Hillary Clinton's Only Remaining Hope: Steal This Election

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
First of all, let's be clear on one thing - this race is over. Barack Obama has won. Hillary Clinton has lost. Obama's pledged delegate lead is insurmountable. He leads by about 150 delegates in that category. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not catch up to him.

Clinton's supposed big win last Tuesday amounted to a measly 6 to 7 delegate pick up. If that's a big win, then she needs approximately 20 more of those to get competitive. Obama might have picked up more delegates than that in Mississippi alone last night. He picked up twice as many delegates as that in South Carolina alone.

Even if Senator Clinton won the remaining nine contests with landslide victories, she wouldn't even get to within a 100 pledged delegates of Obama. Even if they re-voted in Michigan and Florida and she won by overwhelming majorities in those states, she still wouldn't be anywhere near Obama's numbers.

Her big claim to fame now is that she wins the big states and the swing states needed for the general election. I don't know why people take these claims seriously. First of all, so what? If she wants to win on big states alone she should move to a country where there are only big states. But in this country, where we have states of all sizes, she has lost.

Second of all, when did Massachusetts, New York and California become swing states? The election she theoretically won in Florida was not contested. So, her claim is that since she won Ohio, why don't we just give her the whole election?

Third of all, the fact that she wins these states in the primaries means absolutely nothing about what would happen in the general election. She won California - does that mean Obama would lose California to the Republican candidate? Of course not. The Democratic candidate will win California no matter what. Rhode Island is the state with the heaviest Democratic vote in the country. Does Hillary's win there mean that the Republican will win in Rhode Island in the fall? Don't be ridiculous.

The reverse of this argument is also true. Just because Obama won Idaho doesn't mean that the Democrats will win Idaho in the general election. These are apples and oranges comparisons. It's not really an argument worth discussing, except for the fact that the Clinton camp has done a good job of getting the press to actually discuss it.

The overall argument that she has lost the pledged delegate count but that she has won the more "important" states is asinine. Come on people, snap out of it. Obama has won nearly twice as many states as she has (29 to 15 in the last count). Are these states not important? Will the general election only be held in the states Hillary picks?

I'd love for her to make this argument in the general election - well, I lost the electorate count, but I won the important states like New York and California! Congratulations. Now go home.

So, why is Hillary Clinton still in the race - and still spending millions of dollars against Barack Obama?  It's important to keep in mind that every dollar she spends attacking Obama now is a dollar in John McCain's pocket. This might give McCain a $20-30 million dollar advantage, if not more. He can't raise enough money on his own, but when he combines his attack ads with Hillary's, they're in pretty good shape.

Well, Senator Clinton is still in this race because she thinks she can still win this primary. How? By stealing it. She is willing to overturn the will of the voters by getting enough super delegates and switching Obama's pledged delegates to come up with a victory.

Remember, pledged delegates are supposed to vote the way their state voted. Earlier in the campaign, Senator Clinton's team said they would never go after Obama's pledged delegates. But now, Hillary Clinton herself in an interview with Newsweek has said that she will in fact do exactly that.

Now imagine if Obama won the elections with a comfortable margin, as he is clearly going to do, and then Hillary Clinton took the nomination anyway at the convention by getting super and pledged delegates to move against their own voters. How do you think that would play?

The convention would be an utter disaster. The election would be a fraud. The party would be in shambles. All so that Senator Clinton can win at all costs. It's too outrageous a thought to even consider the possibility. But that's exactly what the Clinton campaign is banking on right now. Come on, is she really going to do that?

Imagine how Obama's voters - the majority of the party, by the way - would feel if Hillary Clinton was selected by the party elders even if she lost the election. They would, justifiably, feel robbed. To say they would be disenfranchised is a gigantic understatement. Do you think they would show up to vote for Senator Clinton in November?

In the one year Democrats have an excellent chance of winning the presidency, would they really sink their own chances like this? Well, we know the answer to that question.

Speaking for myself, I can't imagine a worse outcome than having another Republican candidate who agrees completely with George Bush win the presidency. But can I really get myself to vote for someone who stole the election in the primaries? I don't think so. So, here's my solution: If Hillary Clinton tries to take this election at the convention by overturning the will of the voters, I will show up there with a pitchfork.

