulting Obama supporters.  Second, after every single win of Obama's, I have congratulated him on this site.

So get off your fucking high horse and sell your BULLSHIT elsewhere, because i could care less about it.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there is a difference... (none / 0)

whats even more sad is that this is the second time the RWNM suckered him.

First w/ Novak, now through Drudge.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And by the way, (none / 0)

in my opinion, an 'inappropriate response' would be the Clinton campaign's response to this - rather than denouncing the photos as a idiotic and racially motivated Republican smear, they gave a weak response, and did not even say that they were not behind it.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And by the way, (none / 0)

why does Hillary have to clean up after Obama's mess?

Why does he want to focus on this and not UHC or the economy


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean they should've lied (none / 0)

Because there's no way in the world they could instantly, upon the surfacing of this story, check what all their 700 paid staffers plus untold number of volunteers had been doing with their time and computers.  The only way to have fully denied it would've been to lie, and that's regardless of who was really behind it.


by Trickster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And by the way, (none / 0)

That's because Drudge has them dead to rights. All he has to do is release the email. He's just waiting for the denial so the prove will be that much more of a story. To recap:

1. Hillary tried to swiftboat Obama with a photo intended to invoke the "Obama is a Muslim" slur.

2. She got caught when the guy she was using to spread the smear double-crossed her.

3. When confronted, she couldn't deny it.

4. The media ran with the story alongside recaps of the Clinton campaigns racist comments, the staffers fired for similar e-mails.

5. Commentators across the board called it an act of desperation by a floundering campaign.

6. After another day of watching their candidate get owned by Obama, a few of her supporters who long ago abandoned the reality-based community celebrated an imaginary victory.

Gotta love those rose-colored glasses.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And by the way, (none / 0)

I'm for Obama, but I don't think HRC knew about this. She's not stupid. Penn? Wolfson? Maybe, but I suspect this was some low-level schmuck trying to be clever.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And by the way, (none / 0)

Could be, but then wouldn't they have been on safe ground to say "To our knowledge, nobody on our side had anything to do with this"? They didn't say that. They also didn't say that releasing the photo was reprehensible and they condemn it. Instead, they tried to bypass the real issue and attack the Obama campaign for responding to the smear. It says "guilty" to me, but I'm sure we'll know more in a few days.

When the full story comes out, expect Clinton supporters to reject it as coming from the supposedly Clinton-hating media.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And by the way, (none / 0)

"To our knowledge, nobody on our side had anything to do with this"?

I see this as evidence of hysterical defensiveness, plus the general incompetence of her crew (boy, Maggie Williams sure has turned the Titanic around, hasn't she?)

expect Clinton supporters to reject it as coming from the supposedly Clinton-hating media

Yup. That's a given. "OBAMA PLANTED THAT PHOTO!!!!"


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

let me guess, Hillary's tantrum was okay right? Obama's was not?

between the race baiting by Team Penn and the near gleefulness of Hillary supporters at how "funny" Obama looked in "ethnic" garb I might just have to start believing that Democrats are worse then Republicans on issues of race. Throw in Team Hillary's belief that Team Obama is a sexist organization and we have a raging sexist and racist party on our hands.

but i regress. may the powers of good keep people from voting for such a silly man. how have he the audacity to look as he does, tall, skinny and wearing funny clothes!?


!
by alex100 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

I find it interesting that you are supporting a candidate whose whole campaign is prefaced on caving to the GOP. "Lets all hold hands" right?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I supported Edwards at first (2.00 / 0)

And given Senator Clinton's record in the Senate, I don't think that she's a stronger leader than Obama. I look at action more than rhetoric. Here's a comment that I wrote a while ago, and I'll repost it for you:

If Clinton wants to be a leader, she could prove it in the Senate. When the Iraq War authorization went to Congress, she could have proved herself a leader by standing against it. When the vote came to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she did not appear to learn from her previous mistake - which could be expected, as I do not think she has acknowledged that to be a mistake. She voted for it, rather than taking a principled stand against it.

