Samantha Powers was "fired" (she was an unpaid advisor, now no longer an advisor, repudiated by Obama's campaign), Eriposte, and you know it or ought to know it. It's pretty clear, too, that when Obama is co-sponsoring Dodd's legislation to strip the immunity provision from FISA that this advisor to Obama is speaking for himself, and not the candidate. Really, Eriposte, could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Could you be more disingenuous? Basically, you often, like this piece, write a bunch of bullshit that amounts to nothing more than a pack of lies. How, exactly, are you different from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Eriposte, aside from sitting on the other side of the aisle?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 09:22 AMWow, I totally missed the whole thing about Bill's post post-presidential sex life, thank goo'ness. I thought he spent that time getting a double bypass.
Anyhow, that last one is new, isn't it? A stunner, one would think. FISA's pretty important to us, I thought.
Thanks, eriposte for this recent series; it's nice to know others see this stuff, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2008 09:30 AMeriposte
Your right Hillary does speak for herself.
Where are her tax returns for 2000 to 2006,and HER whitehouse papers?
Can we talk about that, herself speaking, but saying Bill controls those papers and ummm April 5th for tax papers that have been filed for years.
Herself speaking when she snuggles up to John McCain against the other Democratic nominee who she throws under the bus while declaring herself the best Commander in chief, of tea parties, that was her experience as first wife? to WJC.
Hillary at her best not speaking for the Democratic Party.
And as a by the by read Samantha Powers Pulizer prize winning book about Rowanda, and how Bill could not or would not stop the genocide, frozen in a political blitz when that 3 am red telephone call came for help for the genocide of WOMEN and CHILDREN - Hills 35 years of experience gig. OOOFAH Shame on both of them for Rowanda
Wow. Hillary's killed a lot of people since offing Vince Foster. I hear she's also responsible for hangnails, scabies, and wrinkles.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 8, 2008 09:56 AMBrian Bell, you attack Eriposte but you are not making your case with regards to the double standard. THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD and Hillary is put under the microscope while Obama has had quite a free ride. How do you explain the lies about the Naftagate, the darkening of the ad and the 60 minutes BS? The MSM and many lefty blogs are pulling things out of their arse. If Hillary had doubled talked with Canada and Ohio, she would have been pressured to resign. She would have been toast. Obama gets a free pass and then his people make up lies saying Hillary had contacts with Canada. If Obama wins the nomination, people are so fed up with the DNC and all this BS that I will bet many will stay home. Very sad time in our country!
Posted by tiffany at March 8, 2008 09:58 AMHillary is bragging up McSame and ripping Barack, she needs to go away. How can anyone support her?
Posted by athensboy at March 8, 2008 10:05 AMFunny thing...
Austan
Powers
and I hear he has a person named 'Danger'. This guy's a comic waiting to happen. SNL should go ahead and hire them now.
Poor, poor Vince Foster, still being talked about.
Barack Obama's just a speech after all, more rhetoric...more gas. He won't deliver on anything he says.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 10:14 AMBrian - I usually never engage the trolls but I'll make one exception this time around.
I have to say you are my most favorite troll ever, even better than Peter. You don't read my posts and accuse me of not acknowledging things that are acknowledged in my posts and you epitomize all the characteristics of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Not to mention, when I have your wisdom in my comment threads, I realize I don't have to visit Free Republic or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by eriposte at March 8, 2008 10:16 AMIntellectual dishonesty? Disingenuous? Huh?
I seem to read this here with several links to TPM and Huffpo supporting the following statement made by eriposte in this post?
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has consistently spoken out and voted against granting retroactive immunity for telecoms that participated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. This stance was part of the reason he won the support of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), a leader on civil liberties issues.
.
Ah shucks, I lost my special place. Brian...it's all yours...enjoy. Eriposte, I'm touched, enjoy your day. (smile)
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 10:27 AMEriposte, I'll care about all this petty bullshit you've dug up here coming from staff when you show me Hillary is no longer making statements praising GOP candidates national security and cutting down our own.
