So much for "public financing" Mr. Obama...

Email Print posted by bobo1 06/19/2008 04:22:40 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Well - Change we can believe in - except for public financing!!!

Well - I guess you can say its a change of sorts - no one else has ever opted out of public financing for the general election. Now ProfRich and Spence - since I'm on my Blackberry, I cannot sort, link and find every scholarly reference to pinpoint when exactly Obama promised to use the public financing system - but please take me at my word to believe that he did, on several occasions...so much for changing the tone and keeping campaign promises! Now, am I mad that he opted out - no - he would be stupid not to... But again this shows the utter hypocrisy of the "Change we can believe in" campaign. Thus again questioning his integrity once more. He lied. Again. Change? Nothing looks like it has changed thus far!!! :)
< My favorite part of the day | The Countrywide Six: A Culture of Corruption. >
 Display:
So much for "public financing" Mr. Obama... | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 hidden)
From the New York Times (none / 0)

'In fact, Mr. Obama stopped short of making a flat promise to participate in the public financing system. Asked in a questionnaire whether he would take part if his opponents did the same, Mr. Obama wrote yes. But he added, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Mr. Obama has since said that he would only agree to such a deal if Mr. McCain agreed to curtail spending by the Republican Party and independent groups.'

Link:   to NYT article

 

by desertpear on 06/19/2008 04:53:26 PM EST

once again, bobo is mistaken (none / 0)

Obama promised long ago to sit down with the republican nominee and hash out ground rules for a campaign in which both camps participate in public financing. McCain has ignored his requests, so all Obama is saying is that he's not going to fight with one hand tied behind his back. What a milquetoast, eh? He has always said that the public financing system as it currently stands is broken. This is a principled position on an issue that sits at the core of his philosophy, and why so many support him. I'm amazed that after months of debating Obama supporters you don't even understand this basic fact. You may not agree with it, but how could you be caught by surprise here?

Let me ask you something bobo, do you actually believe in anything? Or are you just anti-Obama? At least take the time to find out what his position is.

by hazmat on 06/19/2008 05:40:02 PM EST

What amazes me, hazmat... (none / 0)
Is that Obama and his supporters say one thing and then so flippantly flip-flop and then act angry when someone calls them on it. Obama - along with many other Democratic candidates - publicly decried the abuse of campaign finance, vowing to give us a "different" kind of campaign and then just up and say - "well, since my opponent won't be nice, I don't have to be either!" Now hazmat, as I stated before - I don't care to the fact that he opted out of the 85 million dollar limit. He would have been stupid NOT to. What I am saying is that this whole "changing the way politics is done" argument is absolute bullshit and its time to "come clean" on it. Don't run around saying you're gonna change things when you pull the same shit as everyone before you has, Senator Obama. What really amazes me hazmat is suckers like you put your faith into players of the same corrupt system and expect them to play a different game. I just get tired of the hypocrisy... "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" :)

by bobo1 on 06/19/2008 05:55:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This whole discussion is a joke (none / 0)

McCain forfeited any of his or his supporters right to push for Obama to agree to any extra rules when McCain made the decision to openly and blatantly shit all over campaign finance rules with his accomplice Bush who would not appoint commisioners so we could have rules enforced or public financing checks cut anyway.

Would you agree to new stricter rules with an opponent who is openly cheating?  You'd be pretty damned stupid to.

And how the hell are they going to get the public financing.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMITTEE thanks to Bush.

Like most GOP arguments this cycle this argument starts on the fringe and quickly moves to outer space.

Making this argument implies either a complete lack of understanding of the broader reality or a malicious intellectual dishonesty. 