One of the reasons I respect Senator Russ Feingold most of all among the members of the Senate is that I know that he is not afraid to stand for what he believes in. He put his career at risk by voting against bills such as the PATRIOT Act, and although I disagreed with some of his actions, such as voting to confirm Ashcroft, I still respect that he did it because he felt it was the right thing to do, not because he was afraid for his career.

As for Clinton? She once was a leader; although I was very young at the time, I have read of her efforts to achieve national health care during her husband's presidency, and I remember watching her stand up to speak for voter rights in Ohio. She took a leading role in investigating the health effects of 9/11 among emergency responders, and voted against the Bush tax cuts. But by now, I feel that she has sacrificed some of her principle in favor of ambition. This is a crime that almost every Congressman and woman has committed, so I do not mean to single her out, but I do not think that she has been a better leader than the average Democratic member of Congress.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (2.00 / 1)

Who was that candidate who stood with the Republicans in support of flag-burning legislation, invading Iraq, and sabre-rattling against Iran?  She's a real "fighter," but I can't quite remember her name...


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

There you go again. It's just a single issue with you guys isn't it? Oh, well, you guys will have lots to complain about when McCain is President.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (2.00 / 1)

I listed three there, buddy.  Meanwhile, you get your giggles over a picture.  What an intelligent argument.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (1.00 / 1)

Obama hasn't accomplished anything in the senate. He's missed tons of votes. I guess you guys call making lobbyists stand up and eat an accomplishment, right?

I frankly think that most voters just aren't going to see Obama as qualified to be President. He is, in fact, the least qualified person to run for President in modern history.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So your definition of fighting (none / 0)

So I take it that Obama was never in the Illinois legislature or a U.S. Senator?  Yes, that's much less experience than being governor of Arkansas.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:13:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"caved" (2.00 / 1)

Obama with his "reach out and touch a Republican", his "unity" BS, and his "let's forget the tired, divisive politics of the past" has "caved" before he's even won the nomination, never mind took office.

Obama loves Ronald Reagan, thinks Social Security is "in crises," thinks the liberation struggles of the 60's and 70's were "excessive," calls labor unions "special interests," pretends to believe that universal health care is no good because it requires "mandates," thinks a woman's reproductive freedom should depend on what some "clergyman" has to say, and is against public education.

Bill Clinton is 10x the "figher" for Democratic values than Mr. False Hope could ever be in his wildest dreams.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "caved" (none / 0)

thinks a woman's reproductive freedom should depend on what some "clergyman" has to say

God I'm sick of this canard. You don't advance your case by using strawmen that are only credible to those already in your camp.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"canard" (1.00 / 1)

How can it be a canard? It's a direct quote from Mr. Misogyny's answer at a nationallly televised debate when asked if he was pro-choice.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "canard" (none / 0)

are you water hen? Did you change your name?

Bill Clinton called for abortions to be "safe, legal, and rare", did that mean he was proposing a maximum number? No. And only an idiot would assert that he did.
'
When you can show me the legislation Obama has proposed which requires a woman seeking an abortion to bring a note from a clergyman, this will be a valid point. Until then, your just making things up.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"making things up" (none / 0)

No, I'm not water hen.

As for making things up, Obama specifically mentioned stated that a woman's right to an abortion was to be had in consultation with her family, her doctor, and "her clergy." Obama said this in a nationally televised debate. I'm not making up a damn thing. Show me this is untrue and I'll eat my words. But I don't have to show you anything. Your candidate said it. You deal with it. You own it.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "making things up" (none / 0)

"Show me this is untrue."  What a crappy argument.  Show me the Earth wasn't creatd by God 6,000 years ago.  I'm waiting.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He said in a debate. (none / 0)

It would take you 2 seconds to find the comment. But, because you're too lazy, here you go:

"I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."

http://www.wfsb.com/politics/13360436/de tail.html

So, one would have to assume, without the clergy's involvement, Obama would not trust women to make abortion decisions.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He said in a debate. (none / 0)

The burden of proof is on you, not me.  Clearly, the context of the statement is that women often make these choices within a larger social group.  You yourself were too lazy to quote the remainder of the passage cited: "Obama has also said that women should be free to make their own choices regarding late-term abortions, due to what he contends is their rarity and severity."  Are you saying that Obama doesn't trust women to make these choices without the clergy, except in cases of late-term abortions, when they can make the choices themselves?  

