New Hillary Ad Shows Bin Laden, Asks: "Who Do You Think Has What It Takes?"
Hillary's up with a new, last minute spot in Pennsylvania designed to swing the late-breaking undecideds -- and it includes a brief appearance by none other than Osama Bin Laden.
Though there's no mention of Obama here, the crisis imagery, combined with the line "who do you think has what it takes," are clearly designed to sow last-minute doubts about Obama's fitness to be commander-in-chief, just as the "red phone" ad did...
Late Update: The Obama campaign is already out with a response: It's directing folks to this video of Bill Clinton saying the following in 2004:
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."
Late Late Update: Hillary's new chief strategist says that there's "nothing negative" about the new ad.
Advertisement
Comments (279)
O. MY. GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take off that Hillary Clinton, Dick! We know it's really you under there, Cheney.
April 21, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take off that Hillary Clinton mask, Dick!
April 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dick Nixon, you mean.
She's the reincarnated undead Tricky Dick!.
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
it was a fine ad.
She shouldn't have pulled it.
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did she pull it?
She should run it non stop.
This is the issue of national security.
A big one next to the economy.
April 21, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad isn't offensive to me, even the Bin Laden footage. Those images have all been part of what tests a president.
The message is fair game -- but it is the wrong message for this candidate.
We know that campaign messages have to be binary and oversimplified. That's the understood way voters process them: Obama represents hope; Hillary represents experience. The problem is McCain TOO represents experience -- and his dwarfs Hillary's "35 years". This creates a cognitive dissonance in voters' minds, with potentially disastrous consequences for her, were she somehow to recapture the nomination.
Why oh why did she choose to campaign on "experience"? I simply don't understand. Clinton is a fantastic legislator, an engaging and inspired leader who has accomplished a lot in her short time in public office. Why not campaign on that? And on the freshness of her ideas? On the future, not on the past? Why campaign on this faux experience and on "trust" (a notion that people have a conflicted time associating with a Clinton). Why choose those themes when she has so many other talents?
Yes, this campaign is in part about hope versus experience. But if we look at things in a binary way, the "experience" candidate is McCain, not Clinton. And regardless of their choice tomorrow, that dissonance is bound to be in the back of Democratic voters' minds.
Such a shame. This was her race to lose. Obama while he has not managed to close the deal yet, from a macro standpoint has been a much more effective candidate: as a mere freshman senator he has overtaken the anointed household name of the party.
April 21, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, now go lord your slums.
April 21, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm bankrupt and desperate."
April 21, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that it's just because she doesn't have the money to run it.
It's a good thing that there's youtube, or nobody would be able to see her ads anymore...
April 21, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't think the ad's so bad, although it's very weird that she would include a quote about "getting out of the kitchen". (Is this post-feminism in action?)
Her campaign has been incredibly inept, and should raise questions about her electibility far more than anything in the realm of "identity politics" should. I went from supporting her to really being against her, strictly due to the tone and tactics employed by her campaign.
But this ad? Not offensive to me. That'll be $0.02, please.
April 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that's it for me.
Senator Clinton has lowered herself to the level of George Bush and the Republicans. I haven't been thrilled with her campaign, simply because I think it's been poorly run.
This, though, removes any doubt that Senator Clinton is willing to use any sort of weapon to gain her goal, even if it does damage to the country.
Shame on Senator Clinton. Shame.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it. I was sick of Bush and Cheney playing the fear card already 8 years ago, and I don't think I'm alone in that. Now she's heading toward the convention stage as Giuliani 2. It started at the debate. She got 9/11 in 5 times. So in addition to being just reptilian and vile, this woman is totally out of touch. Is that what money and petty power and influence do to your brain?
April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This can't really surprise anyone. This is hardly the first time she has done this. Remember before New Hampshire when she was implying Al Quaeda was going to attack us if we ellect Obama?
Check out this, the relevant portion begins about 2:30 into it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BB4Vvgn_4k
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote:
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think in that quote she's implying they'll attack if Obama's elected? You're mad!
Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister) took over after being Chancellor (2nd most powerful politician in the Government) for 10 years. That is not an analogy for a rookie becoming President, it's saying that *whoever* becomes President could have to deal with a threat very soon after taking office, as happened in the UK.
April 21, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is fear mongering.
As was the 3AM add.
As was the circulating of the photo of Obama in Somali garb.
Hillary has adopted the Karl Rove playbook, this is nothing new and shouldn't surprise anyone.
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a piece of work, all right. It would be a damn shame if she got back to the White House this way. One thing she's proven by releasing her inner-ugly is that she's not fit to lead a nation that needs a lot of repair. All she's good for is the demolition.
April 21, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, unfortunately.