A person's word..."petty"...now that's low. Obama's word can't be trusted, period.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 10:37 AMWhat's going on in Wyoming? 18 delegates are at stake. 18 crucial delegates.
Posted by at March 8, 2008 10:45 AMThe only poster who constantly brings up vince forster is Iamacoyote. He has an obsession with that "fairytale"
Rowanda is something he likens to hangnails., he also likens dead american soldiers killed in unjust war to hangnails.
The tax return containing information voters need to make a judgement on the candidates "truhiness". must be a hangnail too.
PLEEEZE
Wyoming....12 delegates.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 10:58 AMEriposte, way to ignore what I wrote. I ignored nothing that you wrote here.
You, Eriposte, ask if Powers speaks for Obama. Clearly she does not, because she's been repudiated by his campaign, she has been fired by Obama. So, it's impossible for her to speak for Obama. You don't mention anywhere that she's been fired from Obama's campaign.
You, Eriposte, ask if Brennan speaks for Obama on FISA, but he clearly doesn't, because Obama has REPEATEDLY spoken out against immunity for the Telcos in regards to FISA and he is co-sponsoring the legislation to strip FISA of its immunity provisions.
You're being intellectually dishonest here, and you know it. You're being a propagandist for Hillary. You're not interested in writing about the truth. Like I said, no different than a Rush Limbaugh for Hillary. And I'm no troll. I'm a long-time reader, as concerned about the damage you're doing to this blog's accuracy as I would be if it were my hometown newspaper. But go ahead, call me names. It's just typical of what has become of this blog. Just ignore the substance of what I wrote and instead call me names, that's just great.
Emal, Eriposte is implying that somebody who was fired by Obama speaks for Obama, which is clearly false. Eriposte is also implying that one of Obama's advisors, Brennan, who holds a contrary view than Obama on one specific issue somehow speaks for Obama on that issue, immunity in FISA, when Obama has repeatedly shown that he is not for immunity for FISA. There is no question that Obama is against immunity in FISA. He is against it, period. Eriposte knows all this, too, Emal. Eriposte is being disingenuous and selective in his links. Cripes, he doesn't even mention Powers was fired. That is what I'm blathering on about, Emal.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 11:00 AMWyoming has 18 delegates--don't forget those superdelegates. I know Hillary's supporters won't. By the way, Obama already has 2 of them racked. Hillary has none. After today's blowout, I suspect Obama will pick up more of them. Winning feels good, especially in a great state like Wyoming.
Posted by at March 8, 2008 11:14 AMS. Powers was BO's version of "Condi Rice". She was heading towards his NSA should he be elected. The fact that he replaced her within an hour shows how much he'll stand by anything or anyone he holds dear. "Spinelessness" is more a description of Sen. Obama. Goes along with his 3 AM call, just another Jimmy Carter...not whom we need this time...we can't aford it.
Fired/quit...who cares...she should have been retained. To Obama...he'll say anything to anyone to get elected...nothing sacred.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 11:19 AMI used to enjoy "the left coaster". Now it is an outlet for all clinton all the time. Obama has his problems, but he is not named clinton. Ms. clinton lost me when she signed kyl/lieberman, and sponsered the anti flag burning amendment.
She has had many chances to repudiate her war vote, to explain she should have never trusted bush, but she will never aadmit to making a mistake. We have had eight years of that kind of arrogance, and that is about enough.
Finally, by the time the election comes this fall, the economy will be the only issue. On that issue, Mccain looks like a moron.
Posted by ltgesq at March 8, 2008 11:27 AMltgesq, I just have to point out that The Left Coaster is not "all Clinton all the time". Steve Soto has come out against Hillary and for Obama (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012095.php) and, I think, with good reason. When you start making the case that it's better to vote for the Republican than for your Democratic primary opponent, you've crossed the line (maybe even the Lieberman line, the same line that he's crossed).
Anyway, the back and forth on The Left Coaster really mirrors the back and forth between democrats who are trying to make sense of this whole primary mess.