This is some pretty dumb spin.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The context of the quote. . . (none / 0)

. . .is that Obama "trusts" a woman to make this decision BECAUSE she consults with others, including "her clergy." That's what he said. Too bad now if you don't like the smeall of it.

What you go on to quote is not Obama at the debate, but a paraphrase of some other comment of his. And, therefore, it has nothing to do with the "clergy" remarks. Which is the reason, not "laziness," that I didn't quote it.

So, please, stop with the BOP arguments, and the false analogies to creationism. Obama made his disgusting, creepy, misogynist statement. Either support it or disown it, but stop tryng to will it out of existence.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The context of the quote. . . (none / 0)

So paraphrasing a candidate's stance on the issues is not a legitimate way to determine their position?  Are you seriously that obtuse, or did you fail to use it because it didn't fit in with your smear-job?  

Obama has perfect rankings with major abortion-rights groups, as noted.  Are you telling me that you are better able to determine his position than they are, with your aptitude for cherry-picking and questionable reading comprehension skills?


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The context of the quote. . . (none / 0)

There are a lot of people who won't vote for Obama for reasons they don't admit, even to themselves. They'll hang their hat on whatever they can find. It's troubling


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the slur (none / 0)

It is your statement that I find to be "troubling." Unless I love your candidate as you do, you hint, there must be something illegitimate in my view of him. Can't it be that I just don't like him? I think he's a phony. I don't trust him on abotion rights, or Social Security, or anything else. I think he is an opportunist with a thin resume and an uncritical following. And I think there's a good chance he'll lose to McCain. I realize that you disagree with all of that, but that doesn't make my motives bad.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for the slur (none / 0)

What slur is that?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You denied the existence. . . (none / 0)

. . .of the quote. And started talking about burdens or proof and the like.. So, I produced the quote and the link. There were a dozen places I could have linked from, that one just came up quickly, was easy to link to, and was well-organized and clean. The sentence you quoted just happened to follow the quote in that one place, and only in that one place. I was under no obligation to reproduce it--although, since I linked to the site that contained it, I was obviously not hiding it for purposes of my "smear job" either.

The sentence you quoted simply had nothing to do with what Obama said at the debate. It was not from the debate. It was not even by Obama. Yes, obvioulsly, paraphrases are fine in general. But, in this instance, it does not refute the fact that I quoted Obama correctly the first time. Thus, there was no "cherry picking" and my reading comprehension skills are just fine.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You denied the existence. . . (none / 0)

You take a quote and claim that Obama has some bizarre belief that women would be required to obtain permission from their clergy in order to obtain an abortion, when an evenhanded reading of that passage suggests an alternate and much more reasonable interpretation.  Moreover, Obama's strong history of support for a woman's right to choose argues against your preferred interpretation.  The paraphrase we've been discussing even makes note that he supports late-term abortions.  I don't see how you can overlook all of this.  I mean, don't you think that the other candidates in the race would have made a point of such an absurd position by now?    


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not at all. (2.00 / 1)

You took the quote completely out of context; all he's saying is that some women want to consult with the clergy before making such a decision. Because religion is important in the lives of many people, and you can't just force them to give it up, any more than they have a right to force it down your throat.