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 06:20:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again, Professor... (none / 0)
As I have now stated 3 times - the fact that he opted out of the public financing isn't my concern - he would have been stupid not to. I agree with you there. My point is that once again, he lied and lied big and when the media calls him on it he talks about "changing" the way things are done. How is lying "changing" anything in this system? He vows to change the way campaigns are financed, then accumulates 5 times more money than any campaign in history!!! I don't care who gives to him I if they can't accomplish their goals with 85 million - DONT GO AROUND FOR A YEAR and say you should because there's "too much money" in politics!!! Its very simple to understand, Professor - who's the one being dishonest here??? I could go ahead and add in the whole 2 Muslim women thing in Detroit - There's another shining example of "change" and whatnot - but Ill save it for another time! :)

by bobo1 on 06/19/2008 06:36:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
muslim woman thing (none / 0)

Did you listen to Cenk's segment on those two women yesterday?  Obama had nothing to do with it and has apologized for the actions of those who were responsible.  It was really a non-event in my opinion.   

I'd say Obama has changed the way things are done.  Much of his campaign money is coming from millions of small donors. 

He didn't lie.  He left his campaign a strategic "out" if McCain wasn't going to play by mutually agreed upon rules. 

by desertpear on 06/19/2008 07:04:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're sort of right. (none / 1)

But mostly not.  He HAS done something different and unusual to fund his campaign -- instead of having a relatively small number of doners give large sums, his funding model has been built around getting modest donations from a ridiculous number of "everyday" people.  That is different, that is a change.  I'd like to see what McCain's average donation is.  The reason he has the stockpile of cash you talk about is that he has appealed to so many people.  He gets the public involved.  That is a good thing. 

Yes, it would have been a strong gesture to take the public funding.  But we all know why he decided not to (I also think it would have been stupid for him to take it for this particular election).  So on this issue, he didn't opt for the maximum amount of change possible, but don't pretend like his campaign has been conventional. 

by jjpotter on 06/19/2008 07:11:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well stated (none / 0)

by hazmat on 06/19/2008 07:14:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
from the muslim women (none / 0)
At the rally for Senator Obama in Detroit on Monday, June 16, two volunteers denied us seating behind the stage the Senator would soon take. The volunteers informed us that we were not allowed to sit in that area due to the hijab, the headscarf that each of us was wearing.

   This incident was unfortunate and extremely disappointing. Senator Obama has called us each to personally convey his deepest apologies and acknowledge that this was inexcusable. We both immensely appreciate the Senator’s phone call and his commitment to remedy this issue. We commend him for displaying qualities befitting an effective President. We acknowledge that this injustice has been taken seriously and that Senator Obama does not tolerate discrimination against Arabs, Muslims or any community. We are assured that he and his staff are committed to upholding the principles of justice for all peoples and bringing about change we can believe in. The infringement on our rights occurred and has been addressed; now we are ready to move forward. We will continue to support Senator Obama in his campaign and wish him the best as the race continues.

   Regards,
   Shimaa Abdelfadeel
   Hebba Aref

by desertpear on 06/19/2008 08:24:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
very nice (none / 0)
Sounds like it was written by the Obama Campaign.

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 08:33:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thank you desert pear (none / 0)
I appreciate your effort, but as KenTX alluded to, most likely written or "encouraged" by the Obama campaign. Despite that, the implication has been made: Barack Obama speaks one thing but does another. He's shown it several times, but not nearly as clear as this week. Now please do not take this critisism of Obama as an endorsement of Grandpa Death. I certainly do not endorse his geriatric ass for anything other than as a spokesman for depends diapers. I just think that it needs to be noted that Obama isn't the agent of "change" that he purports to be, as demonstrated twice this week. Thanks again... :)

by bobo1 on 06/19/2008 09:50:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
are you saying (none / 0)

Are you both saying that muslim women couldn't be expected to be smart enough to write that well?  Just kidding of course.  But who cares if he wrote it?  This particular incident is not really very good ammunition against Obama--just dumb.  I only posted the letter to show that it is a non-issue. 