I think we could all take a deep breath and make our cases for our selected champions without quite so much vituperation (yes, eriposte and Turkana, I'm making a suggestion to the two of you as well) -- and it's advice that I hope I take to heart as well. I am worried that Hillary is doing damage to the party, and I think Steve voiced my concerns well in the post I referred to earlier.
I respect those who disagree.
Posted by Tom Burka at March 8, 2008 11:46 AMWho said this in his first comment here?
It's pretty clear, too, that when Obama is co-sponsoring Dodd's legislation to strip the immunity provision from FISA that this advisor to Obama is speaking for himself, and not the candidate. Really, Eriposte, could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Could you be more disingenuous?
Oh I see that little word "too" (what I took to mean as in addition or also) didn't mean you thought eriposte was bing intellectually dishonest when he was posting about the Obama's stance/comments on his FiSa legislation.(Because eriposte noted Obama's stance and linked to it). NO it only referred to the first portion of those reasons. I should have known that by reading your comment that you really only meant the Samantha Powers bit. Epecially since you mentioned the dishonest and disingenuous remarks immediately after you commented ond the Fisa issue.
Ummm Suuurrrrre, whatever??? There's no point in arguing with you, you keep moving goalposts and name calling people who disagree with you and/or call you out for it. I'm done, you've exposed yourself before to me for the type of person you really are and I won't forget it. Why I thought this time would be different is my mistake.
I'm far from perfect, but at least I'll admit my errors, mistakes, and misunderstanding/misreading of something when it happens.
Back to ignore.
Posted by emal at March 8, 2008 11:47 AMI hear she's also responsible for hangnails, scabies, and wrinkles.
She's a freakin' monster I tell ya!
Damn coyote, you had me at hangnails!
Emal, I don't even know how to respond. You didn't understand what I said the first time around. You don't understand it now, obviously.
Hell yes I am saying Eriposte is dishonest.
You dismiss what I said without addressing the substance, which is:
Eriposte is implying that Obama is somehow for FISA immunity due to a single advisor's personal view on the matter, which is not true. It's a lie. A lie Eriposte is perpetuating. Obama is co-sponsor of legislation to strip immunity provisions from FISA. Clearly, he is not for it. As for Powers, Obama canned her. How could she speak for Obama when he fired her. Eriposte knows this, and he's being intellectually dishonest. Eriposte is lying. Eriposte is a liar.
You, on the other hand, ought to go back to ignoring and instead let people who at least understand English hash it out.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 12:32 PMIt would be so refreshing if we could go back to acting like Democrats that want to win in November.
Why don't we start going after McBush?
How about some posts on the Congress and what is going on currently with legislation and crap?
Maybe we should be targeting some of the Pukes in the Senate and House running for re-election (election)?
Maybe we could act like we already have our Nominee and start defending the attacks against both of them...
I imagine that if that whole Nafta BS had been perpetrated against our Nominee we might ask some serious questions like: Who in Canada might want to fuck with the Democratic Nominee? What does the candidate say? Who in Canada has a dog in the fight? Was the whole story BS? Did Canada actually initiate the meetings? Wouldn't Canada want to take down the person who would most likely want to change the treaty not the one who would keep things the same? [although some might think the below post "puts it all to rest" I have read just as much about it actually being Clinton and not Obama - and NO I don't want to keep arguing about it - I would like to try to elevate BOTH of our candidates because one of them will be our Nom.]
Seriously - I don't think that anyone is being swayed by the ANTI posts. Maybe, eriposte, you could be pro-Clinton without having to be so anti-Obama?
And, I really doubt that anyone who comes here has not already made up their minds. Is there anyone still on the fence? I doubt it. I am sure that people have either already voted or know who they will vote/caucus for.
I really hope that those of us who come here care more about our Country than about winning at any price. The ends do not justify the means...
We are in serious trouble. We absolutely must win in November. We must win big. We must win as many House and Senate seats as possible.
The more hatred spewed against our potential Nom is just more work that we are doing for the RNC. I am sure that they are pulling as much from the blogs as possible. They do not care which Dem they smear come the fall - I think that we should care.