John McCain
by MILiberal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

And who would  be trying to force a woman to "give up" her religion? Who would try to prevent a woman from consulting with "her clergy" if she wanted to? Yours is the strained and totally unrealistic construction of Obama's statement. He cleary stated that he trusted a woman to make the decision in consultation with. . ."her clergy." This either means that he "trusts" that each woman does in fact consult with "her clergy" before having an abortion, or, under the most obvious reading, that Mr. Misogyny trusts a woman to make this decision BECAUSE she consults with "her clergy."


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "making things up" (none / 0)

Obama is too quick to play the religion card for my tastes, but the idea that he is going to somehow force women to talk to clergymen is just ridiculous. The sad fact is, that kind of hedged-bet resonates with people. He has to win the General Election, remember? The same reason Clinton voted for war in Iraq.

He voted against a "partial birth" abortion ban.

He has 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and has since he entered politics. Do you think they're stupid?


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hedging vs. caving (none / 0)

But the point was that Obama was a fighter and would never "cave" like Bill Clinton. Now, we see him "hedging" on abortion before he has even won the nomination.

Who knows what this blank slate would do if he actually became president? It seems to me that he has no fixed star, no core of beliefs, other than belief in himself and his soaring ambition. I wouldn't trust him any further than I could throw him on any issue.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hedging vs. caving (none / 0)

so Planned Parenthood and NARAL just aren't smart like you?

and Bill Clinton proposed a maximum quota for abortions to keep them "rare"?

I musta been watching Seinfeld when he did that.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hedging vs. caving (none / 0)

Bill Clinton made a mistake, in my opinion, with that "rare" comment. Safe and legal, sure. Rare, no so sure. No rarer, in my view, than the instances where women want them. In any event, Bill Clinton cannot be used to save Obama here.

Remember, Obama is a "figher," we have been told, not a "caver" like Bill Clinton.

As for the pro-abortion groups, no, I don't think they are stupid. But I stand by my statement that there is nothing in Obama's record that allows to have any confidence what his actual position on a given issue will be if he becomes president.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hedging vs. caving (2.00 / 0)

there is nothing in Obama's record that allows to have any confidence what his actual position on a given issue will be if he becomes president

So he voted against the late-term abortion ban, instead of making one of the easiest votes in the world for a Liebercrat, just to trick people?
You should market those magical glasses of yours that allow you to see all these crafty people who conduct their whole lives as an elaborate ruse to trick you.


by BlueinColorado on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "canard" (none / 0)

Which part is a direct quote? "Clergymen"? All that proves is that he said the word "clergymen" at some point.

You are paraphrasing, not quoting, and you are not paraphrasing accurately. Give us the direct quote you claimed to have given above.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another one (none / 0)

It's not hard to find, and I gave it already upthread. But, here you go:

"I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."

http://www.wfsb.com/politics/13360436/de tail.html


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

link should be. . (none / 0)

http://www.wfsb.com/politics/13360436/de tail.html


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "caved" (none / 0)

i don't think you get the unity thing.

how do you ever expect progressives to move the country to the left without a change in how we talk about issues?

you may not like that Obama talks about "unity" but it isn't meant as an olive branch to the Republican party. The opposite has been true as his time in the senate proves he's less likely to go along with GOP policy then Hillary is.

Regarding your laundry list of b.s., do you really think we're all that stupid? Obama prefers single payer. as does Hillary. yet neither provide a decent health care plan.  

Obama loves reagan? only if you're a reactionary would you believe such a thing.

against public education? no. The state of Illinois has worked with a limited amount of charter schools with varying degrees of success. Debate the merits of charter schools (yes, Illinois charters are secular) but don't lie about a position that isn't even remotely true.

Unions are "special interests". Unfortunately for Obama, you're right about his angle to them. His campaign made a huge tactical mistake in how it approached that term in a negative POV (in relation to how they were funding Edwards campaign in Iowa). A union's true "special interest" is the well-being of workers. The union has been and should continue to be a vital part of American life.

regarding reproductive rights, you're way off base: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/ 12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-hea lth-questionnaire


!
by alex100 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

The way we progressive talk about them is to emphasize our disagreements with the Republicans. We hope to move the country to the left by persuading people, not bs'ing them, sloganeering them, rock-starring them, and the like.

