Ben Smith of The Politico tours "Game Change" and discovers that everyone who was anyone in the Democratic Party backed Obama, even if only secretly. But after much Hillary-bashing the piece closes with Obama offering a mystifying defense (my emphasis):
Neither Clinton comes off entirely negatively. The former president is cannier than his aides, seeing the threat from Obama early on. The candidate appears tough, resilient, and deeply concerned for her daughter.
Only one figure in the narrative appears to dissent from this deeply unflattering view of Hillary Clinton: Barack Obama.
“She’s smart, she’s capable, she’s tough, she’s disciplined,” Obama reportedly told skeptical aides when he offered her the job of secretary of state. “She wouldn’t have to be taught [By whom?] or have her hand held. She wouldn’t have to earn her place on the world stage; she already had global stature. She pays attention to nuance. … and that’s what I want in a secretary of state, because the stakes are so high. I can’t have somebody who would put us in peril with one errant sentence.”
Put us in peril with one errant sentence? This from the guy who picked Joe Biden for what I guess is the inconsequential role of VP?
To be fair, Obama picked Hillary after enduring Joe as a teammate for several months. Still, Obama had to know when he tapped him that Joe's Gaffe-O-Matic is always on high, so whay was it OK to have a VP destined to say stupid things?
When you think about it why would any of his decisions - personnel or policy - be anything but crossed wet fingers in the wind?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM
He has sceptical aides? Who knew?
He does have one sceptical reader--me. I think have this story (Game Change)is by disaffected losing staffers and half by people promoting themselves or the people they support/work for.
Posted by: Clarice | January 12, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Exactly, that's why they stripped all the negotiating authority from her, and send her to Burkina Faso, when major issues are at stake.
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Odd that Obama comes out of the book smelling like a rose.... Hmmmmm? I wonder why?
Posted by: Roux | January 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM
how many errant sentences has Dear Leader already uttered in his campaign to apologize to everyone and anyone? Sorry Hirohito for making you come out to the Missouri. All 57 states of us is sorry.
Remember, narciso, what goes on in Burkina Faso stays in Burkina Faso, or maybe Upper Volta or the Central African Republic..well no further than Burundi, then, anyway.
Posted by: matt | January 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Obama probably comes out smelling like a rose because it takes years to find out anything about him. We have no investigative reporters, only reporters falling all over themselves trying to avoid posting anything that might harm Obama or the Democrats chances of remaking the US in the image of a Castro run Cuba. The American Thinker article makes it obvious (IMO) that Obama was groomed from childhood by the US Communist Party.
Hey Obama, Who's Freddy?
Posted by: pagar | January 12, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Didn't Jill Biden let it slip on a talk show that Obama had offered Biden the choice of VP or SecState and he chose VP? If true, then Obama was completely ready to hand off SecState to "somebody who would put us in peril with one errant sentence."
I call BS on this little bit of revisionism.
As for this:
The candidate appears tough, resilient, and deeply concerned for her daughter.
Chelsea Clinton was 28 years old during most of 2008, had a professional career, and had already lived through eight years of her parents in the WH at a much younger and presumably more vulnerable age. Except for the fact that Chelsea was relatively new to the campaign trail, how deep did Hillary's concern for her really need to be?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 11:28 AM
What I find funny is that he didn't even achieve that goal with Hillary Clinton. Would he like to reset the goal? I suppose though it was because they neglected to have her taught by their expert on international relations and gravitas, VP Joe Biden.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | January 12, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Heileman, the one who doesn't get quite as much ink, wasn't he the one that said that it was just racist to oppose Obama, justbecause, or words to that effect. This is more of what I called 'Miguelito Lovelace" journalism, back in 2008. Anklebiting but only on selected targets.
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Of course Biden is qualified to be VP and is the ideal person for the role. He just exudes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner>"bucket of warm piss.
Posted by: hit and run | January 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I could be wrong, but I think once Obama got Hillary to agree to be SoS (but before she arrived) he gutted her responsibilites by putting "envoys" like George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke in charge of pivotal areas. I bet they answer to Obama, not Hillary. Team Obama savvily neutered Hillary, preventing her from either shining as SoS or challenging his policies from the senate. It's very strange that she fell for it.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Whew, hit, you just saved me from a terrible gaffe. I was about to attribute that quote to Spirow Agnew.
Posted by: cathyf | January 12, 2010 at 11:45 AM
It's very strange that she fell for it.
I agree, Deb. It seemed obvious even before she accepted the job that they were going to try to work around her and they have done exactly that. Can't figure it out.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 11:54 AM
It's like Charlie Brown and the football, he knows they are going to yank it away, but he still runs to it
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Cathy:
Whew, hit, you just saved me from a terrible gaffe.