Senator Clinton has to understand that she can't do this. She can't win based on pledged delegates. It is now mathematically impossible. And she can't win without the pledged delegates because it would rip the party apart. So, she has to mercifully come to the conclusion that she cannot win. And every day she stays in the race from here on out is a day she spends money helping John McCain win instead.

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Back and forth on Elliot Spitzer | Nevermind the crazy lady in the rearview mirror >
 Display:

    Cenk, keep the faith.  Your screed against Hillary’s ambition on Monday was high art.  You found perfect expression for the anger welling up in many of us.  Your talent for doing that is notable.  When you reach that pitch you’re as genuine as any performance in any venue I’ve witnessed for a while.  David needs to chill out.  You’re the real deal. 

Now, here’s where you’re wrong for calling the election:  You’re using logic and math!  Since when in the last seven years has a Washington politician, in this case Hillary, needed math?  The super-delegates are Washington politicians and insiders, and they’re going to cave to power.  We’ve seen it for 7 years.  If the natives start to get wrestless, they’ll start the drum beats against Iran and scare everybody into submission.

What progressives need to do is to establish the right narrative:  “They’re trying to steal the election. The Hillary Clint/John McCain/George Bush wing of the Washington establishment is trying to steal our democracy.” 

by John Arthos on 03/12/2008 12:31:39 PM EST


Cenk

Neither candidate is going to get the votes necessary to win the nomination out right. The super delegates will have to decide this.

You bragged the other day about how Obama beat Clinton (delegate count) in Texas. This despite her winning the popular vote. (no concern for the will of the people there huh)

Caucuses only represent 10% of the electorate (example only a little over 7,000 people voted in the Wyoming primary) Where is the concern for the will of the people.

Mich & Fla (shouldn't those voters have a say). Note: I do not believe that they should just be given to Hillary.

How about "weighted districts" that's fair too right?

Whenever I raise these questions I am told (by Obama Supporters) them the rules. Except when it comes to Super delegates. Super delegates are suppossed to vote for the candidate that they believe has the best chance to win in November, otherwise the candidate with the most delegates would automatically win.

If the super delegates feel that Clinton is the best choice to run against McCain and choose her then they are (according to you) violating the will of the people.

It is amazing how the will of the people only matters when it helps your candidate.

It is quite possible that Hillary could lose in delegates and win in popular vote, What then?

You would think, after the 2000 election, we would have our shit together. THIS ISN'T OBAMA'S FAULT AND IT ISN'T CLINTON'S FAULT. This mess was created by the DNC and never fixed.

What you should be pointing out is this whole system is unfair to the Dem. voters (how are Pubs and Inds voting in our primaries?)

The truth is, the winner will be decided by the super delegates and that we should unite behind whoever that cabdidate is period.

Then we should fix this mess, No caucuses, no weighted districts, No cross filings and NO super delegates. Only primaries where the voters thenmselves decide who our candidates should be

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 12:55:43 PM EST


"If the super delegates feel that Clinton is the best choice to run against McCain and choose her then they are (according to you) violating the will of the people."

His point is that if they do this they are taking a terrible chance of alienating a  large chunk of voters.  Stop and think about something just a second.  Opinion polls show that people are enormously unsatisfied with congress and the senate.  It shows in every poll taken where the question is asked.  There is a reason for that.  People are sick to death of the old guard way of doing business.  They're furious that congress and the senate haven't stood up to the thugs.  Those same people who are now in such disfavor with Americans are the people that constitute a large part of the superdelegates.  Are these insiders going to take their 20something% approval rating out for a spin by cramming Hillary down the throats of a majority of voters who have indicated they are fed up with the Washington crowd?

That would be a huge mistake.  You can't skate on 25% ice.  It isn't smart. 

by bfaul on 03/12/2008 02:19:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Polls don't count for shit until November for any candidate in any race. Gore, Kerry, Dukakis all led at one point durring their campaigns. Most voters have no idea who or what is a super delegate.

