Democratic New Hampshire Debate: Who Is The Real Candidate For Change?
By Logan Murphy Friday Jan 04, 2008 9:34pm
Download | play 
Download | play
The Democrats turn on tonight's presidential debates on ABC didn't exactly start with a bang, so moderator, Charlie Gibson, decided to mix things up. Gibson brought up Barack Obama's message of being the candidate of change and how it was successful for him, then asked Hillary Clinton about her thoughts on change and her statement that Obama needed to more closely vetted on certain issues.
Clinton went after Obama on his health care plan, accusing him of changing his position multiple times, as well as Iraq funding and other issues. Obama fought back, mildly scolding her for distorting his record, but this exchange wasn't limited to Clinton and Obama. John Edwards jumped into the mix, referring to Hillary as the "status quo" candidate, then called her out for going negative on Obama now that she's no longer considered the front runner -- a move that seemed to push Hillary's buttons and brought a vigorous response.
Login or Register to post comments.
Go, go. Go, Johnny Go.
Edwards, that is.
Anyone think Obama was acting arrogant? I didn't see it, find it hard to believe, read it on another blog. (Taylor Marsh)
any opinions?
I do think Edwards was very passionate...
The real candidate for change was excluded by those fuckers at ABC.
He wasnt invited
Hillary was terrible and shrill. Edwards was amazing. I really enjoyed him. Obama was also good. I would love to see an Edwards/Obama debate.
floaks @ 5:
While Kucinich would be the best, I think it's time he left the race and gave his endorsement to Obama or (preferably) Edwards.
budda @ 7:
I'd like to see and Edwards/Obama ticket. Any chance of that happening?
oh, and can Richardson please go away?
he was terrible, looked constipated and kept talking in circles
the very worst of the democratic candidates,and there is not one, are better on their worst days than any of the repugs on their very best days.
the repugs ALL just keep poring gas over their heads and then light it.
roooth @ 3:
Absolutely not. He took the high road and spoke with clarity. No arrogance whatsoever.
Going negative as he did may cost him, but Edwards was on fire tonight.
Am I the only one who loves Bill Richardson? The man is ridiculously qualified and has terrific ideas. I just wish he could get more passionate more easily.
I don't know. I'd be thrilled with any one of them except for Hillary, whom I could tolerate, I guess.
Hillary proved again that she's the one that sees the bigger picture, knows the issues inside and out and has ZERO naivite about the sausage grinder the Republicans use.
momly @ 9:
After tonight, I would say yes.
Richardson CLEARLY wants desperately to be Hillary's Vice President. CLEARLY.
momly @ 9:
Stephanoplus was right about Edwards. He had the best energy. Obama and Hillary were a bit worn out. Though Obama was much better than Hillary either helped nor hurt themselves. I think Edwards greatly helped himself though in taking votes from Hillary and some on the fence about Obama. A strong showing in NH for him could keep him in the race - while anything less than first will kill Hillary's campaign fatally.
momly @ 9:
I think there's a very good chance of this happening. There is clearly an alliance being formed between the two of them. We could be looking at Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards after Super-Duper-Tuesday.
line of the night was from Obama;
'You're likable enough, Hillary.'
classic.
Image of the night was Hillary's pucker after her self-defense.
BlueKnuckle @ 17:
that will never happen, she would chose edwards or obama.
Are you kidding? I would say it is clear that she hates them both.
Cool! I like the thought of the two of them as opposed to either of them as Hillary's veep. I should like the idea of a woman in the Oval Office and if it were anyone other than her, I'd be behind her. Too darn much baggage - even if she does see the big picture and knows how to play with The Meatgrinders, which would be an awesome name for a rock band.
BlueKnuckle @ 17:
he comes across as dumb to me and always talking in circles and lost
edwards was campaigning a bit to be on the Obama ticket and I would love to see it, but if that is to happen if Obama comes in first in NH ... Edwards should back out and give support to him
though after tonights debate I have totally changed my mind and actually wish Edwards was in first place and Obama could be the VP - Edwards was so on tonight it really helped him, I think
Obama was too tired and seemed as if he had just lost big in Iowa and Hillary came across as shrill and mean. Could Edwards pull off a surprise? Sadly, I don't think so, but it would be so nice.
Bravo John Edwards! A job well done.
The voters of NH are smart. Let's see what happens!
Yikes Hillary nearly came unglued there. The pressure is starting to take its toll.
Edwards/Obama, thats electable. Sadly, a woman or a black are not. We will have a Republican Southern White Male at the least a White Male if the Dems run Clinton or Obama.
roooth @ 3:
with those ears? obama could never come across as arrogant, whatever his demeanor....i will always remember that gore debate though, that sighing was pretty funny, came across as arrogant but was a bit prophetic and understated, in hindsite...
NH tues--- obama 45, edwards 30, clinton 25
David Charles @ 26:
Keeping my fingers, toes, eyes, and everything else crossed!
Obama did look tired but he was still eloquent. Edwards was fiery. Clinton was negative and angry at that one key point.
No one flip-flops more than Hillary.
Jarett @ 19:
I wouldn't describe it as an alliance. I think Obama was just refusing to go negative given his front-runner status, and Edwards was merely trying to align himself with Obama on change and keep Hillary in third.
BlueKnuckle @ 23:
you don't chose a vp that will dilute your chances of winning an election.
i would prefer to see an edwards and obama ticket, either as president.
rend @ 28:
rich white guy cannot win on dem side....independents will not participate in a rich white guy contest, and without them, repubs win, tie or steal.....otherwise its a landslide
Timmy_D11 @ 356:
You don't get the point, I am just saying rational educated people should speak like rational educated people. Sparks start fires.
anonymous @ 340:
I wasn't trying to mischaracterise your post. But I did take slight exception to you saying:
Because that seems overly simplistic to me. To the point of being misleading.
A lot of this has to do with how you present yourself, and that IS part of being president. Everyone has to compensate for something... soft-talker, high-pitched voice, stutter, slumped shoulders, Boston-accent (well, not anymore), annoying hand gestures. Really, it isn't rocket science, and would cost people like Clinton nothing to hire a coach to be loud, forceful, or defensive without alienating people. And it has nothing specifically to do with the being female. Women should raise their voices however they want.