April 21, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, it doesn't take much to get you lot riled up. It isn't exactly the best ad ever, but it's hardly scaremongering. To me it more had the feel of a [low budget] trailer for an Indiana Jones movie or something.
In my opinion, far better to air an ad lke this, than to air one attacking Universal healthcare.
April 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's really nothing she could do or say that you would find objectionable, is there?
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there's plenty of things, which I've commented on before. Similarly, I like a lot of what Obama says (it'd be hard not to, considering the similarity in their policy positions).
April 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what little it is worth, I actually agree with Foreigner's take on this. I think that the ad is dumb, but I am not quite convinced that it is really dirty, and clearly I am not saying this simply because I have drunk the Clinton kool-aid.
April 21, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that dumbs down the political debate helps Republicans.
Appeals to fear, suggesting that foreign policy is all about being "tuff" is campaigning for McCain.
April 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the ad shows bin Laden, it's taking a page out of the Karl Rove playbook which makes it evil.
April 21, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, the issues raised - two wars, gas prices and economic depression - are exactly the issues Pennsylvanians should be considering tomorrow.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He waits for her to lead on an issue and he follows her lead.
April 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. Cause I waited for her to "lead on an issue" for eight years while she was in the Senate and Bush was shredding the Constitution. The "great fighter" kept her head down cause she didn't want to lose the Broder-Lieberman vote.
April 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better check your hero's voting record.
He did what you are spewing.
He voted yes and some she voted no.
cheney's energy bill is just one example.
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a cynical way of looking at it.
I would say that she didn't want to take the lead, because she *WAS* the Broder/Lieberman vote.
April 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The ad is not a great one, but it's not a negative ad by any stretch.
If any strategists from the Clinton campaign are reading through these threads, I finish school a week from Friday. Call me. Seriously, you guys need help.
I'm going overseas later on this summer to teach, so don't wait too long.
April 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton were actually willing to use any tool necessary to win the Democratic nomination, I think I'd be a good deal more enthusiastic about her.
The problem is that she seems willing to use any tool except the ones that might actually freaking work.
April 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that gets me too.
April 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stay classy, Hill.
Oh, and I'll take the candidate who said that the war in iraq was going to divert resources from our real enemy instead of voting for said war. Thanks.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I just blogged about this.
In my opinion, this is by far one of the worst political ads I've ever seen. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Who is she, the Rock?
Just really bad. Laughable.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you SMEEEELLLLLL what Hillary Clinton is cooking????
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No no no, you guys have it backwards!
The Rock=Barack!
Have you heard them speak? They sound exactly the same. "Can you SMELLLLLLLLLL what BARACK is cooking??"
April 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and for the record, this is nothing but a compliment for Barack, just in case anyone gets confused out there! Because he will lay the smackdown on Hillary's candy-ass!!
April 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok I will officially become a total jerk here and just say - I don't think I can vote for her. I'll write in Obama. I cannot vote for someone who tries to terrify people into voting for her.
I'm through - the Clintons are dead to me forever now.
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I reluctantly came to that point a while back too.
In my dark night of the soul about this, I tell myself that it is in the long term interest of the party to purge this type of shit. The ends don't justify the means. My vote is sacred to me and I won't dishonor it this way. If pigs fly and she gets the nod, then McCain wins against her, heaven forbid, perhaps Obama can be convinced to run again in 2012.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I do not want John McCain picking successors for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stephens. If the pigs fly and all else fails, I'll have to vote for her.
Not that it will do any good. There is no path to the nomination left for her that doesn't entail pissing off half the party and half of the indys who might otherwise have voted Democrat so bad that they stay home or vote for McCain.
April 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain can't get his nominees confirmed unless the Democratic-controlled Senate lets him.
April 21, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have seen little benefit from a Dem controlled Senate.
Especially with Lieberman in the mix.
April 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Free Barrackistan:
It's just barely a majority right now and only with Lieberman in the mix. Yuck. We need to get up near 60ish Dem senators before the majority becomes effective.
April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@expatjourno2:
I fear that a McCain presidency could put this country into eclipse for the next 50 years. We've seen what it looks like to have a clueless Chief Executive surrounded and handled by conservative "advisors" who are the actual policy makers. Not to mention sneaky AGs who issue opinions re legality of questionable practices, and "signing statements" and the plethora of procedural loopholes we've seen BushCo employ in their pursuit of the Unitary Executive.
That said, I believe in a balance between the three branches of federal government, and if our Constitution was less threatened by the policies of the last eight years, I would agree with you, that the legislative branch can prevent the executive from overreaching. In theory, that's how it's supposed to be. It's what's supposed to stop us from a slide into totalitarianism.
I have yet to really feel assured that any of the currently-viable candidates, Repub or Dem, have any intention of restoring the balance that Bush/Cheney has worked so hard to undermine.