I think Obama is damn smart and that makes me even happier to support him.  He's also a tough mofo and has what it takes to win.  If he flopped over and showed his belly like Kerry, I wouldn't be very happy.  So far, he has done nothing to dissuade me from supporting him.  I don't think he has done anything particularly unethical to date, but I concede he isn't perfect.  Who is?  And who would I support if not Obama?  After all, we go to war with the candidates we have, not the candidates we wish we had.  The fact that he isn't accepting lobbyist money for his campaign means the world to me.  Isn't that change enough?  It's only the beginning.

by desertpear on 06/19/2008 11:40:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
fact checking (none / 0)
"Bush who would not appoint commisioners. THERE IS NO FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMITTEE thanks to Bush."

Bush nominated commissioners. The problem is that Democrats in the 51-49 Senate didn't like the candidates that Bush nominated.

Once again we have a difference of opinion. I ask the forum to determine if one of us is mistaken, or one of us is lying.

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 06:50:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Did you not read that article? (none / 0)

Or do you just not understand our democracy?

There are four empty seats. 

We need to fill two of those to have a quorum. 

Bush has nominated one candidate.

Congress rejected the candidate.

Bush refuses to nominate either a replacement for that candidate or any candidates for the other three open spots.

Is that how you think the government is supposed to work?

The president nominates an appointee and Congress HAS to approve the nominee or the president just gets to shut that entire part of the government down?

He tried Van Spikofsky (for one seat).  VS got rejected.  Now where the hell are the other three and the next attempt at the VS spot?

So if President Obama nominate Bill Clinton for the Supreme Court and Congress rejects him (which they wouldn't) then two more spots open up on the SC and Obama won't submit any other name than Clinton, who is the cause of the problem in this scenario? 

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 10:47:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think I understand. (none / 0)
1. The President nominates. 2. The Senate confirms. Seperate and Co-equal, right? The President isn't the boss of the Senate, and vice-versa. If the Senate wants a quorum, then they better get to confirmin', or shut the hell up.

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 11:51:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong again (none / 0)

1. The President nominates

2. The Senate confirms or denies 

And all of a sudden it is the Republicans who need the FEC to have a quorum.  I don't think the Dems give a shit for now.  They don't need the money.

Back when they wanted a quorum to prosecute McCain the Dems understand Bush's ultimatum and grudgingly accepted it.  Now that McCain needs it I guess Bush will either have to present a different nominee or deal with it.

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 12:19:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rich, (none / 0)
I'm not sure that you're 100% up to speed on current events.

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 01:20:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nope Ken (none / 0)

This is what your article basically says says.

"Back when they wanted a quorum to prosecute McCain the Dems understand Bush's ultimatum and grudgingly accepted it.  Now that McCain needs it I guess Bush will either have to present a different nominee or deal with it." -- ProfRich

 

by z1p101 on 06/20/2008 01:32:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Ken! (none / 0)

I have been really busy lately so I appreciate you doing my research for me and showing I was exactly right about this whole discussion.

You're a real pal! 

I guess to be fair I was about 24 hours behind my FEC nomination news, a fact for which I express my deepest shame but until yesterday I was right on and the general motivations and tactics of each side worked out just as I explained.

It is interesting news though and I am curious to see how they handle the complaints against McCain.

As I understand it, if the FEC fails to respond to the complaints in a certain time frame it defaults into Federal Court so my guess is the clock has almost run out and Bush has to have the FEC to avoid a very high profile federal court case that may or may not be in a friendly jurisdiction to McCain.  Therefore Bush caved on the Von Spikofsky nonsense and is having to rush through a more moderate slate the Dems will accept.

That and as John Edwards learned, no quorum equals no check for matching funds and Grampa Death needs them funds for his heart pills since his wife won't pony up on account of the whole repeatedly calling her a cunt in public thing. 

In retrospect, now that he needs the cash, insulting the rich lady he's (allegedly) cheating on may not have been such a great idea.

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 01:57:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yea!!!! (none / 0)

Well I am awesome because I played football but I am not as awesome as my Dad when it comes to football but you did not play football and I bet you Dad didn't either so that makes me better.

I am an awesome Texas oil man but I am not as awesome as my Dad when it comes to Texas oil men but you are from Texas and are not an oil man so I am better.