We don't even know what the split is going to be going into the convention. Like I said what if Clinton leads in popular vote and Obama leads in delegate votes what then?

Like the language though "cramming down the throats" they almost have the same amount of popular votes, how is that cramming?  but this really ain't about the will of the people is it? It is about what you want.

Live by the rules die by the rules

I want to win period and I will support whoever the Dem candidate is in Novemeber because that is what is truely important. (my candidate was already knocked out)


by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 02:49:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
isn't Obama ahead by over half a million popular votes? It's not a huge lead or anything, but it's not chump change either.

by ihavenobias on 03/12/2008 02:57:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We don't know what the split may be.

I am sorry if I offend but this isn't about Obama or Clinton.

It is about us winning in November.

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 03:21:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"Polls don't count for shit until November for any candidate in any race."

Did I quote polls for a certain candidate?  No.  I just used the poll numbers to indicate how badly people despise the current crop of congressmen and senators.  In that respect do polls count?  You bet your ass they do.  It indicates an undercurrent of dissatisfaction that is primed and ready to be tapped.  I'm convinced that these numbers are directly related to Obama's popularity.  The establishment people keep wondering "what's he got?".  He has an ability to put his finger on the problem, while the Hillarys of the world tap dance around it and put on a show, then vote only whatever they think is politically "safe".   People won't be happy if they think they've been thwarted by people they despise, that's all I'm saying. 

If Obama didn't already have a significant lead I would not be making the argument in his favor, even though I prefer him.   I'd still vote for Hillary over McCain.

by bfaul on 03/12/2008 04:25:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not trying to twist your words. We are all victims to this lunacy set up back in the 80s

Never trust in a poll, they can be deceiving. Not eight months ago Clinton was the INEVITABLE candidate (not so much now).

The people are tired of the war and the economy.

As to what Obama has, he has what? What risk has he taken? What problem has he solved? Especially since his election to the Senate. What tough vote has he taken? What tough election has he won? (his election to the Senate was virtually unopposed).

Please explain something to me. People (on the left) hate Clinton because he compromised with Republicans (Isn't that bipartisanship?) Even though he compromised with them they attacked him mercilessly. Obama supporters claim he can end the partisanship and get Pubs and Dems to work together Really?
In order to have bipartisanship you need to compromise, if Obama compromises with the Pubs doesn't make him just like Clinton? Do you really think the Pubs are not going to attack Obama, especially after Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry?




by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 06:37:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thats why I dont like her.


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 03/12/2008 08:27:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"People (on the left) hate Clinton because he compromised with Republicans (Isn't that bipartisanship?)"

Not me, that's one of the things I always liked about Bill Clinton.  He was skillful at give and take, and was able to get a lot accompished even with a fairly hostile opposition congress.  His wife, I find, does not fully understand the nature of compromise.   She caves where she ought to stand firm, and worse, she tries to play a bipartisan game against people who have zero interest in bipartisanship.  They shake her hand in public and then snicker to each other about how weak she is when she steps across the isle.  There is a time to be centrist, and a time to stand and fight for what you believe.  I no longer trust her ability to differentiate between the two.  She did that to herself, it had nothing to do with Obama.

She's fighting a ruthless battle against Obama, no doubt about it, but where was this ruthlessness when it really counted in the senate?  If only she were so ruthless against the Republicans. 

But look, really, after all this argument, we're still left with the simple fact that she really has almost no chance to win, and she's doing all this damage for nothing. 

"Do you really think the Pubs are not going to attack Obama, especially after Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry?"

They attack everyone, absolutley everyone, this is not news to anyone.  The problem with Gore and Kerry is that when they ran for office they toned things down out of caution.  Look at how much more passionate Gore became after the 2000 election.  Kerry has posted some fairly passionate entries on the Huffington Post, and people have often responded by asking him:  Where was all this passion when you ran for office?

For me, this is what Obama has that Hillary lacks.  She will likely try to be all things to all people, speaking from calculation rather than from the heart, and they will smell that like dogshit on the bottom of someone's shoe. 

by bfaul on 03/13/2008 11:56:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One minute Hillary is the bitch who fights back, who fights dirty, who will do anything to win. The next she lacks the passion needed to win in Nov?

Based on track record, I know Hillary will do whatever it takes to win and that is what we need.

You believe that Obama has the "passion" necessary to win in Nov. great, I hope he does but what is your faith based on? what tough campaign has he fought?

Every Obama post I read talks about how his campaign is different, a new type of politics. How he won't resort to Clinton type tactics. How he will stay above the fray.

The unwillingness to fight is exactly the reason we lose presidential elections. Let me ask you are you proud of the positive campaigns of Dukakis, Gore & Kerry. Are you proud they wouldn't resort to "those" types of tactics. or are you like me pissed at the blown opportunity.

Perfect example today ABC ran a story about Obama's pastor. It was most unflattering. A spokesperson for Obama tried to distance the Senator from the pastors remarks and pointed out that nobody is looking at the pastors of other candidates. NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Obama knew this story was coming. He should have used this opportunity to attack McCain and his crazy pastor, along with his acceptance of the Hagee endorsement. His team should have clips prepared to give to the media showing the comments of McCains' Pastor. Ending the session stating I have disavowed the statements of my pastor, as a GOOD christian McCain should do the same.

If Obama does not forcefully respond to this now, they will drape his pastor around his neck. I can see the ads now, this is why Obama hates America.

I hope you are right.

by LORD FOUL on 03/13/2008 04:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Super delegates are suppossed to vote for the candidate that they believe has the best chance to win in November

Man, I love you Clintonistas.  WHY is this desirable?

by jarett on 03/12/2008 02:52:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
1)First of all I am not a Clinton Supporter.

2)I suppose you are joking but I like winning.

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 03:24:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
(not even close) and you think Hillary has a better chance of winning. Oh, and you don't like McCain.

If someone had to describe your position, I think "Clinton Supporter" is the most logical choice.

by ihavenobias on 03/12/2008 05:00:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Words mean nothing, I have said numerous times that I am a supporter of Edwards. He was our best chance to win.

Personally it would not break my heart to see the DNC step in and make Edwards or Gore the nominee, both would have a better chance to win in November.

Clinton has two important edges over Obama and those are experience fighting Pubs and appealing to the middle of the GENERAL electorate.

My concern with Clinton isn't the hatred of the right but the hatred of the left (many might stay home rather than vote for her)

My concerns with Obama are these

What experience does he have "running" against the Pub machine? Is he willing to fight fire with fire? I have seen the race card and little else.

Dems never seem to learn from history. Election after election the Dems have taken the high road and have gotten creamed under the avalance of smear thrown at them by the Pubs. Obama is a candidate running a "new" type of campaign, playing a new type of politics. (taking the high road). If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 07:40:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So your argument why Obama can't beat McCain is that the DNC nominating him is too ethical to work?

PS:  Words mean everything; that's why we use 'em.

by richardshort2001 on 03/13/2008 10:46:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I was talking about my words, I answer a question and it gets asked it again. I write a sentence and it gets twisted

Please read what I wrote.

I never said Obama can't win nor did I say that the DNC nominating him would be too ethical.

Can I make it any simpler.

1) Obama has no experience at fighting the Pubs at this level.
2) Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all ran ethical positive campaigns. they all share another thing in common THEY ALL LOST. their unwillingness to fight back, their unwillingness to really go negative cost them election after election. The only exception was Clinton and that was because he was willing to fight back.

History teaches us that when Dems take the high road they lose and when Dems fight fire with fire they win.

You can't change washington unless you are IN washington

Are you proud of the campaigns run by Cater, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry? I'm not

Obama can win in November but only if he is A) willing to fight back and B) willing to get his hands dirty.

by LORD FOUL on 03/13/2008 12:38:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Don't kid yourself into thinking that the Clinton campaign will "bow their heads" to the reality you're espousing.  Their belief is that Sen. Clinton is the only person for the job, and so any and all means are justified in their quest to get her into the White House.