Unity is unity. Obama constantly talks about "reaching out to Republicans," how can that not mean extending an "olive branch" to them?

Obama said how much he admired Reagan. It does you no good to call me a "reactionary" for simply pointing this out.

This is just like the argument above about reproductive freedom. I quoted Obama fairly and in context. Yet, somehow, that makes me the bad guy, or worse. I know all about his 100% ratings. I still don't trust him. I think he's all about himself.

I don't lke him and I don't have to like him. It looks like he'll be the nominee. Fine. I'll vote for him in November. I've voted Democrat my whole life and I'm not about to change now.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

"Obama said how much he admired Reagan. It does you no good to call me a "reactionary" for simply pointing this out."

What if we just call you a liar?

Produce the quote. You can't. You are distorting beyond recognition what Obama said, just as you are lying about what Obama has said about abortion. I notice you still haven't produced the "direct quote" you claimed to have given.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

You know damn well which quote about Reagan I meant. But here it is anyway:

OBAMA: Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id= 4197507&page=2

Now, I know you're going to parse words and tell me that Obama didn't say, "I admire Reagan." I think the quote can reasonably be read that way, and do many others. So, you can call me a liar, but it's not true.

As for the direct quote from the debate about abortion, I gave it to as a reply to your last post.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

Another Reaganism comes to mind: "here we go again."

Obama's saying that Reagan was a successful politician because he was able to tap into the popular conscience in a way that others did not, namely by making them feel optimistic for the future (even if his policies should have made them feel anything but optimistic).  He's commenting on Reagan's style.  What, exactly, would you take issue with in that statement?  The fact that Reagan is still virtually untouchable now, long after his presidency and his death, show that that is the case.  That he finds one trait remarkable does not mean he believes in the substance of Reagan's policies, and in fact that quote says nothing about those policies.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

Blah, blah, blah. As I predicted, you parse the staetement and that somehow, shows that I am "a liar." I think the statement shows that Obama admires Reagan. Many in the media and the blogs read it that way too. You disagree. Fine. But you are not the ultimate arbiter of truth or falsehood. You knew which quote I was talking about, but you had me go through the trouble of quoting it and linking to it, just so you could say, "it doesn't mean what you say it does."

In short, dealing with you is a waste of time.


by freemansfarm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:55:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

So tell us your thoughts about this NPR piece:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/di d_clinton_say_regan_was_her_1.html


by goodnbad on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:01:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (2.00 / 0)

Here's something I'd like to point out:

Hillary Clinton lists Ronald Reagan as one of the presidents whom she admires most.


by goodnbad on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "How we talk about issues" (none / 0)

Republican voters, not Republican politicians. There's a huge difference.

i mean, we can play the Hillary hardcore Democrat game in which she doesn't have to cross boundaries to move the country leftward. We all know this line of reasoning is bull because Hillary has had to work with the GOP for years now. She's been a major caver on many important issues.

and do we really need a divisive Democrat at a rhetorical level? Because if so, we get comments like this: "I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are."

as Markos points out, there's not much love in a candidate that dismisses an entire state because she knows she'll lose it. We need a candidate that can play in 50 states, build up the Democratic party in those states even if we lose them. Not tear them down or dismiss them as Penn has done for this entire campaign.

I've been very clear about my feelings for Hillary. I think she paired herself with a disaster of a campaign team. Her team is not concerned at all about building up the party. She may be, but her apparatus is a mess of an organization that believes in tearing down states because of their size, their racial demographics and so on and on.

you don't like Obama? fine. That I can live with. But to say he's 100% for himself when he's put the infrastructure to turn out the vote now and in November (which will help down ticket races) is pretty petty. You ignore the fact that he spent many years making a fraction of what he could have been making as a harvard taught corporate lawyer, instead becoming a civil rights attorney.

personally, you're not the bad guy. You're just taking his reproductive rights (and other) comments a bit far.  As an atheist, I'm not offended that he would suggest that someone be able to talk to a family member, a friend or a member of their clergy. Perhaps we differ on this assessment, nothing new right?