Posted by Anjha at March 8, 2008 12:40 PMIf you really wanted to win big in November, you wouldn't be voting for the second coming of George McGovern.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 12:56 PMLord T, you're back. Nice to read you.
Posted by peter at March 8, 2008 01:04 PMBrian, for the last time now. You are of course free to accuse me of anything but your specialty is misreading my posts and fabricating charges. I am not accusing Obama of being in favor of FISA. My entire post is about the irony of Obama advisors taking stances which Obama says he disagrees with and Obama never being tarred by the advisors positions - yet Clinton is routinely tarred with her advisors' positions even when she distances herself from it. Deranges crazies like you routinely post nonsense here and feed the hatred between the supporters of both candidates. I am not writing hateful anti-Obama posts. I am challenging his positions and statements on the merits and I am raising comparisons with Clinton. If you don't like it you are free to stop visiting TLC.
Just about everyone knows Power resigned (she wasn't fired). This post has nothing to do with whether Power resigned or not. It has to do with whether Obama disagreed with the advisors comments and I made it very clear he disagreed with the sentiments of various people including Power. Your contempt for free speech and discourse is only matched by Rush Limbaugh.
I would support Obama in a heartbeat if he is the nominee but it is jerks like you who give other Clinton supporters pause.
Posted by eriposte at March 8, 2008 01:05 PMlordtyranus2? why do so many right-wing trolls have names that sound like they came from a really, really bad Gay porn movie?
Posted by gay veteran at March 8, 2008 01:19 PM
That's not what you're doing, Eriposte. What you're doing is implying Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth when he's not doing that. For example, you said:
This mystical phenomenon of Sen. Obama's advisors evidently not speaking for him took on a life of its own this week on the policy side as well....
Go ahead, claim you are not implying that Obama is for things which he is not for, because your words show pretty clearly that you are doing just what I accuse you of doing: You're implying Obama is for things he is not. The post isn't really about a double standard, it's about smearing Obama.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 01:27 PM"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, 'Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"
If this paragraph was a sandwich, you obviously chose to highlight the bread, and not bother to look into the meat of the issue. Maybe this is too nuanced, but I would expect that all of the candidates would use the power of the presidency to gather facts they may not have had while campaigning. You are entitled to hold your opinion as to how each would act under the circumstance, but I just found it curious as I read that paragraph that your analysis selectively deemphasized the meat of her statement in order to drive home your point, and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you is suffering HDS.
This has been a rather sad primary season for me, but a real eye opener not about the politicians, but their supporters and the lengths they will go through in tearing down the other candidates. There is seldom references or post to why a blogger supports a candidate, but surely enough post on why the other side is the enemy and can't be trusted.
Gay Veteran? Why is your party so insistent on snatching defeat from the jaws of possible victory by not nominating Hillary?
I find it amusing, but baffling.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at March 8, 2008 01:36 PMMy entire post is about the irony of Obama advisors taking stances which Obama says he disagrees with and Obama never being tarred by the advisors positions - yet Clinton is routinely tarred with her advisors' positions even when she distances herself from it.
eRiposte, It would be my dream to see you write a truly investigative piece on Mark Penn.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2008 01:40 PMHillary is bragging up McSame and ripping Barack, she needs to go away. How can anyone support her?
You chumps sealed your fate when you planted your lips on Hillary's sandy vag in 2000 and sent her to the senate.
She's going to tear down Hussein's candidancy so she can run in 2012. If you want to win, tell the black man to wait his turn.
eriposte,
I read your post the same way you explained it. And I noticed your headline had a question mark at the end of it implying it was a question. I think the fact that the policy advisors are freely speaking their minds and opinions is a good thing... even if it may be different from the candidate. I certainly have noticed these discrepancies and am curious if this is a part of his campaign tactic to woo and allay the fears independent voters (who may be worried he's too liberal) and an attempt to get some McCain voters? But I'm not sure.