If you're going to be on TV, you can darn well put some effort into how you behave. Not to do that is... actually pretty insulting to the audience. A lot of sports stars learn this the hard way... should we expect less of our president?
But either way, on her bearing or her message -- both offended tonight, apparently. (BTW, Ozzy Ozbourne in that reality show: shrill... ok, maybe just whiney).
maybe they're both agents of change??? JRE wants it for sure. Hillary's got a history of workin' for it. somehow i'm starting to get cynical about blogs, always looking for a way to put down Hillary.
Bill Richardson needs to stop this president nonsense, and come back to NM to bury Heather Wilson in the race for Domenici's seat in the Senate.
sandy @ 350:
Very well said - I completely agree. Hillary lost not only you but many many people over the New York drivers licenses for illegal aliens. That was the beginning of the down-turn for her. Pelosi needs to put impeachment on the table then I think Congress's ratings would skyrocket. Edwards/Obama would be unbeatable.
Timmy_D11 @ 356:
Um-he wasn't elected the first time, so he had no chance of being 're-elected'. And there's evidence he didn't win the second time, either (Ohio, Diebold-Look it up).
Ruthless People @ 119:
"Hillary Strikes Back" NY Post headline.
Does anybody really want to support any anyone being backed by Ruppert and Fux Noise Boys. NY Times is not much better on reporting the debate....poor Hill got ganged up on.....
Hill must be working the phones and calling favors.
Guy Fawkes @ 358:
Thanks for bringing that up. It's good to remind everyone that politicians aren't to be blindly trusted. I still think he's the guy who really wants the job, payola or not. Who knows, he could stick it to them?
NoGWBPolicyLeftinplace @ 261:
I LOVE IT!
And I'm dying to listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Levine and Crowley to hear the whining of fatally wounded animals!
the kerry camp did not run ANY advertising in nc during the ‘04 campaign. the kerry campaign was in charge so… it's kinda difficult to win your state under those circumstances. just sayin’…
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 361:
I suspect that HC has been coached, and coached inexpertly. He hand gestures are meant to look forceful, but come off as obnoxious instead--as they would for a male politician. I hate that slicing-through-the-air and pointing-in-your-face garbage that image consultants give the pols. But yes, I must admit that HC grates on me and always has. I'm not sure any amount of coaching is going to improve her presentation...after all of the years she's been in the public eye she hasn't changed much. It's just who she is. Me, I still wish Pat Schroeder had had a chance to run for President.
Righty Dreisell @ 299:
Like I said, you have to look at a candidate for their top 2 or 3 POVs, since everything you want is not going to be echoed by the candidate you support...for example, Ron Paul, for me, is NUTS on states rights issues and needs to calm down when it comes to the 10th Amendment.
However, the topic of this thread was the performance of the debators...and even though I see Bush/Clinton as a fascist monarchy that has been going on since 1980, and even though I would cheer on almost any candidate besides HRC...even casual observers mustr admit that HRC held her own in the debate. She sounded experienced, consequential and, (dare I say it, despite her lack of experience) presidential.
The man who won this debate in my eyes (even though I hate him personally) is Edwards...despite my feelings towards him, I think his populist message took off and many new voters became intrigued by him...Obama played it too safe.
Good luck to all the candidates, because as much as I would hate one of you guys, the thought of McCain, 9u11l1ani, Romney, Thompson, or the Huck winning big would scare this country for a LONG long time...
Wondermachine @ 277:
I have no explanation for that. Apparently she doesn't either.
I guess she claimed the intelligence was faulty when she gave her Iraq vote.
I did not like her Iran Revolutionary Guard vote, at a time that she knew GW Chimp was no longer to be trusted.
For the latter, my only guess is that she was afraid to lose too many votes from the center if and when she were to get the Democrat nod - she would not want people in the middle to say she was weak in the war on terror.
And maybe in her gut she KNEW that GW wouldn't do anything with regards to Iran?
I prefer Edwards...all I'm saying is that if she were to pull this thing out you people that claim to dislike her better support her and talk her up unless you want people who will DEFINITELY not take this country in a "progressive" direction.
I would prefer Edwards , but Obama is more than acceptable ; Hillary has more different positions than a $10,000 a night hooker......If Obama gets the nod , I wouldn't mind Obama nominating and placing Edwards into one of the Supreme Court Justice positions.
Is "change" and "status quo" the "flip-flop" of this election? I'm already sick of hearing those words and we haven't even gotten to the first primary.
Nobody's mentioned that Richardson's comments after this clip that there's nothing wrong with experience got applause from the audience.
I worry about people that talk a big game but have nothing to back it up, which gives me reservations about Edwards and Obama.
Guy Fawkes @ 319:
Just exactly what debate were YOU watching? It sure as Hell wasn't the one I watched. You know, the one this thread is about!
Johnny2Bad @ 287:
Um, NO, I like to use them for emphasis and I don't believe I go overboard in using them.
JTM @ 114:
We must have been watching a different debate. I thought she handed him his lunch with her comeback. Whether it's the Republican or Democratic attack machine, Hillary keeps standing. She proved tonight that she is indeed the most electable candidate.
BAC
don @ 335:
Are you sure they aren't Hillary's?
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 57:
Lollimom @ 289:
Maybe / maybe not. All I'm saying is be ready to vote for her and say nice things about her IF it comes down to her and a Republican assclown.
Desmond @ 292:
What about the difference makers in Ohio and Florida? It's not only Alabama.
Had Enough? @ 344:
What about Obama's corporate sponsors? Will they have any influence on him?
BAC
About what happened in the 2004 election:
Read Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse" about the 2004 Presidential Election, or even just go to his website (www.gregpalast.com).
He says (and provides documentation) that at the very least, decidedly weird things did happen in terms of exit polls showing Kerry ahead from numerous booths and yet Bush winning them, remarkable numbers of places where there were only hundreds of voters and yet half of them chose not to vote for anyone (funnily enough mostly Democrat leaning small areas on Indian reservations, often where less than 10 people in a community would vote for the Republicans on polls and 100s would vote for the Democrats); the usual falsely striking (almost always) minority voters claiming they were felons (in fact weren't) - the list just goes on and on.