!
by alex100 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:49:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (2.00 / 2)

He's such a poor candidate that he got a million more votes than the former front runner.

He's such a poor candidate that he's ahead 54-38 in the CBS/NYT poll and 51-39 in the Gallup/USA Today poll.

He's such a poor candidate that he has nearly a million separate donors to the campaign and is raising between $1 and 2 million a day.

He is such a poor candidate that superdelegates are flocking to him.

He's such a poor candidate that turnout is way, way up and he is attracting huge numbers of people to hear him speak.

He is such a poor candidate that he won Texans who watched his last debate in its entirety by 20 percentage points -- across every educational level.


by mainelib on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (2.00 / 0)

  Run away...FACTS!!!


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

George W Bush is such a poor president he got elected and then re-elected...

Oh wait...


by world dictator on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

Yes, Barack Obama and George Bush are alike in that they both ran successful primary campaigns and connected with many voters, unlike Hillary, who hasn't done either. Score a big one for Hillary.

Gawd, what nonsense.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

FDR and GWB - separated at birth?  Both won elections!  


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, (none / 0)

LOL! All that was before the picture right?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh (2.00 / 1)

So... first - forgetting for a moment that this comment has NOTHING to do with the post at hand...

What is this?

The 5th "end of Obama"?

Let's see... what else was going to ruin Obama.

Rezko?
Plagiarism?
Farrakhan?
Exelon?
Sinclair?

Did I miss any?


by zonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:18:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

The creepy thing about this fantasy is, they don't seriously think Obama's going to lose 15 point because he "looks silly." They think they can tap into racism and religious bigotry to propel Hillary Clinton to victory. They don't think of themselves as bigots, of course. They just want to tap into bigotry to win the contest.

What scum . . . fortunately most Clinton supporters would be as sickened by this as I am. As for Clinton, she's finished. No senate seat for her when this is over. Progressives will destroy her in the primary. We don't need race-baiters in the democratic party.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

You see that's exactly why Obama will lose. It's calling anyone who disagrees with him a "racist". The voters in the general election will give him a shellacking the likes of what the Dem party hasn't seen in years because of that attitude. Most voters take a very dim view of that attitude and he's already skating with the Farrakhan endorsement.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (2.00 / 0)

Right...

Let me ask you, why did you bring up Farrakhan?  Obama didn't have any control over that, and he never asked for it.  So, what exactly are you criticizing him for?  I mean, why would that even enter the average, non-racist voter's mind as a reason not to vote for Obama?


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

Do you think only racists don't like Farrakhan? The guy is a notorious anti-semite. Are most Obama supporters that clueless? Seriously?

It doesn't matter that Obama didn't ask for the endorsement. It only matters that he got it and the press widely reported it. It's going to be used against him. Besides, Obama has some links to guy from his church too.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

So, now you're afraid of the pending Republican smear-job (that you're helping to perpetuate)?

Hillary Clinton gets a lot of bad press and is behind in most, if not all, national polls.  Bill Clinton will also be used against her.  By your logic, aren't those major failures of her candidacy?  Shouldn't those things be held against her?  

Face it, you're just looking to tear the guy down and you're using whatever's at your disposal.  If it's not laughing at a picture of Obama dressed in Somali garb, it's playing WWFD (What Would Farrakhan Do).  You've got nothing left to add to the discussion.


by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sigh (none / 0)

When has Obama called anyone a racist? Source, please. Or is it all on me, now (and I stand by what I said.)