"Created or saved" gaffes is the focus of my efforts here on JOM.
Posted by: hit and run | January 12, 2010 at 12:07 PM
whatever happened to Tony Rezko?
Posted by: matt | January 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Isn't it amazing that the press in the form of Heileman and Halpern can come up with all this salacious soap opera type personal crap (Harry's impersonation of Biden, John and Elizabeth Edwards, Bill's affair) that was kept "top secret" at the time but fails to find out about the "lost years of Columbia" or the Pakistan trip, et. al.
And then to see the likes of Hannity and Rush falling all over this book as if it is somehow damaging to Obama is folly of the first degree. If Palin can write a book that becomes number 1 in the country, just imagine what an enterprising person or journalist could realize by an expose of Obama including all the unanswered questions. That is what really troubles me - how come someone with a rep (Woodward) won't do this? It would probably get them kneecapped at the computer, that's why.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Freddoso did some of this, it ended up on the remainder bin at CPAC, last February. The facts are out there but you actually look for them, do the actual work.
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Obama probably comes out smelling like a rose because it takes years to find out anything about him.
Obama comes out smelling like a rose because that was the point of the book.
Didn't the Obama administration argue that in an election year, a book against a certain candidate could be banned under campaign finance laws?
Posted by: MayBee | January 12, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Right, "it doesn't take a weatherman," as the song goes, to see the way this thing is going.
It only took one implausi-obvious lie, to invalidate it. Even the Edwards soap opera, would people really be this candid, one wishes
to take a shower, when dealing with this garbage
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Obama is playing chess and we are playing checkers.
Posted by: Conservative Bob | January 12, 2010 at 12:52 PM
DoT I was in Moscow twice in the 1980-1984 period on work and came back and told everyone it was over over there. Do I get a prize?
Posted by: Clarice | January 12, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Who's this we, now it is true that Rush and Hannity don't get it, which is a little surprising in the former instance. I think that Susstein's amended view of freedom of speech
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 12:56 PM
"Do I get a prize?"
You can run the CIA. How's that?
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 01:02 PM
OT:
Regarding the Senate race in Mass.
If I was a criminal or terrorist I would be afraid,">http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1224976'>afraid, very afraid.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 12, 2010 at 01:09 PM
You notice what seems to be missing from any discussion of "Game Change?"
Our president.
Is there really no dirt to spill on him, or are all his aides so locked up that they're not talking?
Posted by: Bill Peschel | January 12, 2010 at 02:06 PM
There's stuff about his views on Biden which has been reported.
Posted by: clarice | January 12, 2010 at 02:17 PM
From JIB's LUN "be afraid"
"Coakley spokeswoman Jill Butterworth said the letter is part of a statewide push to ensure all charities file with the attorney general’s office to let the public know how their money is being spent."
A far better use of the AG's office time would be a report on what these lobbyists expect to get for their Money
Posted by: pagar | January 12, 2010 at 02:20 PM
I saw a blurb somewhere this morning that Sarah will be doing her first show on FOX tonight. Anybody know what time/show?
Posted by: SWarren | January 12, 2010 at 02:20 PM
Sarah will be on O'Reilly at 8 PM Eastern.
Posted by: Flodigarry | January 12, 2010 at 02:25 PM
More internals in the PPP poll in the MA race
Posted by: Jane | January 12, 2010 at 02:32 PM
Is there anyone who actually believes that this:
"I can’t have somebody who would put us in peril with one errant sentence.”
is a direct quote? There may be a lot of questions about this guy and his history, but one thing that we all know is that he doesn't talk that way.
I don't think that very many people talk that way, anyway. Sure, excellent writers write sentences like that (and people can read them aloud) but look at the sentence -- it is very compact and efficient. Like what you write and it takes several minutes of thought and a revision or two to get it "just so". Not how you organize words that are coming out of your mouth in "real time."
Posted by: cathyf | January 12, 2010 at 02:32 PM
JIB,
I was at a meeting last night and someone told me his wife's club had gotten that letter and they are pissed. So she's alienated the older woman vote.
Posted by: Jane | January 12, 2010 at 02:34 PM
cathy, was that something, Obama was supposed to have said? If so I'm calling b.s. on that.
Posted by: clarice | January 12, 2010 at 02:39 PM
matt - Rezko is comfortable and in a secure, undisclosed place. Will he ever be released? We know his 'song' has ended.
Jane - thanks for the link (even if there is a support Barbara Boxer ad on the margin for which you are not to blame).