In a nutshell, like the 2000 election, a lot of things happened which statisticians who study elections worldwide would label *highly* suspect.
While watching the debates at a birthday party tonight, someone said "Richardson doesn't excite me." That actually encouraged me. The political process and elections are run on too emotional a basis. Richardson isn't a stellar speaker and doesn't cut as fine a presence as the other candidates. But what he SAYS and his experience, especially with foreign governments and dealing with diplomatic matters, is what matters to me. He seems to also have a level headed approach to what the country needs, and knows how to negotiate and get people to work together.
I am appalled, however, by the coverage he gets. Sawyer and Stephanapoulous didn't even mention him in their recap. Most of the reports I read tonight reduced his contribution to his joke about being in hostage situations that weren't as hostile as the debate. Clearly the media is deciding who the candidates will be by focusing only on the top contenders and ignoring any others. I am a journalist and know space or time (in broadcast media) is at a premium, but I think the ethics of comprehensive reporting have gone right out the window. Today, the reports are about who insulted who vs. something important a dark horse might have offered. It's more about celebrity, and less about the meat of the matter.
Timmy_D11 @ 352:
Here's your "Conspiracy Theory Shit" this link is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/NEWS24/70313029
BAC @ 379:
No, I wouldn't have. You can see what I said about Dean and context, and Hillary's arrogance in not thinking she has to manager her temper and her bearing like everybody else above. If you're interested.
Hillary didn't stand up for herself. She contradicted herself 3 times in one statement (also quoted above). She's a new voice for change, but no she's be there 35 years, but no she's a woman and THAT is the change she meant. Wow. Completely incoherent.
And yes, her tone at the end, was shrill. Nobody likes shrill. You really didn't read the good parts of the thread, did you? You've really got to bring a better game to this if you're pulling for Hillary. Not that it will matter when she loses...
I thought it was great how after a few minutes Hillary stood up for herself and practically ripped their faces off. I really think the Democratic candidate has got to be able to fight back against the republican hate machine, as Kerry was unable to do, and that was a good opportunity to practice. I also thought Obama was acting a little arrogant, trying to take the high road. Karl Rove has a special routine for high-roaders. Edwards sounded good doing it, but his point was basically to attack Hillary. For not being changey enough, and for being an attacker herself. I guess there's a lot of that going around. Clinton was caught on a bad foot, but I think she recovered well. Ultimately, I'll be happy with either her or Obama. I think they both want to go to Disneyworld, but she knows how to drive.
I don't dislike Hillary, I think she's really smart with more experience than Obama/Edwards. But, she also seems to side with whatever side is winning the argument or may benefit her most, whether if it is siding with the GOP or the corporations, and against the well-being of her country. It's not her name Clinton, but her past actions that I cannot trust.
Obama/Edwards seems to be more genuine i.e. Obama didn't vote for the Iraq war, and Edwards apologized for voting. They both understand what is right and wrong, and have more foresight, which is important if you become the president.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kucinich is the ONLY candidate that stands for what the U.S. people want.... Honesty, ethics, accountability, no strings attached, against the war from the beginning, against the Patriot Act (because he read it), stands for health coverage for all, against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the TLC, etc.
Kucinich is the REAL candidate... that is why ABC stopped him from debating (they are afraid of him).
Oh Really @ 375:
Go over the transcript of the debate. It's posted at the NY Times. It's hard to ignore what Obama said or didn't say when you can actually read it at your leisure and analyze it.
I don't know how the Dems expect to unite with the cavemen of the other party.
Watching McCain made me think these people should live in caves.
McCain laugh was purely evil.
Scary old white men.
John Edwards. Let's see the networks black him out after he gets elected. Yuk yuk yuk.
Rupert Murdoch is trying t o take revenge because Edwards said he would not like to see all the TV networks owned by Murdoch. Murdoch's probably pushing behind the scenes to get the networks to black him out.
Edwards is right. Murdoch is wrong.
I don't watch FOX news. I get my news from DN, FSRN, and the internet.
Murdoch doesn't decide for me what the news is.
Got that, Murdoch?
A message for Hillary:
WAR IS A MISTAKE. It not only destroyed the otherside from destruction; It also destroys many here back home. Many have lost their lives; many came back wounded; and WE the PEOPLE are feeling it in our pocketbook. AND many of YOU will also feel it in the CAMPAIGN TRIAL. Your 35 years of experiences is just another casualty of YOUR VOTE for the WAR and for continuing to fund the WAR. Accept the ramification that follows for NOT admitting your actions were a MISTAKE.
It takes a human-being AT LEAST to accept one's mistake as JOHN EDWARDS did. And THAT was a welcome CHANGE. He stood before the people and admitted his mistakes. Before "CHANGE" can begin, one must NOT be in denial of the PROBLEM; Change follows SOLUTION.
Mr. XXXX @ 167:
I don't know about a landslide but if Obama has to face John McCain in the general election, I think that race would be very competitive. McCain's credentials should not be underestimate and he is capable of making a very strong national security argument that would expose Obama's weaknesses primarily that he is inexperienced on the international stage. Progressive liberals I think already Obama naive and foolish to think that the politics of unity will bring about a reversal not just of the Bush legacy but really a repeal of the Great Society that has been ongoing since 1968. Confrontation brings change not compromise even if it were possible.
Furthermore, let's be frank no matter who the nominee is November wholesale change is not possible without the Democratic Party gaining 20 plus seats in the House and gaining another 12 Senators. The Constitution by design is a brake on radical change in part because the Founding Fathers feared waves of populism or resurgent tyrannical Executive branch. The Senate thus only elects a third of its members in any election cycle. Compared to a parliamentary system when wholesale change is possible in any election, two-thirds of the Senate of the United States reflects the issues of elections from two and four years ago.
While the House can have its entire membership in theory replaced, the gerrymandering of districts allows for incumbents to often face token opposition. Not to mention most Americans tend to love their Representatives, it is the other 434 bums that should be thrown out. To truly effect change, the election of 2008 will have to be a watershed election. Such elections are rare. The last major one happened in 1932 and perhaps a minor one in 1980 and the mid-term election of 1994. Unless Obama has coattails that decisively picks up 20 seats in the House and more importantly 12 or more Senate seats, the Republicans will be able to put the brakes on change anytime they so choose. That's why I think it important that a more confrontational approach is required to truly effect change.