As I've stated in other comments, I know Obama's way too centrist for my liking but at least I'm aware of it so hearing this type of commentary from his advisor doesn't surprise me. I also understand your point about the different set of rules and double standards when it comes to Clinton advisors and how she's held accountable for them even if she disagrees with them and says it. I also think that comments from people that play major roles in any way, shape, or form from the campaign are certainly all fair game. People should be asking questions about the differences between what the candidates might say might what their advisors might say.
Having said that, one thing for certain is that Senator Obama will need to come up with a coherent strategy and response to explain them on the campaign trail. Because if we are all seeing them others will see them to. You can be more than certain that the press will and should ask about them. Can't you just see Pumpkinhead Russert on MTP grilling him with the gotcha quotes on them. This is politics and how it works.
But most importantly is that kkKarl Rove, (who is now advising John McBush's campaign among others Bushco advisors who've wandered over to his campaign...thinkprogress has the details) is most certainly well aware of them and is readying to exploit them and present them in the worst most malicious possible light.
SEnator Obama will need to be prepared. All the wishful W.O.R.M. explanations, parsing of statements, and name calling and screaming of liar at those who point it out by those who support him won't answer it or make it disappear. Ignoring it will be to his peril and detriment.
eriposte, i love you!!!!! this has been at the back of my mind for days, but so much new crap keeps coming up that i kept forgetting. i'm so glad you covered this.
Posted by kangeroo at March 8, 2008 02:40 PManother lopsided win for Obama today, in Wyoming. Eriposte, why don't you use your investigative prowess in illustrating how Clinton is actually going to win the delegate contest? Don't forget Texas.....it's Obama's also.
Posted by T2 at March 8, 2008 02:47 PMObama in Wyoming! WOOT! WOOT! Why do we have to read about it in the comment threads, though?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 03:24 PMAnd Texas! WOOT!
Posted by Brian Bell at March 8, 2008 03:27 PMDon't know about Vince Foster, but if you want to keep sticking every throat-clearing by an advisor as coming from Obama's mouth, then I suggest everyone read this:
http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/sunil.htm
The article's titled "200,000 Skeletons In Richard Holbrooke's Closet," and goes into some detail about his work during the Carter Administration in allowing Suharto to decimate the Timorese.
Here's another story where Holbrooke may or may not be in step with Clinton:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/hollbrooke-on-c.html
I'll get back to you on Holbrooke's participation in the Guangju Massacre and his justification for invading Iraq because we know that whatever he says or believes actually springs from the head of Hillary Clinton, right eriposte?
Someone else can look up Mad Albright's part in starving hundreds of thousands of women and children in Iraq in the 1990s. Oh wait! That was in the Clinton Administration.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 04:13 PMIt is dishonest to say Obama is for FISA immunity when he actually voted against it and spoke out against, as opposed to Clinton, who was in the Washington, D.C. area that day and couldn't find time to vote either way on it. It is absolutely bizarre that eriposte would have the nerve to say an advisor's opinion somehow better represents how Obama would vote rather than his ACTUAL VOTE.
eriposte is being so dishonest no one will be fooled except for those here who want to be fooled. If eriposte believes what he is writing, well, that's worse than dishonest for him, but so bet it.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 8, 2008 04:27 PMSoS,
You said: "eRiposte, It would be my dream to see you write a truly investigative piece on Mark Penn."
This may be worth it but will have to wait until the primary is over. Not too many blogs are examining Obama's positions or statements and defending HRC from misleading or false attacks - and my bandwidth to do blogging is very limited. That said, as I have stated before, I don't like Mark Penn and there are far more important people that one should be spending time on than him. Such as John McCain.
Emal,
The question mark is rhetorical. I am using some literary license to add irony and sarcasm here and there to make my points but the over-reaching point is obviously that when Obama's advisors say something that he then disagrees with, he is automatically given benefit of the doubt. However, whether it was Bill Shaheen, or Mark Penn or fill in the blanks, Clinton is never given any benefit of the doubt. It is clear that some Obama supporters don't want to hear this and they can trash my post till the cows come home but that is a fact that has played out time and again.
The fact that advisors or supporters or surrogates or staff sometimes say things that contradict what the candidate says is extraordinarily normal and common and to be expected. What is uncommon is when one candidate is treated as if all her surrogates and staff and supporters and advisors speak for her always but the other candidate is not subject to this standard.