So obviously it is you with the Daddy issues and..........

Sorry Rich, lost myself there for a second. 

by z1p101 on 06/20/2008 02:37:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't forget the latest episode (none / 0)
of Ken's "Look At How Awesome I Am" theatre.  It's honestly getting a little uncomfortable.

by Spencer on 06/20/2008 02:50:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Very (none / 0)
uncomfortable.

by z1p101 on 06/20/2008 04:45:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the way things work (none / 0)
"As I understand it, if the FEC fails to respond to the complaints in a certain time frame it defaults into Federal Court so my guess is the clock has almost run out and Bush has to have the FEC to avoid a very high profile federal court case that may or may not be in a friendly jurisdiction to McCain." 

I'm not sure your understanding of the law is entirely correct.

The FEC has jurisdiction over FEC issues. I think the Bush Administration is simply doing everything possible to appear cooperative. It looks like they drug their heels until the issue became a non-issue.

With 63 days until the convention, the issue is fast approaching moot. The complaint involves McCain's campaign finances prior to the convention. So as the 63 days tick down, the issue becomes meaningless.

After the convention, McCain simply receives his matching funds.

This is kind of like the Bush Impeachment. If Democrats are going to do something, they better hurry. Time is running out.

By the way, how is that impeachment thing coming? I haven't even heard about a hearing yet. I guess that means Democrats must think Bush is a law-abiding president?

by KenTX on 06/20/2008 03:51:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ROFL (none / 0)

Ken, read your own links again and actually read down to the bottom of the page this time and everything becomes clear.

"By the way, how is that impeachment thing coming? I haven't even heard about a hearing yet. I guess that means Democrats must think Bush is a law-abiding president?"

What does that have to do with anything? 

by z1p101 on 06/20/2008 04:26:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's clear to YOU? (none / 0)
"Ken, read your own links again and actually read down to the bottom of the page this time and everything becomes clear."

I'm glad you're now clear on the issue. Now, for once, why don't you explain the "issue" to the forum.

Pick a time when you haven't been drinking, so you'll sound semi-coherent.

by KenTX on 06/21/2008 10:31:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

I don't have to because Rich already explained it just fine and I know he is right thanks to your links.

Now get off line because I think your Dad is calling you. 

by z1p101 on 06/21/2008 11:00:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He is meaning KenTX (none / 0)

 From WaPo

 

"Republicans balked at Democratic offers to hold an up-or-down vote on Mr. von Spakovsky and other nominees."

 



by MarkRussell on 06/20/2008 12:53:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
DO you know where you are? (none / 0)

You think somehow you can cut and paste something and we wont know what youre leaving out?

Do you think youre somehow that crafty and we dont know the backstory?

Do you REALLY think that by saying that with the smallest majority mathematically possible and Republicans Fillerbustering every vote that its their fault?

Bring your A-Game dude, cause this post stinks.

by calturner on 06/20/2008 03:21:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh man! You caught me! (none / 0)
"Do you REALLY think that by saying that with the smallest majority mathematically possible and Republicans Fillerbustering every vote that its their fault?"
So you're saying that Republicans would filibuster a Bush nominee to the FEC? Uhhhhhh. Haven't Democrats been keeping Bush FEC and Judicial nominees bottled up in committee without a floor vote? Let me check. Looks like they have.

"Bring your A-Game dude, cause this post stinks."
I need to crank it up a couple of notches, because with opponents like you, I've really made it to the big leagues. You're really good!

by KenTX on 06/21/2008 10:21:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If you think (none / 0)

If you think Obama's message is that we should play nice even though the other guys won't, just for the sake of playing nice, you missed the point. Until the law is fixed, and until the law is enforced, we're going to use every political advantage available to crush the republicans, because if we don't, they certainly will.

Obama has made a clear signal that he intends to change politics by telling the DNC, not just his campaign, to stop taking contributions from corporate lobbyists. If he gets elected this way and ushers in a democratic majority in both houses on his coattails, he will have real capital to spend on public financing reform, which has always been one of his stated goals (and of the progressive movements) from the getgo. Hillary had ZERO interest in this issue.