My candidate is winning. Yours is losing, again and again and again, by humiliating margins, bleeding endorsements and begging for money. Whatever I'm doing, it seems to be working.


by EMTP democrat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (none / 0)

well.. we lucked out with that charismatic newcomer, because he also happened to be brilliant in managing and grasping the issues.  He was not just a figurehead like Reagan, or like GWB, he just happened to be very gifted at getting the work done.  

It doesn't always work out that way...


by Catriley sez on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (none / 0)

How does this deserve a front page spot ??.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:45:13 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (none / 0)

   Right...only the unreasonable support Obama.  An interesting post - condescension mixed with Obama inevitability.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (1.00 / 1)

These diaries make me want to throw up.  Is there no end of unfairly disparaging Senator Clinton?  


by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:25 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton Versus Ann Richards, sort of (none / 0)

   This diary is unfair to both candidates.


Jim Oberweis
by cilerder86 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh..... (none / 0)

I've watched every convention, all 3 nights, ever since I started really caring about my Presidential politics.  My first was 1988.

In those 20 years -- there have been exactly two convention speeches that I can still remember.

Just two.

One was Ann Richards' 1988 keynote.  The other you can probably guess.

Eerie?

I heard Richards had a secretary named Lincoln and Obama has one named Kennedy :-)


by zonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:53:13 PM EST

Re: Heh..... (none / 0)

Umm Jesse Jackson?


by world dictator on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is front page worthy why? (none / 0)

Yes you're from Texas I get it, but that doesn't mean you suddenly have magical powers that make you're heavily biased entries entries front page worthy.

You wrote a good entry about the Texas system awhile back, I give you props, but every piece since then has been shoddy journalism that couldn't find a warrant or a meaningful reason for existence if it tried.

Look I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm sure you're a nice guy, but I remember a time where the guest commentors reporting "from the ground" gave useful and OBJECTIVE information about the race. Desmoulin and Desmoinesdem wrote great pieces and made it a point to keep their politics out of it.

This piece in particular doesn't seem to have a point other than to cast a shadow over Clinton.


by world dictator on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST

Re: This is front page worthy why? (2.00 / 0)

I stated my preference in my first post.  And, yes, the preference is visible in my posts. But isn't this a place to exchange views? Or is it only a place to agree with Clinton supporters?

I would say I was dismayed at the angry tone of the comments, but I  no longer am.

The parallel with Richards/Mattox is fascinating to me. It's not especially disparaging to Clinton, although by any analytical measure her tactics have been rather erratic of late. One would have expected Clinton to be more in the Richards role, because of her historic effort to become the first female president.

I don't know what to make of the anger of the pro-Clinton commenters, the anger directed at Obama. I truly believe there is a feeling that no right-thinking person could possibly support anyone but Senator Clinton, and so anyone who does deserves inhuman treatment.

It does kind of piss me off, because it seems so personal and unreasonable. But I've been in politics a long time. When I managed Ann's campaign, Mattox himself found himself photographed on the front page of the Washington Post angrily poking his finger in my chest.

Try to get through the scar tissue, if you can.


by Glenn Smith on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

This blog is a place to exchange ideas. The front page is a place for objective analysis. You're analysis isn't objective. In fact its not really analysis its empty pro Obama writing.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to state your opinions, but why does it merit a front page diary if its just empty rhetoric with no real useful information or purpose. Does this entry have anything to do with whats going on on the ground in Texas? No. Does this entry advance our understanding of the race? No.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want shady Pro Clinton propaganda on the front page either. I want objective analysis. Or hell, I'll even take analysis from a biased supporter as long as its on the up and up and the person clearly states their bias.

I mean even the MSM supports full disclosure...


by world dictator on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is front page worthy why? (none / 0)

Thanks for writing that comment, and very reasonably. I was trying to think of a nice way to write "shouldn't this be a comment on someone else's diary?" because it really didn't seem at all front-page worthy (other than being really hard to follow.)


by Catriley sez on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]