April 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then I will be a jerk right along with you. If Clinton is the nominee, TX will be a write off for the Dems, so it won't matter if I write in Obama. I'll still turn out for Rick Noriega, Nick Lampson and the other down-ticket Dem's. But, Clinton at the top of the ballot will have and adverse effect on trying to "Turn Texas Blue".
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You won't have to. Barack will be on the ballot.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know. I felt the same way for a while. Suspending logical reality, though, let's assume for a moment she got on the ballot with Obama as VP. And you know that's what's going to happen no matter who's the nominee. Well, no, you don't, but I think it's pretty darn likely at this point. Remember, you've got 4 MORE YEARS OF WAR on the one hand and Hillary Clinton on the other. Pick your poison. ^^
April 21, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi-liar-y will not be rewarded for her stoking racial fears, and thrashing activists, just because they vote for her, the hypocrisy, and the rest of underhanded tactics she has employed. I will not be voting for her; I will vote Nader any day instead.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And screw the country for another four years?
April 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's assume for a moment that Hillary Clinton has won more votes or more delegates or more states or raised more money. While we're at it, why don't we assume that trees are made of cotton candy and little green men live on Mars?
April 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I know. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Mwahahahaha... *twirls her mustache*
April 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happily, you will never have to make that choice, because Obama is going to be our nominee. There really is no realistic likelihood of the alternative.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad.
April 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sad."
Who? You, Hillary and/or both?
April 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought I would say this, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. I'll take my chances with John McCain.
April 21, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down, people. Last I saw, Obama still has in insurmountable lead. (but if Hillary steals the nomination, I'll be writing in Obama's name, too, Hillary is a Republican, and I'm not voting for one of those)
April 21, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena;
I agree-Clinton's tactics have been deplorable and I am saddened that I no longer have a good feeling toward either of them.
But that being said, ANY vote not for the Democratic Candidate is a vote for giving control of the US Supreme Court to Scalia!
So perhaps we may need to hold our noses when we pull the lever-but we need to ensure that everyone understands this.
As enthusiastic as I am for Barack, this election really is at a critical time for our country. We cannot allow the Court to swing for the next decades in Scalia’s direction.
April 21, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear mongering? We don't fear-monger? What on earth are you talking about?!?!?
This is a contrast ad...
Democrat my ass. It is really sad that the biggest names of the party, don't really belong to our party.
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of ad didn't work for Guiliani, why does Hillary think it will work for her?
April 21, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It worked for Gephardt against Howard Dean in Iowa.
April 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was 2004 and things were way different.
People were still polling favorably for the war in Iraq.
The whole world has changed since 2004.
Jeez.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, not really. Gephardt lost IA just like Dean did. Their attacks on each other cost both of them, not unlike the fratricide we are seeing unfold before us. Here's hoping that something can bring the bloodletting to an end soon.
April 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of the voters she's trying to sway.
April 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother.
Recycling worn out old quotes from the '40s.
I guess when your appealing to the grandparent generation, you do that.
Thing is...John McWalkingCane has the old fart vote wrapped up, so I don't see the point.
April 21, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McTheuselah! John McElderhostel! John McRagin'! John McFists-O-Fury!
April 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for Hope over Fear any day, thank you.
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"who do you think has what it takes," .
Not Hillary, she can't even run her own campaign, how is she going to run the country?
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrible ad on multiple levels. What's the media buy? I suspect it won't be large....
April 21, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, what a bad message. It somehow trivializes the Presidency and the tribulations they and Americans faced.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the voice over is really bad. The guy's voice and intonation are totally wrong for the message.
April 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
....cue Bill clinton in 2004 'when someone is appealing to your hopes as opposed to your fears to whom should you be supporting? I think you should go with the candidate that plays to your hope instead of preying on your fear'. I am sure we'll be reminded of that tidbit throughout the day.
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come back here and read the update.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly not that lieing sack of shit!
April 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harry Truman!
Harry Truman!
Nagasaki, anyone?
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised to that she didn't mention Obama's relationship with Osama.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to hit back on this hard.
He said he's saving his attacks against the Republicans. But these ARE the Republican attacks.
There's no reason not to hit back now.
April 21, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he needs to make an ad just like this one.
This is mcwar's strongest issue.
April 21, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, it's really clear now that Obama is currently facing down two Republicans. There's no way in hell I can ever vote for Hillary Clinton.
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big old C.
April 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbeliiievable.
Hillary will do anything to win..even pimp her daughter Chelsea just like Schuster said. My weekend paper had an article about her daughter calling a superdelegate and BEGGING the superdelegate after being told the woman had decided to switch to Obama. The superdelegate said she had the hardest time with Chelsea who kept asking her Why? WHYY?...and all the delegate could say was I have decided to go with Obama. The woman clearly was feeling emotionally wrenched having a CHILD repeatedly ask her why she had switched her vote from her MOTHER.