Politics is a contact sport. Politics is not synchronized swimming. Both Teddy Roosevelt and FDR were successful because they were confrontational. TR invented the bully pulpit and FDR refined it with his fireside chats taking their arguments directly to the people. In more recent times, LBJ was notorious for twisting arms and without question Reagan was a master of holding his ground and forcing the Democrats to cave. And what can we say of Bush? He railroaded the Democrats, co-opted them or simply ignored them. Of course a pliant Republican Congress for six years gave him everything he wanted. Did he fare any worse this past year? How many Iraq spending bills did he get past by a Congress that was elected to get us out of Iraq right then and there? In spite of intense public opinion, Bush managed to actually increase the number of troops. Confrontation paid off handsomely for Bush.
If Obama and McCain run against each and assuming Bloomberg doesn't run, I doubt 2008 will be a watershed election. McCain will at least poll in the mid 40 percentile if not eke out a victory with an Electoral College strategy. This allows the GOP to live another day. The Senate may look something like 57 or 58 Democrats but that's not filibuster proof nor does it overcome the likes of Lieberman or Feinstein. If it is a three person race, my money is on Bloomberg. Still I think the most forceful and true espouser of far-reaching change capable of leading a realignment election remains John Edwards.
dadams @ 34:
Oh, I didn't say that she WOULD pick him. Just that he WANTS it.
momly @ 24:
I like the idea of a woman as well, but I loathe the idea of 2 families controlling our government for 25 years or so.
Edwards Rocked!!
Hillary is in trouble. She shouldn't go negative. It makes her look worse. It makes her look like the agent of unchange.
The meltdown continues.
I propose a Gore/Obama ticket for two terms with Edwards as Attorney General...followed by Obama/Edwards for two terms.
Obama as vice president is win/win for everybody.
He get's much needed "experience" in high places that will place him at the front of the line for the next presidential run while Edwards get the "spark" his campaign has brought out. Obama would also be a welcome face the US could present to the world and might actually lead to some sort of meaningful dialogue in the Middle East, after all he is a "muslim"... :) The repubs and the neocons would actually sh*t themselves on national teevee if it were an Edwards/Obama ticket.
Rich in San Bruno @ 40:
Oh, I am ALL OVER any ticket that has Gore in it!!!
Rich in San Bruno @ 40:
you propose an interesting position there - Edwards wouldn't have to be VP, but I am sure he would have a place in an Obama administration
Edwards made Obama the front runner if you think about it - it was when obama and edwards gained up on Hillary that Obama grew in the polls - around that time
so, obama owes edwards some props
lopaloo102 @ 35:
If Hillary walks into the general, there will be no landslide. If Obama walks in, ugly race issues will flare. Im not trying to be a Krugman about this, there are just parts of this country which as super screwed up and racist. The thing that has me curious is how the Latino vote will sit this cycle.
EDWARDS!
People need to wake up and see the strong difference b/w Obama and Edwards. Forget Clinton. Edwards hit it out of the park tonight, especially when he said that the problem is not the American people nor the politicians, but the corporate stranglehold on our damn democracy. The fact that Obama and Richardson believe that somehow standing up for the American people and our democracy is "cynicism" or "bickering" is outrageous. And Edwards was right in asking how the hell we're going to get any change, when the politicians are being financially owned by these corporate interests? Who's going to challenge their damn boss?
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is not change. It is same old status quo.
God! I hate Hillary!
f the Dems pick her... It's heil to the Repub again for 4 more years!
H. Clinton can not be the one for change she is a LIE-berman sock puppet.
Obama will lose the general election if he is the nominee. He may sound good at rallies doing his best MLK oratorical imitation, but the race to November will require him to debate mano a mano with either McCain. Romney, or Giuliani. In this setting he will get roasted over a slow fire. It will be impossible to keep the young voters he depends on fired up for eight months. As the campaign wears on and the GOP nominee slowly chips away the veneer it will become clear to all that there is really no THERE there.
Democrats will once again show the world how easy they can lose a race that was theirs to win.
Edwards did great as usual
Wow - what a civil Democratic debate. :) Very nice to see. They sure made the Republican Party look like a bunch of bafoons.
I thought Edwards was terrific tonight. It was good to hear him lead the debate about economics/ workforce and the scary prediction for middle class Americans, especially for the younger generation/graduates. His passion, specific answers and plan resonated tonight. Hopefully NH agrees.
Bullshit.
When a Bush or Clinton has been President or Vice-President since 1980, I think not voting for someone based on family ties is the ONLY appropriate choice to make. (Not that Hillary isn't a lousy candidate on her own merits.) It's no less of a monarchy when the throne is time-share. Who next, Jeb? Jenna? Chelsea? Fucking Laura Bush? This farce is rapidly getting out of hand. Let's put the Bushes and Clintons away before anyone else gets hurt. Who died and made them kings and queens?
If ABC excluded any candidates, it wasn't a debate. It was just another example of the Big Commercial Media trying to manipulate America into accepting candidates that they feel are either sympathetic to, ot least damaging to, corporate interests.
I'm still waiting for any ot he the media-appointed top three to say anything about the Constitution or about thwarting the emerging police state. May seem like harping, but to me, all other issues - however vital or important - are secondary. When the foundation crumbles or is corroded away, the entire ediface must fall. The top three, seem willfuly oblivious.
Jeon Ji-Yung @ 399:
On second thought, lots of people died.
I firmly do not believe Hillary would make a good president.
I'm Canadian so I find the medical debates particularly interesting.
In any event, I find Hillary to have this omnipresent smug presentation that does not speak serenity or confidence in her beliefs; rather the opposite. What she espouses are policies she may have devoted support in her beliefs to, but whether they are her *heartfelt* convictions, it's hard to say. While the opposite disposition, relative humility and taking the *high road* so to speak may be a political ploy, I cannot help but observe that outwardly arrogant and unmeek people have lead the United States into disaster. If I were voting, I would go with individuals that don't necessarily attack other candidates, but seek to have conviction in WHATEVER policy may be best for the people.
With all my words being said for the time being,
Please for the love of God or at least all that you value, vote Dennis Kucinich. If you want your country to go to hell in a handbasket that's fine by me, but be sure to think of the rest of the world too. This is a very important election, and is being watched throughout the world. The repercussions affect many countries so it is in our interest, those of us outside the States, to be keen on the matters at hand within your country.
As much as we may not be *American citizens*, we are essentially disenfranchised members of the States because of the international ties with corporations based out of the States.
Basically, we may not like being dependant on these corporations, but there's a general hope out there of the American people...don't fuck the rest of us over. lol
Guy Fawkes @ 390:
Finally, someone tells the truth about Obama. His campaign advisers are Carter people and ex-Clintonistas. He's making deals with corporate lobbyists for campaign support. If you look at his record governing in Illinois, it's clear he fails to show up for many, many votes, or avoids by voting '"present." He brags about being on the Veterans Affairs Committee but he has missed 19 out of 37 votes there and his state ranks 49th out of 50th in processing and awarding veterans their benefits.
Check under the hood, people! Don't be so easily seduced by Oprah, a big Smile, and lots of sweeping, vague grandstand phrases about some non-specific change.
Edwards is the only one that would actually work to dismantle the corporate-fascists grip on American politics. That's why the networks under report on him, and when they do, its to smear him. Whether he could actually do that is doubtful (his congressional allies will likely all desert him on that point), but at least he's earnest about trying to free up the market somewhat. In a real free market, we would have greener technologies and a stronger dollar, because that is what people actually want. We're saddled with the Iron Triangle, Big Oil and wars against the will of the people, meaning that the market is not free in the sense that public demand is driving the products and the prices. Those are being artificially manipulated. The public is not demanding $3.25/gal gas with no real alternatives. The public is demanding lower priced, cleaner energy. The question is, if that's the public demand, why aren't we seeing suitably priced products to fill that demand? I think we all know the answer to that.
Edwards is the ONLY VIABLE candidate from any party that is broaching the subject.
He ain't perfect, and even if elected, he'd have a hard time solidifying the Democratic majority in Congress, but I still prefer him over Obama.
Corporate America is the least comfortable with Edwards of all the candidates. That fact alone energizes me. Hopefully it does some others too.
If corporate America doesn't like him, he must be doing something right.
The Republicans have two cards they always play which allows them to avoid defending their own policies.
1) Attack the Left
2) Project the idea that all politicians are essentially the same bastards
Unfortunately, this is being used by are own side on Hilary. I can assure you that the Repigs will use it on any nomination ... eg "Kerry voted for the war too, he's a flip flopper!"
Hilary is right. Her husband and their alleged "status quo" administration actually eliminated the snarky policies that Bush II has fought tooth and nail to reestablish. Of course, Junior has gone above and beyond this...
Lumping the Clintons with the Bushs is moronic. Although not perfect, the Clinton years were an oasis in the middle of the conservative nightmare.
This notion reminds me of the force-fed mantra from 2000, that there was "no difference between Gore and Bush"
What about the media manufactured idea that the nation loved the Clinton years, but we had "Clinton Fatigue" and thus did not feel so keen about Al Gore... Stop the good times! We need something new, albeit risky (ps - Did we ever get it!)
I like Edwards, Obama and Hilary... I believe that the three are extremely smart, but the idea that Hilary is the enemy of change is ridiculous.
I can understand if you dislike her because she seems tired, wooden and robotic, not a person you would with whom "You would like to have a beer."
What bothers me is that Obama and Edwards are using this point because they know it is effective. It's false and it really means nothing, as mentioned above.
I have to say, I love how Edwards equated the status quo with Hillary, basically implying that the changes Hillary have made are certainly well and good,
It reminds me of Cicero's method of appropriation and reversal, except he took Obama's argument, aligned himself with Obama, and used alternative terms to mitigate the attack Hillary made on Obama. She lost it. lol What she did, also very Ciceronian by stating the future will be in evidence of the past, is fine and good until people begin to question motivation. She doesn't have the sentimental appeal. She might as well have told everyone she made change so it would look good on her resume. And, an important part of Roman defense in the courts, was to make damned sure everyone understood why the person was doing what they were doing.
Someone could say "change, change, change, healing, growth, renewal" and all those key words, and if they speak passionately about it and at the very least appear to have the convictions embodied within those terms, then people will flock towards them right now, I think. They might be lying through their teeth, but the alternative is a lady that can get quite vicious and enjoys sitting on what benign accomplishments they have actually, really done, and being a general shit-disturber attacking others.
My opinions.
If Bloomberg runs it's aw win for the Democrats.
Bloomberg is a Defend Israel at all costs, Wall Street, War supporting Republican.
What Dem is going to vote for him. All he will do is take the fiscally retarded gop vote.
Especially if Huckleberry is the nominee.
The Social Conservatives will not vote for McCain. He can't win missing 30% of his party's support.
The only way the GOP can win this election is if they cheat.
They have not won a Presidential election since 1988.
Two election workers are serving time in Ohio and do I need to bring up Florida.
Why will it change this year.
Stealing the election again is there only chance.
Did you watch the rethug debates.
Forget gay marriage we need to stop the inbreeding in Republican circles.
I don't like the way they are talking about health insurance as if that were healthcare, universal or not. It isn't. I have health insurance. It doesn't mean a lot, because the insurance company can deny me any healthcare I might need, just by saying this condition-or-that is not covered. Or some emergency must be pre-approved, and then they go about not approving the coverage. Insurance means little.
Universal, single payer healthcare, no insurance companies, is assurance of healthcare.
BTW, Hillary, if you've got 35 years experience in taking on drug and insurance comapnies, why are you the candidate that has taken in the most money from these companies and PACs? 35 years experience? And, you've completed how many terms of elective office?
Rehen, you have very good points.
Unfortunately, that's not why people don't like Hillary - That they can't have a brew with her.
But mate, you've got to understand that people in America don't want arrogance right now. It's been a long decade of Bush's ridiculous rule. I personally think Americans are in somewhat of a state of paralysis and paranoia...they were manipulated on a grand scale into this mechanism of antiterrorism and Iraq that really only profited several prominent corporations while the rest of the country.
Quite frankly, members of government have been hung or shot for crimes of treason for far less than what has been accomplished by the current administration. If the FBI wants to track me now for saying that, I'm fine with this. I'm Canadian for God's sakes, and at least my government, as corrupt as they are, don't wage war that sinks the economy, profits the internal corporations, and lets the people lose out heartbreakingly, because half a dozen men in power believe, despite the fact the entire god damned mother fucking world telling them they're wrong, that it's alright to wage war for the purpose of profit veiled on the loose conviction that Iraq is a major threat when underneath it all what it boils down to is a fucking pack of lies your own government fed you.
Hillary reminds people of that stuck-up authoritative made-democrat. And people, regardless of homeyness (might I remind you that Bush was seen as homey), are tired of that stuck-up authoritative made-party person - whether democrat or republican.
Here's a partial transcript of the debate:
MR. GIBSON: ...let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?
SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie... What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.
MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.
Sounds to me like Obama is Bush Redux when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. That'll do wonders to our image in the rest of the world. Will Obama supporters care to discuss it or will they just continue to sweep it under the rug and attack the messenger instead?
By the time all the TOP-TIER candidates run-out of attacking each-other..............
The RAW DEAL that WE the PEOPLE are looking for will emerge.
The ONE final question that ALL the CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIALS must answer is.........
When they took their "OATH of OFFICE" did they swear to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies domestic and foreign? If so, how did they USE their POLITICAL CLOUT to enforce IMPEACHMENT to STOP THE LAWLESSNESS in the White HOUSE?
This Nation lives in EQUAL OPPORTUNITY principles.............Why IS it that DENNIS KUCINICH is being denied of HIS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY in the POLITICAL PROCESS and in the POLITICAL DEBATE?
The RAW DEAL.....the REAL AMERICAN DREAM....is lifting the REAL AMERICAN PRESIDENT that understand the values and principles of AMERICA.
To deny Dennis Kucinich his EQUAL RIGHTS is the very experience that MANY AMERICANS are feeling today.
At the end ......... the top-tier will align themselves to the SAME campaign MESSAGES that DENNIS KUCINICH has from the beginning.
DENNIS KUCINICH WAS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. AND KUCINICH is the PRESIDENT for ALL PEOPLE (BLACK,WHITE,YELLOW,BROWN,PURPLE). Kucinich is the embodiment of his upbringing as a LAW abiding AMERICAN who learned through growing up in by a Christian teaching.
Denying Dennis Kucinich is denying ourselves.
VOTE FOR DENNIS KUCINICH means an end OPPRESSION and a beginning for REAL EQUALITY for all PEOPLE. The COMMON denominator for this CHANGE is the WILL.
The willingness to accept that people have the right regardless of their appearances does not measure-up to the IMAGES that the BIG SCREEN shows us. GOD does not live or come from Hollywood. Don't let HOLLYWOOD and the POWER of the MEDIA define our NATION and who WE are as PEOPLE and who OUR PRESIDENT SHOULD BE.
AMERICA must look in the MIRROR and ask that question.
Are you voting for a President because he or she is a MAN or a WOMAN?
Are you voting for a President because he or she is Young or Old?
Are you voting for a President because he or she is Black or White?
Are you voting for a President because he or she is Tall or Short?
Are you voting for a President because he or she is Fat or Thin?
Are you voting for a President because he or she a part of your alma mater?
Are you voting for a President because he or she a part of your religion
If so, YOU are the problem why discrimination does not end.
If YOU are a voter who is keeping score on who HAS been CORRECT. then you are voting OBJECTIVELY.
BE SMART AMERICA.......COLLECTIVELY.....YOU HAVE the POWER to bring CHANGE. The end of WAR. The end of poverty and homelessness. The end of greed. The end of the denial of the human right to live over profit. The beginning where prosperity is open to all and based on ones desire and based on EQUAL REWARDS for HONEST WORK.
Go bitch, Go! Oh, that's right you're a bitch! Go away bitch, go away!!!
Johnny2Bad @ 281:
i just think if the dems put up a rich white guy, the independents who are looking for change, frustrated by the points you guys are making (that's all its ever been is RWG) won't participate (as heavily), and the bad guys win....of course their man would be another RWG....election might be close enough to allow for another 04 steal or a genuine victory...and the voting infrastructure hasn't improved enough, has it, to prevent another 04 steal...
here's what NH will look like
obama 45 edwards 30 clinton 25
Hillary loves that 'hard work' meme.
Did Bush accomplish all of his atrocities with "hard work"? Or did he just steamroll the competition?!!
Enough of this "hard work". The repugs and corporations can live with that. We need to RUN THEM DOWN !!!
EDWARDS FTW
debaser71 @ 109:
I have been saying what you have observed about the media and Chris Matthews constantly bashing of Hillary Clinton for as long as it has been going on. I want Barack Obama to win, but I am truly sadden by the non-stop Democratic repeat of Republican talking points directed at Hillary Clinton. I don't have to hate the person I don't choose to be my first choice. This is clearly a form of "I hate you or love you" thinking. There are no in betweens or "gray" areas. I am a Liberal Democrat and not some nasty do and say anything to win Republican.
Also when you look at this from the perspective of the Democrats trashing their front runner, this whole matter becomes a bit risky. After the primaries are over, the same media bashing Clinton can come after Obama with the same fury.
Joseph
Aeon @ 413:
All Obama and/or Edwards need to do is make a video of Hillary making these 'hard work' comments, and play it next to one like this from Bush:
http://www.simsadler.name/movmedia/HWG707rev.mov
Change? She isn't about change.
Mr. XXXX @ 167:
obama doesn't think the republicans will play out the campaign in a bipartisan manner....their campaign theme will indirectly but obviously be, "do you really want a black guy in our white house"....won't work, in fact just the opposite.
obama is the GOP's worst nightmare-- there are few sentient and true independents who would go republican, there would be an infusion of young voters, who haven't really been a voice in recent RWG contests, and all of the mud people throw at him sticks equally well to the other side (whichever candidate they chose).....that goes from drugs, to corrupt land deals, to inexperience.....bush and cheney had all that and more, and nobody cared....
obama up against any of the repubs would be a landslide victory....throw in a good vp candidate, and it'll be historic
Aeon @ 416:
From this video:
1:05 "But I dont think you make change by calling for it, or by demanding it. I think it is a result of very hard work..."
9:12 "Making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard."
“Change in American politics comes from hard work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03clinton-transcript.html
"Obviously I hope and expect that I will win. But I know it doesn't come from wishing, it comes from hard work."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/25/2007-10-25_hillary_clinton_my...
Has anyone got change for a a $100 bill. I need some change bro.
aeon
hillary has left the building.....
in a few weeks, she'll be party to kucinich's lawsuits to force participation in the debates from which she's excluded....
if obama gets more than 50% in NH, that'll be even sooner...
langx @ 406:
Bloomberg is not a Republican. For most of his life he has been a registered Democrat. He switched his registration to run for Mayor and avoid competing in a primary. It was a tactical move. His most recent tactical move was back in September 2007 when he switched his registration from Republican to Independent.
I've met the man and my boss went to HBS in the same class and remain good friends. He's a liberal on social issues and not that conservative on economic ones. Furthermore, he is a billionaire who can finance his own campaign. Unlike Ross Perot, Bloomberg is sane and articulate. As per your Israel argument, remind me again who in this campaign is anti-Israel? Bloomberg does not support the war, where do you get your information because you're wrong.
While McCain runs into problems on immigration, social conservatives will hold their collective nose when faced with the prospects of an Obama Presidency. But the point I was trying to make is that the Republicans do not need to win, they only need to avoid losing in a landslide. McCain is the most credible candidate on the GOP side. While I do not think the surge is all it is cracked up to be, a substantial percentage of the American people do. Whether McCain can win the nomination is another question. I think he will do well in NH, only the margin of victory at this point is the only intrigue. How McCain and Huckabee do in South Carolina will go a long way to deciding the long-term viability of both candidacies.
As for stolen elections, I have no doubt that voter intimidation and fraud are part of the Republican strategy in a number of states. In Florida, they have a marriage amendment on the ballot in the hopes of drawing conservatives to the polls. I was an election monitor in Columbus, Ohio for the European Union in 2004 (I am not a US citizen) and I was horrified. Nonetheless unduly influencing elections is only possible in a close election which is what the Republicans will get with a McCain candidacy. It is also pointless to state that the Republicans haven't won an election since 1988 because in fact the Democrats conceded which thus made the Republicans the victors.
Bloomberg does have his liabilities. He is Jewish and secular. But he can carry CA, WA, OR, HA, CO, OH, the Northeast, FL, MN, WI, MD, DE. Still, I do not believe that Bloomberg will run.
Proud American @ 410,
Well said!
The TOP-TIER candidates represents EXCLUSIVENESS and DEVISIVENESS.
The ONLY candidate that unites and demonstrate inclusiveness; honesty; integrity; substances; and fairness is Presidential candidate and Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
a wise man said to me: When all else fails and all goes wrong, go back to your roots and start again until you get it right. THAT "ROOTS" AMERICA; is our U.S. Constitution. Without it WE wipe-out 220 years of our HISTORY. What have we learned?
bloombergs only liability is that he's a rich white guy... if democrats nom another RWG, bloomberg's got a shot...
against obama, bloomberg is meaningless and irrelevant, and if there's anything fair about life, the media would treat him with the same respect they give Kucinich and Paul...
against clinton, bloomberg's presence would ensure her victory
McCain has zero credibility in the general public...maybe deep in the repub circles....but he's a 29% er...his head was crammed so far up bush's a***, he'll never smell pretty again to anybody but the sorry folk who believe hannity and limbaugh and oreilly, and those who think we should nuke iran now
Proud American @ 410:
Agreed!
Mike @ 63:
probably because all now realize that Obama has been right from the beginning, we are begging for change in big ways. Remember when Bill and Hillary had "It's the economy stupid" hanging up to remind them during their first go round..it should have been "It's about change stupid" this time but seems Obama was truly listening and getting it from every day Americans.
We have been doing a slow burn for a long long time, an enraged outraged slow burn at being minimized and not heard by our supposed Representatives.
If you wanna win: Edwards/Obama
budda @ 7:
Sue @ 426:
If AMERICA want CHANGE.....then they can begin by listening and demanding to hear from second or third tier candidate that are closest to the people OR begin to listen to other alternatives; such as the THIRD PARTY candidates.
THERE IS TRULY NOT AN OPEN COMPETITION......unless there are other viable options to select from. If AMERICA truly believes in diversity and democracy, then open your mind to other possibilities besides what is being shove to us by commercials and main-stream-media. AMERICA is about the freedom to choose. If we are to make the RIGHT choices that affects our lives; we must take the time to learn more about what we are being sold by consumerism or politics.
bilhelm-X @ 411:
Why are you trashing the female members of
your family, dimwit?
BlueKnuckle @ 36:
understood.
the one candidate that really has the fire to change this screwed up govt, but does not come with the electability power is dennis. people are very afraid that he would actually push the changes necessary to make America stronger. those who fear him are on both sides of the fence, democrats and repugs. corps, fat rich white guys and the war complex don't want anyone messing with their avarice.
Different Anonymous @ 41:
Which is the reason that Hillary really shouldn't get the nomination because if she did, the repubs and neocons would be beside themselves with glee. I want to back her, I really do, but she just has too much negative aura much of which is none of her fault *cough* Bill *cough*.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards... all excellent candidates. Any of them on their worst day would be better than the Repigs on their best day.
Let the best man win. That includes Hillary :-)
Hillary's 35 years of change?
Socks and underwear.
Maybe not though--Bill strayed.
My way of saying her claim is ridiculous.
Jay in Oregon @ 50:
HEE! :lol:
I think I know now why Chelsea never speaks about Mommy Dearest....
roooth @ 3:
Taylor March is sooooo pro-Clinton she can barely pronounce Obama.
SassySandy @ 46:
Damn straight. The numerology is 23 23 (BC BC), by the way. Scary I think.
rend @ 44:
The Iowa victory shot that talking point down.
OMG. The last 30 seconds make that clip. Hillary was being an attack dog, but fine until then. Then... wow... shrill yelling... makes my skin crawl -- I hate her screaming lectures SO much! Good lord. I finally get what others have been talking about there.
Also, Obama very calmly explained why he doesn't mandate for adults but does for kids. But that actually brings up a weakness in his argument... if they kids have insurance, but the parents don't... the kids still suffer!
He was excluded by Disney corp. He was busy filing a complaint to the FCC.
I think a mixed race president would be wonderful, as would a woman president. But that is not a REASON to vote for a person as president. I imagine that the woman who want to vote for Hillary because she is a woman might understand that it would be just as screwed up for a man to vote for a man because he is a man, for president. Time to get beyond that.
Well past time to vote for the person who by far most embodies the best of America--Dennis Kucinich.
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 59:
Who?
Joking! (sorta)
budda @ 7:
I thought she was GREAT.
And when the moderator asked her what her thoughts on her being considered less "likeable" and she said that it "hurts my feelings" I thought she was adorable.
I like her - I think she'd be a great president.
And I'd LOVE to ram her down the throats of the irrational Hillary hating loonies.
We have 3 great candidates and unfortunately they all can't be president.
One thing is certain - the worst of them is better than the best of the Republicans - that's for sure.
I don't see how any of the candidates are "status quo" coming off the Bush years. Unless Obama/Edwards fans are channelling Naders old Gush/Bore rhetoric. I can understand Clinton fatigue but I don't get this cult of personality stuff with Obama and Edwards fans.
No matter who is elected, they won't live up to the hype. That's just life in big boy pants.
did anyone count how many times they said CHANGE?
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE
budda @ 7:
Exactly my sentiment. Hillary: Get a voice coach. You are the angry candidate, not John.
A list of the national security and foreign policy advisers to the leading presidential candidates from both parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the...
The ONLY democratic candidate for change is Dennis Kucinich.
the rest are whores/fronts for the establishment. Even Edwards.
Check their membership in such elitist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission.
then, absent any membership of their own, check the membership of the their trusted advisor's.
The only one who is not a MADE democrat is Kucinich. Hence Dennis' upstream fight against the current of MSM approved candidates (wherein much of the media is also members of these elitist organizations - protecting their own.)
Hillary Clinton won the debate tonight and showed how wishy-washy both Edwards and Obama really are!
Edwards had no record in the U.S. Senate to speak of, plus the fact that in 2004, he kept emphasizing how much better America was in the days of Bill Clinton. Now, Edwards calls that the "status quo."
Obama was exposed for the "fraud" he was by Hillary Clinton tonight. Obama has NO HEALTH CARE PLAN at all. Obama is also in the pockets of big corporate lobbyists yet has the "audacity" to say he is about "change." Obama is a fluffy-fluff phony.
Did anyone catch Gibson asking Obama if the "Redskins" won as the camera came in on him--Obama, simultaneously? There were other games and I think the Steelers were playing Jacksonville when the Republican debate was going on. Oh well.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 57:
Four years ago it was the "Dean Scream", was tonight the "Hill Shrill"?
Medical Diagnosis by Video @ 51:
She was a lawyer with the Rose Law Firm for 17 years and joined political and social committees just like every lawyer listed on Martindale-Hubbell. Big Whoop. All to further her planned run for Governor in 1990 but private polls were unfavorable. She acted in her own best interest, any corporate lawyer would do and does every day of the week.
L.A. Confidential @ 65:
You can see all the major warmongering neocons are with McCain
Clinton tried to get Edwards to help her bash Obama but Edwards bashed her intead.
Looks like an Obama/Edwards ticket using Hillary as the establishment to change.
Timmy_D11 @ 328:
Because Kerry-Edwards sucked out in their "fight" against Bush and Cheney. They ran an awful campaign, not to mention that both of them supported Bush's war on Iraq. They in fact knew what they were voting for in 2002 when they gave Bush authorization. Both wanted to run for president and knew it would be at that time, a kiss of death had they "looked weak on war policy." U.S. Senators, Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy were not convinced and knew that Bush would take that opening to attack Iraq. Bush said as much before the Congress voted for Bush to fo back to the UN one more time and then if it failed, take action on Iraq. Bush was very direct in his intention to attack Iraq at the UN in September, 2002. In fact, they were both fine enablers of Bush's war on Iraq and new pre-emptive strategy as outlined in the 2002 USNSS. That is why I was quite reluctant to vote for the Kerry-Edwards duo, but did anyhow. Thank-you very much.
A.John.Joe @ 427:
If you wanna lose in 2008: Edwards/Obama
If you wanna lose in 2008: Obama/Edwards
Dennis Kucinich is a phony liberal/progressive.....he is another fraud.
Mr. XXXX @ 67:
Yes, Hillary Clinton showed her toughness last night and I just needed to remind everyone here on Crooks and Liars that Mrs. Clinton won the debate by exposing the liars of Obama and Edwards for their frauds they are. Obama was exposed for all his corporate and lobbying connections he has, yet the man from Illinois claims he is some kind of "change" candidate. Edwards could not name one legislative achievement he had during the six years he was in the U.S. Senate. Obama and Edwards were pathetic last night. Very pathetic. They had fluffy-fluff answers and did not say one thing that was not either repetitive or meaningless and void of any substance on important policy issues.
Clinton is not my first choice, but am I the only one who thought she sounded strong, focussed and fiery, not shrill, when she responded to Edwards? Let's see some of that fight on the Senate floor from all Democrats when Bush's Iraq funding veto comes back for discussion.
Hillary is not a good loser. She is not going to be the nominee, but I suspect she's going to have to be thrown out of the race. To me, the race is between Obama and Edwards. Richardson is an emabarrassment to watch and listen to.
Mr. XXXX @ 432:
Mr XXXX are you on some kind of medication? It will be affordable with Obama/Edwards.
Fuck of back to you couch and watch some more Fox Pravda. Idiot.
Login or Register to post comments.