If I had the time I would write a book about this campaign and there would be quite a bit to write.
Posted by eriposte at March 8, 2008 04:56 PMMaybe Ive missed the explanation, but if according to the Obama campaign and its supporters Hillary did nothing in the Whitehouse other than have tea and cookies with people, then who cares about her whitehouse papers? What could there be if all she was was window dressing?
Posted by Chisoxy at March 8, 2008 05:33 PMThanks Eriposte, for your latest blog posting pointing out how Republican Barack Obama is.
You have shown considerable bravery.
The disengenuousness of the Obama camp and its supporters is getting more and more stark, courtesy of the persons directly in the Obama campaign.
As the evidence accumulates, it sure appears to me that they don't sound like Democrats. Their actions definitely don't seem to be coming out of the centric-ness of the Democratic Party.
I have seen others accuse Hillary Clinton of "winning at all costs"....but to tell the truth from where I stand (and I stand in Pennsylvania), I think we are seeing the actions of a Republican with Obama--the Republican-lite attacks the Democrat for the actions that he himself is doing. (Very Bush-like.)
Do we really want a choice between McOld (a Republican and a Neocon) and Obama (another Republican, perhaps Republican-lite)? Shouldn't it be a choice between a Real Democrat (Hillary Clinton) and McOld?
Just remember that Rove took the partisan attacks by proxy to a Very High Art Form in the current illlegitimate administration now occupying the Oval Office.
I think the American People deserve better than to have a Redux of Rove/Bushism come the election in November. Just swapping out a Texas delegation for an Illinois delegation.
We, as a Nation, and as a citizenry, deserve better.
WE NEED A PERSON OF INTEGRITY (the very highest level we can get)
WE NEED A PERSON OF TRUTHFULNESS (the very highest percentage of truth-telling that we can get)
WE NEED A PERSON WHO IS RUNNING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HEAL THIS NATION, AND GET IT BACK ON TRACK (and actually has plans on how to do that, and yes, even have an idea of how they are going to pay for it--and not for the mere blatant naked ambition of acquiring power--we already have that in Bush/Cheney--how's that working out for you, as a citizen? How's that working out in general for America? Worst. Presidency. Ever.).
Do you think Barack Obama "fills the bill"?
Does he fill the criteria for a Democrat? Or another Republican?
You decide.
Meanwhile....McOld is letting his mask over his Neocon pedigree slip off. Intolerance. Special favors for special interest groups. Empire-building attitude towards the USA's foreign policy obligations...
Beware...
An uninformed electorate voting == Totalitarianism
Posted by Troubled American at March 8, 2008 06:49 PMThank you eRiposte for the honest answer.
Much to my regret, I apologize for my contribution to the vitriol... this has been a difficult primary.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 8, 2008 07:32 PMAnjha, nice to read your postings again. You summed it up for me. Thank u.
Posted by Judith at March 9, 2008 07:26 AMYou know if I ignore the top of your post and just take your ALL CAPS points "Troubled American" I'd have to say that fits my impression of Obama pretty well.
Posted by Siberian at March 9, 2008 10:37 AMAnjha,
Please allow me to agree with Judith. I always read your comments with some relief. They seem to be balanced and relatively reality-based. You've been gone for quite a while. Welcome back.
This primary season too, will (eventually) end. It's long past time to inspect John McCain's history and qualifications. Rather than attacking Democrats, can we all just agree that the Republican record is infinitely worse? I knew you could.
Posted by DemnNewJ at March 9, 2008 03:26 PMJudith, thank you for your kind words. So sorry to hear about your mom. My dad has become more and more dependent as of late, it is something that I never saw myself having to deal with.
DemInNJ, thank you, too, for your kind words. I have been very ill and have not had the energy to write anything.
The blogs have been too depressing and ignorant as of late to not post something.
I will be so relieved when the primary is over - I just hope that too much damage has not been done.
Posted by Anjha at March 10, 2008 10:59 AM