Yes its true that we should remain skeptical of our politicians, but your cynicism is taken to the extreme. At some point bobo, you gotta pull the lever. By the way I think I've been respectful enough of your opinions to deserve better than being called a "sucker".

by hazmat on 06/19/2008 06:49:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
poor bobo (none / 0)
black man won clown sad

by richardshort2001 on 06/19/2008 06:18:16 PM EST

Attention Spencer!!! (none / 0)
This is an ad hominem attack. Rshort - labeling me a racist and "sad" only makes you smaller than you really are - if you want to argue your opinions, by all means do so. If not - please shut the fuck up and let the grown ups have their discussion. :)

by bobo1 on 06/19/2008 06:58:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)

I understand that.  Ken is the one who needs the teaching.  Thanks though.  You're dumb, racist, and not funny.  ;) *  Have a great day.

 

* - Notice the winky face.  It means I'm only playing, so don't get sand in your diaper about it.

by Spencer on 06/19/2008 07:11:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dick Short (none / 0)
can't be much smaller than he already is.

(Judge Spencer, is that an ad hominem attack?)

by KenTX on 06/19/2008 07:15:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Judge Spencer"? (none / 0)
I'm sorry, was I judging you?  I pointed out that you were using a term wrong.  That was it.  You keep whining about being attacked and the shit is annoying, since you do it all the time much like all of us.

by Spencer on 06/19/2008 07:20:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually, no (none / 0)
as it wasn't an attempt to disprove my position, since I was just being a troll there and didn't have one, by attacking me instead of the position.  So you're safe, this time, but be careful, if you do Fallacy Man will be watching.

:)

by richardshort2001 on 06/20/2008 02:29:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yawwwwn (none / 0)
This argument you present was not only already trashed by people who got here before me, but by people months ago when McCain pre attacked him for possibly not taking public financing when it was obvious he wouldn't.  He only said he would consider an agreement, not that he would absolutely  do it. 

You continue to build up and bash down the "Obama is a Messiah" strawman, over and over.  Keep it up, if it makes you feel better, but as pointed out repeatedly by many, no one here believes he is perfect.  These arguments you make won't change the opinions of the people in the blog that Obama is the best candidate from among the viable choices, that he is faaaaarrrrrrr better than McCain and that he is most likely going to be our president for at least the next four years. 

By even the most cynical view (Rep ublicans exempt) Obama is clearly the far lesser of two political evils.  You can continue in emobo mode and preach doom and gloom at every tiny little opening about how Obama is "just another politician", but understand that it makes you look like just that, a sad little clown.

by richardshort2001 on 06/19/2008 10:57:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Emobo... (none / 0)
I like that! I'm going to steal it from you and use it later! Anyway, as to your point, I personally don't give a shit what you think of me or my arguments because you have convinced yourself that I am some raging klan member anyway. I continue to bring up the fallacy of Obama because if I didn't, nobody else (except for Ken) would, and you and your buddies would further fall into your delusional fantasyland of"kumbaya free love everythings gonna be alright" dementia. I really consider it my pennance for past sins - I must keep you from falling completely - even if it doesn't change your vote, it does make you take pause - even if it is just to bitch and whine at me! Thanks again for your time!! :)

by bobo1 on 06/19/2008 11:11:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey bobo (none / 1)
Did you ever get around to finding any quotes from regular posters showing how we all think Obama is Jesus.  I still can't find them.

by ProfRich on 06/19/2008 11:53:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont need them, Rich... (none / 0)
I see them everyday on television. I see them everyday on the blogs. I see them everyday on youtube.

News anchors having pseudo-orgasms during their show. Bloggers convinced that he can do no wrong and will fight to the death to defend his honor. Dissent being thrashed, sequestered and eliminated. Rce baiting all around. Young people fawning over the man like he is a rock star.