This is how low the Clintons have sank. They play on superdelegates emotions by having Chelsea call people and BEG and IMPLORE the person.
Child PIMPS that's what the Clintons have become.
They pimp children for their ambitions. If Hillary pimps her own daughter you best believe she will have no problem killing children around the world.
Do you think with the world in crisis that Chelsea will be farmed out globally to beg and implore Ahmajmedejad or Bin Laden or Kim in Korea or SoHung in China when they decided to keep their nuclear weapons and build more. Will chelsea be calling them on the phone imploring WHY? Why?
.
April 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Clinton is using her daughter to campaign for her, and that is a good thing to do. Chelsea still has a following, is a charming young woman, and will be a positive influence for Clinton. Just because I dislike Senator Clinton doesn't mean I think everything she does is bad.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chelsea isn't a child. She's a grown woman, and part of the Wall Street den of thieves already.
April 21, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd think Clinton would be smart enough to wait until figuring out whether or not her attempts to paint Obama as being rattled or on the defensive or whatever following the ABC debate actually succeeded before throwing this out there. I can't imagine Pennsylvanians reading yesterday morning about Obama arousing a spontaneous march of thousands in his support in Philly and then seeing this ad and buying Clinton's claim that Obama's so rattled by the campaign that there's no way he'd handle the presidency.
If Obama were less classy, he'd use the ample material provided by Clinton in this campaign of what being rattled by campaigning really looks like.
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The late update link goes to a clip of Bill Clinton's quote, but it doesn't look like an ad.
Is Obama putting that in an ad? I really hope so.
The quote: "Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That's the best."
April 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, there goes Bill Clinton off-message again...
April 21, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
truly despicable!!! this is the nail in HRC's coffin, I can't wait until Wednesday when the superdel's head en masse over to the Obama camp.
We Cannot Wait - Obama 08!!!!!
April 21, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Threatening not to vote for Clinton in November is an empty threat. Clinton won't be on the ballot in November, so I doubt that any of us will vote for her then.
As I see it, the November campaigning has started, and Senator Clinton still favors her friend, Senator McCain over Senator Obama in that election. So, she is just doing her part now.
April 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like to threaten and I've never missed a vote, but I can only take that so far - I have a conscience.
I agree she won't win, but inasmuch as she keeps touting her electability over Obama's, it's not quite such the empty threat it seems, in that context, actually.
April 21, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a threat. It's a promise.
April 21, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't not vote against McCain, but I think in my state it would be a wasted vote.
Fortunately, I don't think I'll have to hold my nose.
April 21, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How shameless...how can her supporters defend this blatant Republican fearmongering? Especially when it plays into the hands of McCain by doing the GOP's work of painting the Democratic nominee as unfit to keep American safe!
April 21, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's gotalife(not) when you need him/her?
April 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably recovering from the orgasm from watching this ad multiple times. Give him/her a minute, s/he will be here momentarily sharing with us how great this ad is for Senator Clinton.
April 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe.
April 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty wretched, no doubt. But I'll still put on a gas mask and vote for her in November should she manage to steal the nomination. You guys really want two more Scalias on the Supreme Court?
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since I live in Texas, I have the dubious "luxury" of writing in another candidate for President. Clinton cannot carry Texas and all of our electoral votes so it McCain will carry the state if Clinton is the nominee.
OTOH, the I've seen analysis that Obama can make TX competitive which means that McCain will need to spend time & money in a huge state with lots of media markets. Also, Obama is more likely to turn out the voters who could help defeat Cornyn and add another Dem to the Senate.
Just saying, depends on where you live and how the electoral votes will go in deciding to write in a candidate for President.
April 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is the thin thread by which I'll dangle, if she actually beats the odd and gets the nomination.
It's become a very thin thread.
April 21, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still haven't gotten a good answer to this question, so I'll pose it to you:
Given her 100% pro-corporate stances on everything from energy to healthcare (where she has somehow managed to fool a lot of people); given her fascist stances supporting free speech zones, flag-burning amendments, bans on arts she doesn't like; given her desire to show off how manly she is by being a belligerent warmonger; what in the world makes anyone think her SCOTUS nominees would be any better than McCain's? Sure, they'll have perfunctory "liberal" positions on pro-life, etc, but why think she's going to nominate anyone that isn't an utter disaster on the issues that really matter to the underlying experiment of America? I just don't see it.
April 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we know what she will do if elected? She is truly a schizo. I will write in Obama if the worst case scenario should happen. There is no way in hell I would support HRC IN ANY WAY after this desecration. She is vile cockroach.
April 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Words are so inadequate. Just so inadequate. I'm speechless.
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fear mongering
April 21, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's the one going around lately talking about Truman - just how much ex