"...I think once Obama got Hillary to agree to be SoS ... Hillary as SoS triggers unsettling memories of that military and boarding house favorite, creamed chipped beef.
Posted by: Frau Plattdeutsch | January 12, 2010 at 02:45 PM
Like "isolated extremist, the system worked, he acted stupidly' or 'reset' phrases like that.
Next thing you know, she'll be executing jay walkers. I can't imagine thinking that, much
less sending it out
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 02:47 PM
I could be wrong, but I think once Obama got Hillary to agree to be SoS (but before she arrived) he gutted her responsibilites by putting "envoys" like George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke in charge of pivotal areas. I bet they answer to Obama, not Hillary.
Holbrooke is the ultimate quisling survivor. For somebody that previously lashed himself to the masts of the USS Lurch and USS Pantsuit, to subsequently emerge as a "valued person" of Toonces speaks loudly of a certain skill, if I could degrade that word sufficiently by associating it with something completely underhanded and scummy. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 12, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Well, I'll say this for the Mass. AG office's latest initiative: it wasn't timed to help the AG in the Senate race. Given the problems Coakley is having with "of pallor" independents, going after nonprofit garden clubs doesn't seem politically savvy.
Oh, I know, I'm stereotyping: for all we know, Latin American first generation immigrants and AA hip hop fans could be the folks populating garden clubs. My bad!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 12, 2010 at 03:03 PM
Don't forget Pamela Harriman, and UBS/First Boston, AIG, Holbrooke's like a rolodex of bad calls going back to Saigon '63
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 03:13 PM
The candidate appears tough, resilient, and deeply concerned for her daughter.
Muffer was probably worried Chelsea would end up with somebody just like Slick. She doesn't strike me as nearly as smart as the MSM idiots would have you believe, and McCain pretty well described her looks.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 12, 2010 at 03:13 PM
hey, how do you spell Massachusetts?
Posted by: bunky | January 12, 2010 at 03:17 PM
Well here's a silver lining.
The really nice thing about this Harry Reid racism thing is that in the midst of all this bruhaha nobody ever brought up that Harry is a white Mormon, and that until about 1970 his Church forbade blacks (even the light skinned, non-jive talking ones) from
being full members of the Church with the ability to hold the top priesthoods.
Obviously this has to hearten Mitt Romney or any other Conservative white Mormon thinking of running for national office, because the Harry Reid case has shown us that that little bit of supposedly racist Mormon history will never ever be used again to smear Mormon politicians in the future.
And butterfly's are flying out of my behind as I type this.
Posted by: daddy | January 12, 2010 at 03:20 PM
The candidate appears tough, resilient, and deeply concerned for her daughter.
Hard not to be, with all the vitriol directed at the kid after she got knocked up.
Muffer was probably worried Chelsea would end up with somebody just like Slick.
Well, she's off to a good start - her future father-in-law is a giant crook who stole money from dozens of people and blamed it on anti-malaria medication. (Former Member of the House, too. Guess which party?)
Posted by: bgates | January 12, 2010 at 03:26 PM
daddy:
And butterfly's are flying out of my behind as I type this.
Pofarmer (on next thread):
Well, if you stick your finger in from the back side, it doesn't hurt that much.
JOM is such an interesting place.
Posted by: hit and run | January 12, 2010 at 03:33 PM
Damn bgates, that looks like somebody that Virginia Blythe would've "escorted" at Hot Springs, Arkansas; so I guess the family tradition lives on.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 12, 2010 at 03:38 PM
going after nonprofit garden clubs doesn't seem politically savvy.
We are all gardners now.
P.S. I think we have to issue another Cleo/Dipshit Alert for the site owner.
Posted by: Fresh Air | January 12, 2010 at 03:49 PM
"I can’t have somebody who would put us in peril with one errant sentence.”
is a direct quote? There may be a lot of questions about this guy and his history, but one thing that we all know is that he doesn't talk that way.
I don't think he really said it either, but he is reported as having said it. At any rate it's in quotes in the excerpt.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 04:15 PM
Plouffe's book has Obama talking like that, too. All concise and decisive.
Posted by: MayBee | January 12, 2010 at 04:21 PM
TeaGarden party!Posted by: jimmyk | January 12, 2010 at 04:36 PM
seems like the book is about everyone but Obama. One question. How does a writer get away with that? The biggest political story of the past 20 years and the central character is the invisible man.
Posted by: matt | January 12, 2010 at 04:42 PM
"Holbrooke's like a rolodex of bad calls going back to Saigon '63"
LOL! You're my favorite, narciso!
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 12, 2010 at 05:09 PM
Over @ Michelle Malkin, a commenter is reporting that Coakley sign holders:
"While speaking with one of the union guys holding the Coakley sign, he admitted that his union was paying him $50 to stand and hold the Sign."
Posted by: pagar | January 12, 2010 at 05:13 PM
How does a writer get away with that?
How does an entire national media get away with it? Or an electorate, for that matter?
Years from now people will be asking how we let this happen.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 05:13 PM
Ace is reporting that Rasmussen has Brown within 2 of Coakley.
Posted by: Sue | January 12, 2010 at 05:15 PM
Joe Biden & Hillary Clinton!
That's like using one cigarette butt to put out another.
Posted by: Mockingbird | January 12, 2010 at 05:47 PM
While speaking with one of the union guys holding the Coakley sign, he admitted that his union was paying him $50 to stand and hold the Sign."
And the guy admitted that he was voting for Brown. Apparently a Coakley supporter knocked down someone from the weekly standard in DC. Video to follow.
Posted by: Jane | January 12, 2010 at 07:11 PM
Wow, Sue. This Goddard piece Ace linked to also says internal polling that had a 14 pt Coakley lead last week is down to a 5 pt lead now. I think someone posted this on the other thread but here's the link:
Taegan Goddard: Senate Race Tightens in Massachusetts
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 07:25 PM
Jane,
It seems like every Election in my lifetime the Military Absentee Ballots have almost always been disproportionally discounted due to this or that minor technicality or post mark disqualification etc. Then every year they run their mouths and make a halfhearted pretense about how next year it'll be fixed, but it never is. I suspect you have a very small absentee military population up there, but any idea on if you've got a decent procedure in place this election for the troops?
Posted by: daddy | January 12, 2010 at 07:26 PM
No idea at all - but even if we do, it will be dismantled in a close race to make sure Paul Kirk is there for the healthcare vote.
I volunteered today to be a lawyer on the election team in case I'm needed. I'd be a poll watcher but I'm on the radio that day.
Posted by: Jane | January 12, 2010 at 07:32 PM
Jane.. and Rocco --we will be counting on reports from you. I'll be traveling that day but will check in as often as I can.
Posted by: clarice | January 12, 2010 at 07:52 PM
Looks like most of the gang is here. LUN is a story I have seen only on Fox, but if true will be stunning financial news. The story is that "negotiators" are considering applying the medicare tax not only to salaries, but to investment income and passthrough entity income (SubS, LLC, LP,etc) as well. That will prove to be a mother lode of heretofore free-from-employment-tax flows of money. Taxing those entities and that sort of income including dividends and interest (already taxed as income of course) with wage taxes is sure going to encourage investors to invest here, don't you think?
How in the world can they think of doing that in a recession, behind closed doors, without committee hearings and the whole routine is really remarkable.
Wow. What arrogance. What financial stupidity.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 07:59 PM
That's awful OL But
- must fund their ideas
-must pay the living expenses of THEIR constituents.
Republic if we can keep it indeed.
Posted by: rse | January 12, 2010 at 08:09 PM
Thanks Jane and Rocco and TC and Dave in Ma and all you guys for your efforts.
You're fighting a great fight.
Posted by: daddy | January 12, 2010 at 08:13 PM
right you are, rse
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 08:17 PM
Because he's as stupid as Biden?
Posted by: Joan | January 12, 2010 at 08:37 PM
OL,
The total income involved is $3T so the application of the 2.9% HI "contribution" would come to $87B. I agree that it's a move of a level of stupidity consonant with the intelligence of its proponents but it ain't gonna fill but about 5% of the hole they're digging.
As our President has noted, he's brought the Democrat Party to the precipice and he's ready to move forward.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 12, 2010 at 09:01 PM
As our President has noted, he's brought the Democrat Party to the precipice and he's ready to move forward.
LOL.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 12, 2010 at 09:02 PM
I bet all those high rollers who bankrolled thi not to smart sophomoric nitwit will be happy to learn of this latest effort.
Posted by: clarice | January 12, 2010 at 09:06 PM
OL,
Larry Kudlow mentioned tonight that including investment income for the Medicare tax is being considered as a way to raise taxes to pay for health care. I think they are serious.
Nuts, but serious.
Posted by: susanne | January 12, 2010 at 09:06 PM
That's my point, Rick. That nose under that tent will wreck a lot more than they realize...and they aren't even getting what they need by doing it. And it is just a nose under the tent because once they get that pipe in place, it is just a matter of turning up the valve to siphon more and more untilt hat tank is dry.
You know as well as I do that the smart guys have the escape routes all in place, just waiting for evidence that it is time to move the income and the assets out of the line of fire. This is dumb, dumb, dumb.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 09:17 PM
Thanks, Susanne. Missed that.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 09:18 PM
Michael Barone talks about Brooks tea party vs elite article and says he doesn't think Brooks likes either side, but concludes:
[quote]"The educated class believes in global warming," Brooks notes. But ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been rising in the last decade as climate scientists' models predicted, and they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing views.
On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.
As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773[/quote]
LUN
Posted by: clarice | January 12, 2010 at 09:49 PM
I love that Clarice.
Posted by: Jane | January 12, 2010 at 10:06 PM
I like that too.
Posted by: Old Lurker | January 12, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Halpern was an obvious Obamaphile from
the start. He embarrasses the Clintons,
the Edwards, and everyone else but the
Obama Machine...the 10,000 pound gorilla
that sits in the room and is handed flak
jackets daily by the subservient press
(Think...Halpern&Heilman.) These grinning bastards are on every show 24/7 to DESTROY
every opponent of their light-skinned
tiki god.
Posted by: Sir Toby Belch | January 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM
It seems a habit that runs in the family, His father, Morton, a head CAPer as VP, was a former NSC staffer, who supported Phillip Agee's crusade to burn American intelligence
agents, as a First Amendment issue. Such attitude brought the need for the IOIA, the one they tried to prosecute Libby under, for
false circumstances. So it doesn't surprise me that he would go for the full Alinsky.
Posted by: narciso | January 12, 2010 at 11:09 PM
Posted by: cathyf | January 13, 2010 at 01:13 AM
I've been assured over and over by various JOMers that medicare and social security taxes (aka self-employment taxes) are only imaginary
Straw man, Cathy. I've said something resembling that only about SS taxes, not medicare. Medicare taxes have no bearing on the benefit you get, so they are obviously a tax in a every sense of the word. To the extent SS contributions figure into your subsequent benefit, they are not the same thing as a tax.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Jane and OL, thnx..I love Barone..He's someone you can count one sof substance and clarity.
Posted by: clarice | January 13, 2010 at 11:13 AM
clarice, my tire guy knew about ClimateGate; "accoding to what leaked out", and he knew that it would be good for the economy, without my prompting. This is the end, and it's going to be a very powerful issue for Sarah.
=========================================
Posted by: I wouldn't be so sure if I weren't so sure we are cooling, but for how long, even kim doesn't know. | January 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Agreed about Barone, who, incidentally, supported McGovern in 1972. I think people who come around to conservatism have special insights, having seen both sides firsthand.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 13, 2010 at 11:25 AM
A Ken R over at Tom Fuller's wants to know what form the climatologists postgod studies would take.
===================================
Posted by: And a jimn speaks of Al Gore's 'private jests'. | January 13, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Good to see you out here again Kim. Go for their wrists! Those Chicken Littles all have weak wrists!
Thanks Clarice, that article made my day. This election in Massachusettes does have that revolutionary feeling to it. The Vote Heard Round The World.
BY THE RUDE BRIDGE THAT
ARCHED THE FLOOD,
THEIR FLAG TO APRIL'S
BREEZE UNFURLED,
HERE ONCE THE EMBATTLED
FARMERS STOOD,
AND FIRED THE SHOT HEARD
ROUND THE WORLD.
I've read the the Minuteman Statue in Concord was modeled after Captain Isaac Davis, The first Officer killed at Concord Fight. I might have to take my Brown sign to Concord tonight.
Posted by: Rocco | January 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Go, Rocco! Very inspiring. The shot heard round the world indeed.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Another major Barone fan here, too. If anyone sees any more insight from him on the MA race, please let us know. He is The Master of electoral poltics.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 13, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Sorry for so many incomprehensible typos today--My computer was killed by that virus and I'm using an unfamiliar one as I try to prepare to leave town for a few days.
Posted by: clarice | January 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM
I love Barone..He's someone you can count one sof substance and clarity.
I agree - plus he is an amazing tactician when it comes to elections. I was very buoyed by the fact that he actually talked about a Brown win.
Posted by: Jane | January 13, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Have a safe trip Clarice. I heard Severin, McPhee and Brown on the radio briefly last night and Severin was telling him for every positive ad that's run, it takes 8 views for the message to register with the audience. While every negative ad only had to be heard once, so economically...they work. Sounded like his advise was go negative? I'm off, later.
Posted by: Rocco | January 13, 2010 at 01:44 PM
You'd think by now people would wise up, wouldn't you? No one should turn on the radio and tv days before an election.
Posted by: clarice | January 13, 2010 at 02:09 PM