One of the threads on which they're pulling is putting forth the idea that some delegates have primacy; specifically, that primary-derived delegates should have a greater weighting than caucus-derived delegates.  This meme has been pushed so successfully in recent days that Keith Olbermann started his Monday night broadcast with:

"Even when those now redefined tertiary-level caucus-won delegates are subtracted from the equaton Senator Obama still has a lead in pledged delegates, be it a very small one.  Sen. Obama getting 12 more delegates in the primary contests than did Sen. Clinton, 1,008 to 1,076."

You could also reference other posts in this thread for similar obfuscation and sub-categorization of the delegates. 

I was sufficiently annoyed with Countdown's assimilation of the Clinton campaign's transparent subversion of the nomination process, that I felt compelled to email the program; the 'gist of my email being...

 

(Countdown shouldn't) propagate the Clinton campaign's transparently self-serving notion of one class of Democratic delegates having less weight than another, by starting the broadcast referring to the caucus-won delegates as "tertiary-level."

 

 

Instead, (Countdown) might want to cover the rib-tickling irony of the Clinton campaign denigrating the democratic merit of caucus-derived delegates, in their argument to override the Obama campaign's pledged delegate majority -- by promoting the votes of the most undemocratic of delegates, the superdelegates.

Does (entity) really want to side with the Clinton campaign is declaring one class of delegates more equal than others?

 

Increasing talk of the "popular vote" taking primacy over the delegate count is self-serving drivel emanating from a campaign that failed in the execution of an ill-advised, divisive campaign strategy centered on exclusivity, that only a few states really matter.

The candidates are running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party -- NOT the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.  Sen. Clinton's campaign should not be rewarded for the failure of her campaign.

by plooger on 03/12/2008 01:52:10 PM EST


I voted for you only five short weeks ago, but today I am done. I understand you have your ambitions, and I used to share in them. But your refusal to acknowledge the obvious makes me question your judgment. And now I am starting to believe you have motives which frankly sicken me.

You will turn 61 in October of this year, 65 in October of 2012, and 69 in October of 2016. That math is as obvious as the math that says you have lost the nomination. It's regrettable that people judge women so harshly as they age, but it's true.

So it would appear that 2012 may be the last year that you consider yourself young enough to be elected President. If Obama wins this November, he will be our party's nominee that year. If you join his ticket and ensure his victory, you may never get the chance to lead your own ticket.

But if you kneecap Obama in the primaries, and toss the White House to McCain in November, the 2012 race currently comes down to you or John Edwards vs. an elderly John McCain. If McCain pursues GOP economic policies, an America in ruin will surely elect you as President. A Bush-McCain appointed Supreme Court and WW3 in the Middle East must be a small price to pay for that opportunity.

So you have led me to regard you either as oblivious to reality or willing to hurt the party, the country and the world to advance your own ambition. The former disturbs me; the latter, if correct, truly sickens me.

by Dogger on 03/12/2008 01:58:22 PM EST


She can make up 100 if she goes on a run.

 

25 superdelegates in Florida...if it gets seated. She can win 30 more in pledged there since she leads by 15-20 pointes. Michigan would be a draw.

If she wins Pennsylvania by what the polls have her as that's +20 at least.

Then she'd need to take winner take all Puerto Rico to get 63 more delegates.

 

Hmmm then she needs a little bit more... 

by acroso on 03/12/2008 05:56:38 PM EST


I know it looks like Hillary will have to steal it, but this is not necessarily the case. Forget Pennsylvania, the key, the absolute key that will decide everything, the key to the entire nomination, is the North Carolina primary May 6th. Hillary knows this, and I believe Obama knows it too, as he played down Pennsylvania on the campaign trail.

 The reason for this is simple mathematics. Hillary is going to win PA - she has that sleazy governor "Fast Eddy" Rendell backing her (the racist garbage this guy spewed out on a Pittsburgh radio station a couple months ago - which went under the media radar - makes what Ferraro said look like child's play). She also has the mayor of Philly on her side, and, most importantly, the demographics - mostly older, poorer, less-educated Dems - the people who buy into her lies about her being good for the working person, strongly favor her. Hillary will of course will continue her "rabid dog" attacks and twisted logic and lies against Obama's economic policies for the next six weeks. She will beat that argument like a dead horse in Pennsylvania. As Senator Bill Bradley said the other day, "the bigger the lie, the better, according to the Clinton campaign".