Now this might be difficult for you to see because you, Rich, have taken the Red Pill and have gone down the rabbit hole. You are immersed in the kool aid, convinced that anyone not named Bush (or McCain) will save you from your 8 year nightmare.

For those of us still peering into the hole, grasping to the very last bit of our objectivity - the events I described above is what we see.

It is quite a phenomenon, I'll give you that. It is something I have never witnessed before, not physically anyway. It has happened before in our history, but throwing those kinds of names turns the discussion very sour very quickly...

You go ahead and keep waiting for your "specifics", because you and I both know that they are not needed and not forthcoming. All you have to do is open your eyes and see it for what it really is - Alice Through the Looking Glass, if you will...

Thanks again for your time...

:)

by bobo1 on 06/20/2008 12:28:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So, no then (none / 0)
You have no evidence of the people in here whom you are accusing of living in a fantasy land of actually doing so.

by richardshort2001 on 06/20/2008 12:46:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I have right here in my hands... (none / 0)

...a list of Obama worshippers and proof of their crimes!!!!!

Bobo McCarthy Are you or have you ever been an Obamabot?!?!?!

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 12:52:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You may not need them (none / 0)

But we do, bobo.

If they are everywhere like you claim why won't you just show us?

Now you claim I see Obama as our savior?

What did I ever post to give you that idea?

You talk about what is clear to everyone.  What is clear to the rest of us is that you can only see the world as divided into those who hate Obama and those who worship him.  And, of course, when asked to help us see what you see, like any deranged zealot you just scream It's obvious! and leave it at that.

Think what you want to think but in my opinion you are  the one living in a fantasy land.  But that is, after all, just my opinion. 

by ProfRich on 06/20/2008 12:47:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Also, while on the topic of logical fallacies (none / 0)
I find it amusing that you scream ad hominem just days after ProfRich accused you and KenTX of creating your thesis and then doing slanted research to back it up, instead of doing unbiased research and using it to determine you thesis.  You then proceeded to do just that and insist that it proved you don't do that. 

You see, while ad hominem attacks are technically logical fallacies, that doesn't make them completely unusable in a debate of ideas.  See, if there were a hearing on say the effects of second hand smoke (which is a perfectly debatable subject), would you give as much weight to the arguments of a tobacco exec as you would a licenced, unbiased MD?  Surely not.  You have shown by the above example that YOU have already predetermined your feelings about Obama and only consider facts that back up your point of view.  All of us are guilty of that to a certain extent, it's human nature, but I actually have taken positions contrary to the "pro-Obama" position on this website.  I offer proof.  You fail to EVER, from what I have seen, see things from the other side and yet have the audacity to accuse anyone who supports Obama of living in some fantasy land without the proof you are repeatedly asked to show.

by richardshort2001 on 06/20/2008 01:03:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good. (none / 0)

That's all great.  I assume you'll reserve your anger and broad generalizations for the people who actually "worship" Obama then, right?  When you see it on the MSM or on some other lib blog, make sure you send off an angry missive for me too, because that shit is just plain wrong.

And could you please elaborate on the "kinds of names" that would make the "discussion very sour very quickly"?  It's not like you don't do everything you can to make it sour already, so why not squeeze some more lemons on there?

by Spencer on 06/20/2008 02:44:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What exactly is your point? (none / 0)

Nothing hypocritical about it. And it is a change...Democrats aren't going to roll over this time

"Obama sought a ruling after all the front-runners in both parties rejected public financing for the primary campaign, already under way, and prepared to forgo it for the general election as well, to avoid the spending limits that it imposes."

by MRFred on 06/20/2008 01:08:02 AM EST

Bobo's point (none / 0)
Only one part of Bobo is pointy, and that's his conical hat.  Apart from that, he leads a remarkably pointless existence.

by OneHitKill on 06/20/2008 08:09:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I see your point... (none / 1)

by MRFred on 06/21/2008 02:30:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So much for "public financing" Mr. Obama... | 48 comments (48 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: