Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Black Women Prefer Clinton to Obama

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Black Women Prefer Clinton to Obama


    Many black women support Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., here posing for a photograph with well-wishers in Harlem last year, because they have positive feelings about her husband and his administration.


    One of the intriguing stories of Campaign '08 is the popularity of Hillary Clinton with black women who might be expected to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the first African-American to emerge as a serious contender for a major party presidential nomination.

    A series of CBS News polls show the New York senator has a 15-point lead over Obama among black women. Other polls have confirmed Clinton’s popularity with African-American women.

    Overwhelmingly, the most frequently stated reasons women give for favoring Hillary Clinton are that they have positive feelings about her husband and his administration and they think she's got the best shot of any of the Democrats to win against the Republicans.

    "Most Black women simply believe Clinton can win," said former Gore campaign manager and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. "They loved her husband Bill and would like to see 'a woman elected first'"

    Obama hopes to find the antidote to Clinton's less-than-secret weapon - husband Bill - with a boost from talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, who is campaigning for Obama in three early primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

    But beating back Bill won't be easy.

    As much as African Americans may instinctively roll their eyes in exasperation when they hear Bill Clinton referred to as the "first black president", it is undeniable he made an emotional connection with black America in a way that no other president has.

    Sheryl McCarthy is a columnist for USA Today and Newsday who often explores issues of politics and race. "Black people have always felt with Bill Clinton that he is sort of one of them, "that he cares about them, that he can relate to them," she said.

    "And after he left the White House", McCarthy observed, "he put his office in Harlem. So black people have a real connection with Bill Clinton and may think there's sort of a continuum with Hillary Clinton or similar sensibility with Hillary."

    Mark Sawyer is director of UCLA's Center for the Study of Race, Ethnicity and Politics. He pointed out Hillary also enjoys a halo effect from the fact that black Americans felt more confident economically during the 1990's.

    "Relative to other years, other presidencies, African Americans did very well under the Clinton administration, though there's substantial evidence that they perceive themselves to be doing a lot better than they actually were," he said.

    Hillary Clinton's White House years also gave her a forum from which she was able to raise her own visibility. Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook is an influential African American Baptist pastor who served as a member of Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council and is now active in Hillary's presidential campaign.

    "I got to know her as the first lady," Johnson Cook said, "and I got to see her work with health reform. She took on some issues, which was very courageous and the first time a first lady really dealt with policy."

    That time in the White House also put Clinton in the public eye as the long-suffering wife of a man with a roving eye.

    "It took a lot to hold up under that," Johnson Cook said. "I don't know how many women could have done that, but she did, so I give her three thumbs up."

    Success begets success, and the simple fact that Hillary Clinton is the leader of the Democratic pack in most national polls carries a lot of weight in the minds of black women.

    "She looks like she has a much stronger chance of getting the nomination and getting elected than Obama. You want to go with the winner, and if that's a woman as opposed to someone black, then you want to go with them," said Newsday columnist McCarthy.

    The Rev. Johnson Cook points out that the kinds of issues Hillary has tackled in her political service also make her especially attractive to black women.

    "Many of us are mothers and wives and family women, however you qualify us, and we know the track record of Senator Clinton with children, particularly poor children, and city children. When we look at someone who has a track record of voting that way and representing us and fighting for us and advocating, then she wins on the experience and the track record, hands down, no question, undeniably," she said.

    Race weighs heavily on the minds of black women, though not always in ways that have generated support for Obama.

    In a series of interviews in South Carolina, New York Times reporter Katharine Q. Seelye noted that black women often brought up a sense of fear for Barack Obama's safety if he was elected, describing it as "an almost maternal concern".

    “I don’t feel the country is ready for an African American,” one woman told her, “He would be killed.”

    UCLA's Mark Sawyer calls that fear a kind of "proxy" for how significant voters feel racism is in the American public sphere. "It's a way of saying African Americans are concerned that if Barack Obama were to win [the nomination], there's just no way he would become president because there are 'forces' out there - racist forces - including perhaps the white electorate, that would make that impossible."

    "People do feel the assassination thing is very real," said Johnson Cook, "They do fear that for him. This is a topic that's on everybody's plate and around everybody's dinner table that I know."

    One point made repeatedly is that if many black women prefer Clinton over Obama, it’s nothing personal.

    "I think we're being told that if black women are leaning toward Hillary Clinton that that's a negative perception of Barack Obama," Prof. Sawyer said. "African Americans feel extraordinarily positive towards Barack Obama, so choosing to put Hillary forth as the preferred candidate is a strategic voting choice and not necessarily an emotional choice."

    “I prefer Obama, but Clinton is stronger,” said one black woman almost apologetically while out shopping with her sisters and their children.

    She feels that the current political climate just isn’t right to test out a black candidacy. “I wouldn't want him to go into it as the first black person, because I think he would have a hard time, and he's such a nice young man. Believe me, he would get the brunt of everything. Everything is messed up and he would basically have to clean it up - and that's a lot for him to handle.”

    Despite her pessimism towards his campaign this time around, she did express hope for the future, “He is young, he can do it again, he can do it another time,” she said. “This is not the time, because it's a lot to clean up. Bush really left it in a mess, is my feeling.”

    (AP Photo/Ronda Churchill) Beyond Oprah Winfrey's very high profile endorsement, it isn't difficult to find black women who do have confidence that Obama is ready to take on the establishment, not someday, but now.

    Livi, a black woman from Long Beach, California argued that Obama has proven naysayers wrong in the past. “The fact is, people have said…that he wasn't electable in terms of the Senate and there have been other races or other things in his life where he was the underdog.”

    “People say, is this country ready for a black person, an African American, to be president. You know, I think that this time is as good as any.”

    Livi’s 32-year-old daughter Maryam agreed. “I actually like Barack more than Hillary. I just don't trust Hillary as much as him. There's something about her that's very political. I think that it's nice to have a new face, a new energy, someone who can bring in some change.”

    “It’s just like we got behind Clinton,” Livi added, referencing not Hillary, but Bill. “He was like the new Camelot the first year he was in office. I think I would have the tendency to get behind Barack for that same reason - that if we want a change, let's go ahead and really vote for the change.”

    Sheryl McCarthy concluded that for her, it comes down to a pragmatic choice as opposed to an idealistic one. "I don’t know that people are happy with the three front runners. I'm not happy with the three front runners. I'm very disillusioned with Hillary, I wish John Edwards were doing better, I'm not quite sure why he isn't, and Obama just sort of floats there, like I said, what's not to like about him?"

    More and more Democrats in Iowa are telling pollsters that they really do like Obama and now that Clinton’s lead has dwindled in what is essentially a white state, there's still time for voters on the fence to reconsider his electability.

    "If he were to do a big surge and come out as a real, real serious contender with Hillary Clinton, sure, I'd probably switch to him," she said, "but I don't think that's going to happen."

    Source: CBSNews.com

  • #2
    Hillary Clinton should only open her mouth when she's giving head. The smartest thing ever to come out of her mouth was Bill's dick, and the only thing gayer than her becoming President is Ryan McBain.

    Additionally, Barack Osama can eat a bag of shit. Fuck him. I'd rather vote for that guy from the Del Taco commercial who slow cooks the beans. How can anyone be shameless enough to wanna take control of a war they're against? Like, "I didn't think we should buy that car, but now I want to be the only one driving it." Fuck that. He's a tool.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by eponym View Post
      Hillary Clinton should only open her mouth when she's giving head. The smartest thing ever to come out of her mouth was Bill's dick, and the only thing gayer than her becoming President is Ryan McBain.

      Additionally, Barack Osama can eat a bag of shit. Fuck him. I'd rather vote for that guy from the Del Taco commercial who slow cooks the beans. How can anyone be shameless enough to wanna take control of a war they're against? Like, "I didn't think we should buy that car, but now I want to be the only one driving it." Fuck that. He's a tool.

      Comment


      • #4
        As I'm currently writing this in a waiting room on my iPhone (getting fitted for a pimp robe and boots) I can not respond in kind; cut and pasting pithy jpegs from ebaums world ain't in the cards yet. Sufficed to say, dummycrats often attribute pragmatism to ignorance, and I'm sure McBain loves the pic of the little boy.

        Comment


        • #5
          I want to refer folks to an article that speaks to the most important question---"Which of the candidates has a program to address the racial gap?"

          In a 2007 issue of The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education there is an article by Theodore Cross, editor, titled "Barack Obama is the Superior Choice for African-American Voters."

          A few quotes:
          Regarding Clinton''s campaign platform---"These admirable goals, aimed as they are at the white American heartland, offer little specific appeal to the aspirations of most African-American voters who, in their choice of a presidential candidate, hope for a strong and explicit executive program to defend and advance the life chances of African Americans . . . But Hillary Clinton''s platform offers nothing." ". . . the leaders of the Clinton campaign appear to believe that if she announces any form of a black program, she kills the support of voters she needs."

          Referring to Senator Obama---"Unlike Clinton, he outlines a comprehensive program to reduce poverty, revitalize America''s urban areas . . ." ". . . there is no doublespeak or ambiguous language. Senator Obama deals with racial issues head on. He enters the arena of race with his six-shooters blazing."

          Mr. Cross sums up, "Obama offers a concrete program for black America. Hillary Clinton offers none."

          The link to the article: www.jbhe.com/obama1.html.
          For more info on Senator Obama and his platform go to www.barackobama.com.

          Thank you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by eponym View Post
            As I'm currently writing this in a waiting room on my iPhone (getting fitted for a pimp robe and boots) I can not respond in kind; cut and pasting pithy jpegs from ebaums world ain't in the cards yet. Sufficed to say, dummycrats often attribute pragmatism to ignorance, and I'm sure McBain loves the pic of the little boy.
            So democrats use pictures to point out your stupidity and you freak out. Let me guess, you must be a repubprickan. Do us all a favor and end you life by putting a gun in your mouth and then pulling the trigger. Better yet, please do this...

            :trythis:

            And nobody gives a f*ck about the iphone your daddy probably bought you.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have an iPhone. Yes, it IS cool

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eponym View Post
                dummycrats often attribute pragmatism to ignorance,
                Explain this point. Cite real world examples, please.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow! The cynical hatchet wound and diminutive mick ganging up on the big bad Republican? K.

                  First, to the midget potato peeler: enforcing a UN backed ultimatum and deposing a middle eastern despot who ignored such post-Gulf War cease fire ultimatums over 10 times, had links with the '93 World Trade Center bombers and who had attempted to assasinate an ex-President of the United States; the case for doing so post 9/11 could be attributed to pragmatism and is instead attributed to Bush's ignorance over WMD, by Democrats. Res ipsa loquitur they are dummies, basking in their dummy glow of partisan revisionist history.

                  Second, to the sea hag, anything that bleeds for four days without dying shouldn't be allowed to vote in the first place. Everything shitty that happened in this country during the 20th century can be traced back to suffrage. Prohibition: great fucking idea. The economy crashed and a generation of criminals materialized overnight, thanks to chicks who decided we needed a huge black market. They got put back in their place a little during the 40's, when men were off doing history's heavy lifting, and then got their revenge by voting for Kennedy in 1960. As a result, a wall got thrown up across Germany, atomic missiles were sent into Cuba and Kruschev decided no one would mind if he started arming the North Vietnamese. But Kennedy looked so charming and handsome on TV! Dummies. Because of them some guys had to go out and kill him in broad daylight, to stave off another world war, and isn't that strange...nobody, especially nobody male, seems to have a problem with it. "Yeah, it was that one nut Lee Harvey Oswald. Oh well, guess we need another President." Let's put the Warren Commission on shutting those ladies the fuck up.

                  Hope you've enjoyed my rejoinder. Off to call up some trim on my iPhone.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by eponym View Post
                    First, to the midget potato peeler: enforcing a UN backed ultimatum and deposing a middle eastern despot who ignored such post-Gulf War cease fire ultimatums over 10 times, had links with the '93 World Trade Center bombers and who had attempted to assasinate an ex-President of the United States; the case for doing so post 9/11 could be attributed to pragmatism and is instead attributed to Bush's ignorance over WMD, by Democrats. Res ipsa loquitur they are dummies, basking in their dummy glow of partisan revisionist history.
                    The case for doing so post-9/11 was not based on pragmatism. The case was made to the world by Iraq having WMDs which was later proven false. YOU are the one rewriting history to fit your flawed argument. It's not Bush's ignorance over WMD that hurts your case. It's a documented and unquestioned fact that we haven't found the WMD we were looking for in Iraq as of today.

                    Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

                    Claims that Saddam was behind the bombing are based on the research of Laurie Mylroie of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Her research has been heavily criticized and terrorism experts consider her argument utterly baseless. Bergen, for example, calls her a "crackpot" who claimed that "Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself."[15] Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out that "Mylroie's work has been carefully investigated by the CIA and the FBI.... The most knowledgeable analysts and investigators at the CIA and at the FBI believe that their work conclusively disproves Mylroie's claims.... Nonetheless, she has remained a star in the neoconservative firmament." [16] Dr. Robert Leiken of the Nixon Center comments on the lack of evidence in her work: "Laurie has discovered Saddam’s hand in every major attack on US interests since the Persian Gulf War, including U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and even the federal building in Oklahoma City. These allegations have all been definitively refuted by the FBI, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other investigatory bodies...."[17]

                    You got pwned, bitch

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I got pwned because you found something on Wikipedia that calls some bitch I've never heard of a crackpot? Holy shit. And McBain is ever so proud of you for it.

                      The fact is that the 93' WTC bombing was done on the 2nd anniversary of the Iraqi surrender to American forces, and the guy who mixed the chemicals for it was later given asylum and even a monthly salary by Saddam. Since every dummycrat seems to want to be Saddam's lawyer I'm sure you'll bring up the fact he "ostensibly" had nothing to do with the "2001" WTC attack. Whatever, southpaw. If America were run by people who think that way the whole country would be like a hippie in rainbow suspenders getting kicked in the ribs while laying in the fetal position. Before we could break the Axis in WWII we had to take France first...get it? And France, 60 years later, bailed out of it's commitments to remove Saddam and THEN HAD MUSLIM RIOTING IN THE FUCKING STREETS ANYWAY...GET IT!? It wasn't Hitler or Mussolini they were fighting, it was naziism and facism.

                      And while we all want to believe we 'control' all of the bad shit that goes on in the world; that we as Americans are the gods that decide everything from the Earth's temperature to who blows up what and why, it's not so. Get a grip, and take solace in the idea that the only person who would take on such a task; to declare war on an entire region of radical facist fundamentalists -- holding a job in which 4 of his 42 predecessors were murdered while in office no less -- would have to be kinda stupid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        I got pwned because you found something on Wikipedia that calls some bitch I've never heard of a crackpot? Holy shit. And McBain is ever so proud of you for it.
                        Just because she's someone you've never heard of doesn't mean the point I'm making is invalid. She claimed Saddam had something to do with the 93 WTC bombings and was widely proven as incorrect. Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strong suits.

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        The fact is that the 93' WTC bombing was done on the 2nd anniversary of the Iraqi surrender to American forces, and the guy who mixed the chemicals for it was later given asylum and even a monthly salary by Saddam.
                        Source?

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        Since every dummycrat seems to want to be Saddam's lawyer I'm sure you'll bring up the fact he "ostensibly" had nothing to do with the "2001" WTC attack. Whatever, southpaw.
                        I won't bring that up. He didn't "ostensibly" have nothing to do with the 2001 attack. He didn't have a thing to do with those attacks in reality, sunshine

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        If America were run by people who think that way the whole country would be like a hippie in rainbow suspenders getting kicked in the ribs while laying in the fetal position.
                        Yeah, really.

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        Before we could break the Axis in WWII we had to take France first...get it? And France, 60 years later, bailed out of it's commitments to remove Saddam and THEN HAD MUSLIM RIOTING IN THE FUCKING STREETS ANYWAY...GET IT!? It wasn't Hitler or Mussolini they were fighting, it was naziism and facism.
                        Wrong. We spent months upon months readying the nation for war. Troops were called to duty, factories were moved over to war production facilities, and the public was asked to sacrifice to assist the war effort. Proper planning for a large scale war is a trait obviously lost on the Republicans.

                        Idiot, France didn't back out of their commitments to remove Saddam. They were following the UN mandate which installed the No Fly Zone. However, they didn't want to be involved in a ground war in the Middle East. They learned from the failure of their colonial policies of the early 20th century.

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        And while we all want to believe we 'control' all of the bad shit that goes on in the world; that we as Americans are the gods that decide everything from the Earth's temperature to who blows up what and why, it's not so.
                        No credible person thinks American hegemony is a bad thing.

                        Originally posted by eponym View Post
                        Get a grip, and take solace in the idea that the only person who would take on such a task; to declare war on an entire region of radical facist fundamentalists -- holding a job in which 4 of his 42 predecessors were murdered while in office no less -- would have to be kinda stupid.
                        It's not the war that I have a problem with. It's been the piss poor execution of the diplomatic and political planning for it
                        Last edited by Short Irish Guy; 12-06-2007, 5:48 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          Just because she's someone you've never heard of doesn't mean the point I'm making is invalid. She claimed Saddam had something to do with the 93 WTC bombings and was widely proven as incorrect. Reading comprehension is obviously not one of your strong suits.
                          Micahel Moore was proven incorrect on most of the stuff he claimed in Fahrenheit 9/11

                          http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

                          What does that have to do with anything?





                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          Source?
                          You probably don't know how to use Google since the best thing you could find was some Wikipedia shit on one crackpot nobody's ever heard of. Hint: search keywords + 9/11 report.[/quote]



                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          I won't bring that up. He didn't "ostensibly" have nothing to do with the 2001 attack. He didn't have a thing to do with those attacks in reality, sunshine
                          It's nice you KNOW things about a guy who lived thousands of miles away from you and spoke a language you don't understand. Anyway, since you're computer illiterate try this: look up "$25,000 to families of martyrs." Saddam, according to every intelligence report, was actively funding terrorism in Israel. As his lawyer you'll probably point out "what does Israel have to do with 9/11?" PLEASE say that so I can laugh.


                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          Wrong. We spent months upon months readying the nation for war. Troops were called to duty, factories were moved over to war production facilities, and the public was asked to sacrifice to assist the war effort. Proper planning for a large scale war is a trait obviously lost on the Republicans.
                          Wrong? I didn't say anything about PLANNING knucklehead! Nothing! France had to be taken before Germany could be moved on...duh? And then you answer with "stupid, that war was better planned." Whaaa? Once again you confuse the issue and don't even do it well. and FYI: It took Bush over a year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. And are you suggesting D-day was perfectly planned? Ever hear of Utah Beach?[/quote]

                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          Idiot, France didn't back out of their commitments to remove Saddam. They were following the UN mandate which installed the No Fly Zone. However, they didn't want to be involved in a ground war in the Middle East. They learned from the failure of their colonial policies of the early 20th century.
                          Here's an interesting article from 1998 I found; try substituting "Clinton" for "Bush" and see if your tiny mind can handle it. Let's just say the "president" was concerned about France jumping ship:

                          http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A96E958260



                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          No credible person thinks American hegemony is a bad thing.
                          Is that supposed to be irony?


                          Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                          It's not the war that I have a problem with. It's been the piss poor execution of the diplomatic and political planning for it
                          Name a war that was planned well....ONE! Name a war capable of being "controlled" by a US president...just ONE! Diplomatic 'planning' was attempted by two administrations over a ten year period from '91 to '01. Out of curiousity, what do you think Gore or Kerry would've done differently?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eponym View Post
                            It's nice you KNOW things about a guy who lived thousands of miles away from you and spoke a language you don't understand. Anyway, since you're computer illiterate try this: look up "$25,000 to families of martyrs." Saddam, according to every intelligence report, was actively funding terrorism in Israel. As his lawyer you'll probably point out "what does Israel have to do with 9/11?" PLEASE say that so I can laugh.
                            Right. Saddam still didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and you have yet to provide evidence that he did.

                            Originally posted by eponym View Post
                            Wrong? I didn't say anything about PLANNING knucklehead! Nothing! France had to be taken before Germany could be moved on...duh? And then you answer with "stupid, that war was better planned." Whaaa? Once again you confuse the issue and don't even do it well. and FYI: It took Bush over a year between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. And are you suggesting D-day was perfectly planned? Ever hear of Utah Beach?
                            I would like to point out that you wrote an entire paragragh, poorly written mind you, essentially answering a question you posed in that reply. Idiot.

                            Originally posted by eponym View Post
                            Here's an interesting article from 1998 I found; try substituting "Clinton" for "Bush" and see if your tiny mind can handle it. Let's just say the "president" was concerned about France jumping ship:

                            http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A96E958260

                            Is that supposed to be irony?
                            France didn't "jump ship" in the manner you were suggesting. Try again and use correct evidence to support your claim.

                            Originally posted by eponym View Post
                            Name a war that was planned well....ONE! Name a war capable of being "controlled" by a US president...just ONE! Diplomatic 'planning' was attempted by two administrations over a ten year period from '91 to '01. Out of curiousity, what do you think Gore or Kerry would've done differently?
                            First Gulf War.

                            I don't know what Gore or Kerry would have done differently. I don't deal with hypothetical questions where my answer will be mocked since that's your gimmick here.

                            It's a good thing you weren't graded for the replies you've made in this thread. You'd have failed in quite a spectacular fashion. Congrats.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                              Right. Saddam still didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and you have yet to provide evidence that he did.
                              Three words, "war on terrorism", you dipshit. It didn't MATTER if he had anything to with 9/11 itself or not.



                              Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                              I would like to point out that you wrote an entire paragragh, poorly written mind you, essentially answering a question you posed in that reply. Idiot.
                              Yeah, after you replied to a statement regarding "why" the military was used with a comment on "how" it was carried out. So I'll go ahead and "essentially" answer a question I've asked again. Why do you defend Saddam for things unproven and attack the administration for things you obviously have no idea about? Because you're a bitter quasi-intellectual coward who on 9/11 was probably happy to get the day off work.


                              Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                              France didn't "jump ship" in the manner you were suggesting. Try again and use correct evidence to support your claim.
                              Since you're so fond of Wikipedia you can read about resolution 1441 on there:

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441

                              Notice it was "unanimously" passed and called for "a FINAL opportunity" for Saddam to comply." I'd charge you for the history lesson except I'm not interested in taking money from sweetly ******ed people.



                              Originally posted by Short Irish Guy View Post
                              First Gulf War.

                              I don't know what Gore or Kerry would have done differently. I don't deal with hypothetical questions where my answer will be mocked since that's your gimmick here.
                              You have to SAY something first to get mocked, I'm merely ridiculing the ridiculous. And of course you don't deal with hypotheticals; except concerning what the Republicans could have "done better" of course. I think if they catch Bin Laden they should definitely make you his lawyer. Giving him a shit for brains would be a funny spin on the 6th amendment.

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X