So, she will get PA with a margin of somewhere between 56-44 and 58-42. Now, delegate wize, that only means 25-30 delegates or so. But the scary thing is, what if she pulls 60% to Obama's 40? It sounds scary, but it is within the realm of possibility. Now, if she does get 58 to 60% we are in big trouble, because she may get a bounce from that.

This is where North Carolina comes in. I am from North Carolina, and I will tell you, we are no little state - 10th largest in the US, and almost as many delegates as PA. So this is why things get dicy here - the polls have been shifting. A month ago, an absolute Obama lock, 15 point lead or more. But now, according to Rasmussen Reports, its down to a 7 point lead. If Hillary gets that bounce from a big PA win, it really could have a ripple effect here, and actually end up carrying her to a North Carolina win.

 That is what makes North Carolina the key the whole nomination. Cenk, you may think I'm wrong, but I know I'm right on this. An Obama North Carolina win is absolutely essential to halting any further Hillary momentum. She wins here, in a state that was really expected to go to us, we are really dead, because then she can probaly get just enough momentum to win Oregon too. But more importantly, that momentum could give her the POPULAR VOTE. Yes, I crunched the numbers a couple times, and Hillary still ends up 25 to 50 delegates short (counting a Florida revote), but she gets that popular vote total higher than Obama's, thats all she needs to convince the Superdelegates. Game over.

So, I beg, I implore, anybody reading this post, whatever you can do to help Obama in North Carolina - phone banks, or if you live down here or closeby, just going door to door in poor neighborhoods of Charlotte or Durham getting people to register (our registration deadline is April 11th).Whatever you can do, DO IT. Send your brother or your cousin or your nephew if you can - but we MUST WIN HERE. Please help.

 North Carolina is THE ENDGAME. Obama wins North Carolina or its all over. Mark my words, I know this may sound drastic being almost 2 months away, but its not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

by Tarheel88 on 03/12/2008 06:55:20 PM EST


As Cenk has said many, many times, the candidate that runs the most effective campaign deserves to win. As long as it is legal under US law, it counts.

Given the long odds Hillary now faces, if she can whip Obama's ass, she deserves to be in the Oval Office.  In that case, I'd much rather have her toe to toe with the Red Chinese and the Insurance companies than some inexperienced wimp who can't close a sure thing.

OTH, if Obama wins, more power to him! Competition will steel him for the big one against McCain.

by winsor on 03/12/2008 06:58:28 PM EST


McCain doesnt seem like much of a threat to me at all.  He is nothing more than a continuation of the failed bush policies. The country is tired of it. Way more D than R have come out to vote already.

McCain is the one that needs to worry. In fact the whole R party is going to suffer big defeats.


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 03/12/2008 08:30:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The most important developement in this cycle has been the hugh turnout in the Dem primaries and the hugh amounts of money both candidates are raising.
This is our best chance at the White House in a long time.

by LORD FOUL on 03/12/2008 09:32:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Turnout in 88' was just like this and the dems had their huge turnout as normal but still lost.

I don't think it means much.

by acroso on 03/12/2008 09:58:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We would have won in 88 if we had a nominee willing to fight and not get baited into a racial arguement.

by LORD FOUL on 03/13/2008 09:36:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"But can I really get myself to vote for someone who stole the election in the primaries? I don't think so."

You don't think so?

You don't think so?


How bad does the woman have to be before you know that you will not vote for her if she wins the nomination.

by KenTX on 03/13/2008 02:00:54 AM EST


And that's tough to attain.

by Spencer on 03/13/2008 02:22:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]

The odious TX Republican skank who said it puts “a bullet right in the hearts of our troops" to remove them from a place where they actually do get shot.

Then I might consider McCain, although I'd have to vote absentee from France.

by Dogger on 03/13/2008 10:49:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: