|
|
Four More Years?
Posted by Stephen Green · 19 October 2004
VodkaPundit presents you the first salvo in the 2008 Democratic primary race: President Bush and Sen. Hillary Clinton don't agree on much. But John Kerry's disgraceful attempt to use Mary Cheney's sexuality as a political football had them both criticizing the top Democrat on Monday for the sleazy assault. Discuss. Comments
Jumping in before this election is done. WOW, she couldn't even wait until Nov 3rd! Let the race for 2008 begin! Posted by: fritz at October 19, 2004 10:06 AMhttp://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-10-10-2.html Posted by: mal at October 19, 2004 10:30 AMSome people? Almost 2/3 of those polled is "some people??" Posted by: Sandy P at October 19, 2004 10:34 AMI'm a boy and I like girls and it's no secret. BUT I WOULDN'T WANT MY SEXUALITY DISCUSSED IN NATIONAL MEDIA. Lynne Cheney was rightly busted a few years ago for pimping the DonnaReed-itude of daughter Elizabeth's family life, and then being pissy when Cokie "Chromakey" Roberts or someone mentioned daughter Mary. But lefties or gays who think they can continue to speak about this woman's most personal matters in the coarsest, most public terms are mistaken. Each of us alone should decide when our dearest feelings are a matter for public discussion. PS- When you vote for Kerry in order to sink Hillary's executive aspirations, it's called "Charles Nelson Reilly to block." Posted by: Cridland at October 19, 2004 10:51 AMHillary agrees of course... because she is a lesbian!! It all makes sense, putting up with Bill's indescretions, the butch look, Janet Reno! It's unfortunate, but inevitable. Considering that Democrats are supposed to be the nice ones, what's going on is ugly. Gayness is in that gray zone between political correctness and reality. It's not "supposed" to be a bad thing, but "That's so gay" is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the referent of "that". I think it was a crass thing to do, but I'm sure the Cheney family is used to it by now. (Can I vote for Mr. Cheney for President? Please!) Posted by: mrsizer at October 19, 2004 11:23 AMHe said she was a lesbian. Anything you take about that statement beyond that is you adding your own invective to what being a lesbian means. And it's intolerable frankly. She isn't just a lesbian. She pandered to the gay community in the 2000 election trying to get gays to vote for her father. Prior to that she worked as the gay liasion for Coors to try to convince gay bars to carry Coors products which had been essentially BANNED from gay establishments because the Coors family were incredibly homophobic. Her career has centered around her being a LESBIAN. It's not some terrible secret anyone should feel the need to ignore. It's hypocrisy. We can talk about heterosexual children all day long, about candidates' children and grandchildren, wives, mothers, etc. and as soon as you say something about Mary Cheney being a lesbian (hi, nothing new about that newsflash), you're an awful person. Keep arguing this point all you want...if it's all you got, you're in bad shape if you ask me. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 11:47 AMAs best as I can recall, the Kerry kids have only been the topic of discussion twice in the campaign. Once was when they were in a public forum on the MTV Awards last month urging young voters to vote (they didn't say for whom, but you got the general idea and the main take on it was whether or not the crowd was booing), and the other was after Alessandra's peek-a-boob dress display at the Cannes Film Festival. But in both cases, the comments never went up the food chain to those officially part of the Bush-Cheney campaign, and that's the difference between what happened with them and with the Kerry comments. You can't police all your supporters' language about their opponents' family, but you can avoid becoming part of the crowd, a rule which Kerry (and Edwards before him) violated. Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 11:58 AMFrankly, Hillary's statement is about the most positive spin you can put on that what Kerry said. "[Kerry] was trying to strike actually a sensitive note [but] it might not have worked." Assuming this was in response to a direct question, and not something she brought up herself, I don't know how much better the Kerry campaign could expect from her. I don't think Kerry was trying to strike a sensitive note at all, especially since Mary Cheney's sexuality does not prove at all that homosexuality is something a person is born with.* Kerry was trying to embarrass the President, and possibly scare off the homophobes. * I've always thought that was a fairly meaningless argument to begin with. I suspect sexual orientation is inborn, but I don't really know and probably won't get definite proof in my lifetime. But even if it were scientifically proven that it is a choice, then does that mean we go back to the 1950s when Aunt Millie had a "friend" and no one acknowledged their real realtionship? Or that it's okay to beat up the Matthew Shepards? I don't think so. Posted by: denise at October 19, 2004 12:19 PMI don't think ANY Democratic bigwigs are very happy with Kerry's campaign- I think they privately regard him as Al Gore II. So it's not too surpising when mildly critical comments like Hillary's occasionally slip out. Posted by: Steve LaBonne at October 19, 2004 12:28 PMIt was Edwards, too. It was planned. Posted by: Sandy P at October 19, 2004 12:45 PMDenise, How do you advocate legislating against a segment of society who MAY not be able to change who they are? And why is it wrong for J. Kerry to point out that the Bush Administration is being entirely insensitive on the subject by pointing out that their policy affects the VP, who by the way disagrees with the President on this issue. Like I said, any invective you give to John Kerry's statement about Cheney being a lesbian is invective you yourself ascribe to the term. It's passive bigotry if you ask me. I think the question was absurd and irrelevant. Whether it is a choice or not, is irrelevant. We shouldn't be discriminating against homosexuals even if it is their choice to be gay. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 12:47 PMPlanned or not planned, Cheney's daughter is not off limits. The administration doesn't seem to mind making sexuality a person issue for the millions of homosexuals in this country, so why should his daughter be immune from the subject? Particularly when she pandered to gays in the 2000 election and whored her sexuality out to the homophobes at Coors Brewing prior to joining the campaign? She's made her career being a lesbian and used that status to campaign for her father in 2000...she can't pretend it's a private issue now because it suits her. If my sexuality isn't a private issue for Bush and he thinks he can legislate against it, then Mary Cheney's sexuality isn't private either. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 12:50 PMIf Hillary is a Lezzer does that mean she likes Bush? Posted by: Rob Read at October 19, 2004 01:04 PMBritton, We shouldn't be discriminating against homosexuals even if it is their choice to be gay. Umm... isn't that essentially what Denise said??? ...Or that it's okay to beat up the Matthew Shepards? I don't think so. To me, the issue isn't Mary Cheney's sexuality, it's the fact that a political opponent of her father's unilaterally brought her into the discussion. I'm no fan of the Clintons, but they were rightly upset when people tried to bring Chelsea into the public discussion. Apparently it is wrong to say a gawky teenager is gawky, but ok to say a lesbian is a lesbian. A good rule of thumb, leave your opponent's family out of your debate answers and you won't have to spend the next week explaining your answer. Posted by: John Bigenwald at October 19, 2004 01:06 PMTriangulation, thy name is Hillary. Oh to be a fly on the wall in their house (win or lose) as the returns come in... Posted by: PSGInfinity at October 19, 2004 01:08 PMMy respect for Hillary just went from squat to squat and a half. If anyone understands the damage of politicians using ones child as a weapon it is Hillary Clinton. Chelsea had the unfortunate situation of being an awkward teenager in a very publicly exposed administration. I'm impressed that she took even a "weak" stance against it. Posted by: stagolee at October 19, 2004 01:14 PMComing on the heels of President Clinton's announcement that he won't be doing campaign events because of health...well, America's most political couple has decided who won't win come November. Hint: it ain't Kerry. Let the bloodsport begin. Posted by: jay at October 19, 2004 01:16 PMThe second round is the release of the video of John Edwards' hair session. I for one question the timing. Posted by: Jim at October 19, 2004 01:18 PMThe difference is that saying Chelsea was a "gawky teenager" is obvious a negative criticism of the child and one that is based solely in personal opinion. Mary Cheney is a lesbian. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not something she has hidden or lied about. It is not a personal opinion. She is a lesbian. She's also a grown woman not a 13 year old child. Now if Kerry had said, George your daughter or drunken whores and it speaks to your ability to raise your own family, then I might take issue with it. Might. To me it does say something, but I think that might be a bit out of the realm of polite debate. I do however think it is completely appropriate for Americans to question how the President can tell us how to raise our families when we might not agree with the way he has raised his. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 01:28 PMWhat interests me is how Hillary's comment may have actually been a shot at Edwards, who also said something about Ms. Cheney in the VP debate. When Kerry loses, he won't be coming back to battle Hillary in '08--it will be Edwards. Hillary is possibly more savvy than Bill; she's getting her digs in early and effectively. Posted by: Todd Hester at October 19, 2004 01:29 PMsorry - meant to say George your daughters are drunken whores. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 01:29 PMBritton, I’m baffled by the visceral negative reaction of so much of the country to the gay marriage issue – and the less pronounced fear/distaste/whatever of homosexuals in this and many other cultures. But even with my sympathetic view on this subject, I can’t understand how you can defend Kerry and Edwards attempt to pander to the worst elements of anti-gay voters. How does it make sense to defend admittedly more pro-gay candidates (Kedwards) as they seek to capitalize on anti-gay sentiments? Kerry didn’t try to draw a distinction to how he supports gay issues more than Bush; in fact, he’s gone out of his way to say that he and Bush have the same view on gay marriage. The two debate mentions of Mary Cheney were not an attempt to illustrate hypocrisy on the part of a supposedly compassionate Bush; they were an attempt to highlight gay associations of the Republican ticket to anti-gay Republican voters. It was crass, it was personal (in that it used a family member in a way that Bill Carter and Roger Clinton were never used – explicit targeting immediate family to hurt the ticket), and it played to the worst impulses in people. Two thirds of the country sees the action for what it is. The fact that you are willing to give Kedwards a free pass on the action is not consistent with your stated goal of eliminating discrimination against homosexuals in our society. It seems to be a very Machiavellian position to take – and one that you will hopefully reconsider. Bah. To me, it would have been just as bad for Kerry to say "I think if you asked George's daughter Barbara, who is a heterosexual, she would say..." The gay marriage issue has nothing to do with it for me. The real point is that your opponent's children should either be left out of the discussion or praised in as vague terms as possible. I think most of America agrees with me. Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 01:44 PMExactly, Todd. And the timing is suspicious: 1) Bill announces he won't be able to actively campaign for Kerry; Yes, the Clintons have called this election for Bush, and the ever-astute Hillary has trained her sights on Edwards. It will get real ugly in about two months. Posted by: jay at October 19, 2004 01:51 PMIf Kerry wins (yeah, I know) chances are that Hillary is looking at eight years until she can run for president. Does she want to wait that long? Does anyone know, off hand, how old she is? I don't see her statement as negative to Kerry, as someone said, that's about the best spin that can be put on his remarks. If I'm right, and she's hoping to run for president against a non-incumbant Republican next time around, she can't appear to be cheering for Kerry's defeat. So Britton, what's your real problem with Mary? That she's on the wrong side? She worked for Coors and deserves whatever she gets? That she seems to be existing quite well within the enemy camp? It's not an uncommon sentiment. Conservative women and blacks hear it all the time. Posted by: Julie at October 19, 2004 01:53 PMSteve: It has been the tradition - as long as I've watched Presidential elections - for the states voting for (or leaning toward) the incumbent to be marked in blue - and red to be used for the challenger. Although there was much talk about red states and blue states after the last Presidential election, I still think we should use the system we've always used. I don't think it's right for Electoral College maps to make Bush (and later Republican Presidential candidates) permanent "challengers" by always showing their support in red. If we did this for the Democrats -i.e., make them permanently red in Electoral College maps (which would arguably be more appropriate - see my October 9 post on Madame Nguyen Thi Binh) - they'd scream bloody murder and rightly so. -nikita demosthenes Britton- > Her career has centered around Any more than most people's resolves around being HETEROSEXUAL, and equipping themselves for heterosexual fulfillment? I say she still shouldn't have to put up with having the forces in her heart tossed around the international media like trade numbers. Posted by: Cridland at October 19, 2004 02:09 PMMs. Clinton has been suspiciously absent from the public eye for quite some time. Nothing she does is spontaneous or heartfelt- one actually has to have a beating heart first. It's not to say she never would have mentioned Mary Cheney in this way if she were the candidate running. It's just that it would have been much earlier in the cycle when the seeds of doubt would have had time to take root and grow, rather than such an obviously last-minute attempt to sow discontent. She would never have made this kind of error. It is her intentions which need to be deciphered. Posted by: American Mother at October 19, 2004 02:27 PMFolks, the best analogy comes from 'The Corner' (possibly elsewhere). It ain't the LESBIAN thing... it's the DAUGHTER thing. They mention, "what if the topic had been marriage, and Bush said 'Well, I think if you talk to Senator Kerry's first wife....... if you ask his daughters how they felt about it..... etc." Yeah, Britton, tell me you and the entire MSM wouldn't have leapt out of their chairs and be caterwauling for two weeks. "HUH?!?!? What does Kerry's first wife have to do with anything. What the hell business of Bush's is how Kerry's daughter's felt!" etc etc. I'll toss you a small bone, and acknowledge that Mary Cheney was not unheard of previously, but nontheless. This was not an outrage by Kerry (IMHO). It was just clumsy, boorish, unecessary, and reeked of political opportunism. THAT is what this is about. BTW... "drunken whores"? Oh, classy. Very classy. Posted by: Andrew X at October 19, 2004 02:46 PMBritton, 'How do you advocate legislating against a segment of society...' No. Assuming you are referencing the proposed laws defining marriage as between a man and woman, the issue is not advocating legislating against a segment of society. It is advocating in effect legislating against local and state courts establishing precedents that are not based on local or state law, but are judicial interpretation of a social issue. This is not supported by the majority in the states where it is happening, and violates the separation of the judicial and legislative functions. These judges are making laws. They should not be doing so. There are no rights being violated. Posted by: Just Passing Through at October 19, 2004 02:56 PMAssuming Bush wins, Pretty Boy Edwards better be prepared to drop the no-negativity stuff in 2008. He may have forgotten from 1992 how rough the Clintons can play with other Democrats. Posted by: Crank at October 19, 2004 03:01 PMTalking of suspcious timing, Part II: is there any way that Hillary made her remarks and was not aware of the results of this afternoon's FOX and ABC polls?
Actually, Britton, most legislation is unnecessary or unconstitutional, or both, and I hope this particular experience gives you pause in the future when you support a proposed law. As for discrimination, it's a higher cognitive faculty, not a crime. As for the issue, gay marriage is an argument about priviliges, not rights. Jailing homosexuals is a violation of liberty; job benefits (which are not a right) are priviliges. One could as easily solve the fairness issue by, eliminating the benefits to everybody. Posted by: Brett at October 19, 2004 03:34 PMGreg, I disagree with your reasoning for motive for the Cheney remark. I don't think he was pandering to anti gay voters. It would be useless since anti gay voters who have been paying attention would already know Cheney's daughter is gay. My point is any visceral reaction by anyone to his remarks is a clear reflection of their feelings on the subject. That is what I take issue with. You all assume to know what Kerry's motive was and then criticize him for assuming to know what Mary Cheney thinks on a subject. John, If the subject were heterosexuality and your opponent had made that a topic of discussion in this election and an issue to debate and his views don't exactly make sense considering his and his VP's personal lives, I think it's definitely a topic of conversation. I have zero issue with Mary Cheney...while I think her assisting in the campaign of a man who would say to her that her relationship with her partner Heather is less deserving of recognition by the government than her sister's is a little upsetting, I think she has every right to support her father in this campaign. I do think she has betrayed a community she was very much a part of before she went into hiding. She assisted in getting gays to consider the GOP by putting forward an image that the GOP is more progressive than it was and that homosexuality is not an issue for the party. Evidently she was wrong. And I think she's very much deserving of discussion because of that experience. My only regret is that Kerry didn't say that. Just passing through - I think you are incredibly incorrect in your interpretation of the MA Supreme Court decision. According to their interpretation of the constitution of MA, you cannot deny gay couples marriage licenses. The recourse is an amendment to change the constitution. If we start assuming every decision a court makes is activist in nature, then what good exactly is that branch of government. I will be amazed if the amendment passes in MA and I think you are wrong that the majority of residents think gay couples should be denied a marriage license. And yes, in many states, the legislation being passed actually discriminates against a segment of society by stating that no benefits of marriage can be given to a couple that is not a man or woman. The FMA left much to interpretation in that regard. So just because "homos" isn't written anywhere in the legislation does not mean the purpose of the legislation isn't as clear as day. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 03:45 PMTwo interesting thoughts: What would a Bush vs. Hillary race look like right now? Will Hillary launch her own October Surprise and plunge a knife into Kerry's back before election day? Posted by: Mike M at October 19, 2004 03:45 PMBy discrimination I mean the refusal to give equal protection under the law...and it is unconstitutional. And frankly I agree that the result SHOULD be the government has NO right to extend privileges or benefits because of marriage. To me that institution is something the government should not be involved in as I feel government should be limited to the equal protection of civil liberties and not in extending privileges. Any REAL republican would agree that is not the role of the government. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 03:48 PMAlso Greg, If Kerry panders to anti gay voters by bringing up Cheney's daughter, how is that different than Bush pandering to them by supporting a federal amendment to define marriage? Or Cheney pandering to the not so anti gay voters considering their ticket by saying, we're not all bigots like Bush and discussing his daughter openly? They want it both ways. I have zero issue with bringing up a personal experience to show how your opponent is doing this. Even if it was coming from Bush. If Kerry was supporting legislation regarding divorce then I would think Bush questioning how that has affected his children to expose some hypocrisy would be relevant. Posted by: Britton at October 19, 2004 03:51 PMI don't know if her remark was calculated or just a slip (everything seems calculated with Hillary but then I don't like her so I'm not a fair judge). But if this is the "first salvo in the 2008" campaign, then by definition Democrat leaders such as Hillary are already writing Kerry off as toast. Posted by: HomericPundit at October 19, 2004 04:08 PMWhat tendentious drivel. Why would a person with a 3 digit IQ link to Newsmax to buttress his point? I thought it was a little tacky when John Edwards brought up Mary Cheney in the VP debate and when Kerry did the same thing; but a "disgraceful," "sleazy assault"? Give me a break. Kerry would, of course be a disaster as President; yet if he kept Hillary out for 4 more years it might be worth it. Depending on how big a disaster he was. John McCain will run in '08 defeating an incumbent Kerry, pushing Hillary back, perhaps another 8 years. By 2016 we may have dodged the Hillary bullet. Posted by: kjo at October 19, 2004 04:19 PMBritton -- Dick Cheney has one opinion. George Bush has another. And it's okay for the Republican party to be inclusive of different views. I wish my party were as tolerant. Posted by: denise at October 19, 2004 04:20 PMBritton, Quote: Most voters are not political junkies (like us) and, as the Kerry campaign undoubtedly knows, they didn’t know about Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation. The two mentions of her in the context of highly choreographed debate responses are a clear indication (IMHO) that Kedwards wanted to communicate that unknown fact to anti-gay voters. The fact (not MHO – fact) that two thirds of the population perceived the Kerry comment to be inappropriate is a clear indication that Kerry wasn’t taking some high road but instead using Cheney’s family to execute a crass political maneuver. Quote: I disagree that it’s the same thing. Bush – and, unfortunately, a large percentage of the U.S. population – believe that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I’m in the group of people that would like to change their minds and convince them that a world where any two people who love each other are allowed to marry would be a better place. The fact that people disagree with me doesn’t make them hypocrites. If Christian anti-gay marriage people were also anti-gay, I would say they were hypocrites as they are not loving their neighbor as themselves - but being against gay marriage doesn't automatically make anyone a hypocrite. However, Kedwards are playing towards something beyond anti-gay marriage sentiment. They are trying to get people who would normally vote for BC to stay home because they so disagree with gay lifestyle they would rather not pull the lever for someone they would otherwise support. From my perspective, Kedwards normally beat BC on gay issues since I would like to see homosexuals treated equally in all aspects of life. That’s why I’m disgusted by their actions: they know better and are choosing to embrace a hypocritical tactic in order to win an election. While both sides are guilty of hypocritical positions and actions, the fact Kedwards dragged Cheney’s family into the mud-ring that is the 2004 Presidential election is (once again MHO) causing a large percentage of the population to call bullshit on them. My point is any visceral reaction by anyone to his remarks is a clear reflection of their feelings on the subject. Britton, I agree. However, since an overwhelming majority had a negative reaction, I don't know whether I would call Bush's support for FMA "pandering" so much as "being in touch with the mainstream." After all, an equally overwhelming majority opposes same-sex marriage -- as every vote on the subject, including in California, has indicated. Posted by: McGehee at October 19, 2004 07:54 PMSmooth, wasn't it? I like the way she fights. Posted by: -Ed. at October 19, 2004 08:50 PMVery smoothly done by Senator Clinton! Is she getting to be a better politician than I remember, or is it just that the other Democrats on display this year are extraordinarily bad? Posted by: ralph phelan at October 19, 2004 09:04 PMNEWS FLASH: Scientists discover new element: "BRITTONIUM". Scientists breathlessly exclaim that the newly discovered BRITTONIUM is the densest known element in the Universe! /End Flash Posted by: Chumley at October 19, 2004 09:32 PMIt's fascinating that fully 2/3 of the American population felt that John Kerry's earth-shaking announcement that Mary Cheney is gay was "inappropriate." No doubt they are reflecting the righteous anger her parents fell all over themselves to express over such an insult to the entire Cheney family. Equally fascinating is the fact that fully neither of Dick or Lynne Cheney said a word when Alan Keyes publicly called their daughter a "selfish hedonist" during the Republican National Convention. As is the fact that Dick publicly brings up his daughter's sexual orientation when he feels it is politically expedient to do so. If only Cheney were as transparent about his energy task force as he is about his shameless ploys to use the issue of his daughter's sexuality to his political advantage. Posted by: The Real Dick Cheney at October 19, 2004 10:46 PMI don't know who "The Real Dick Cheney" is, but I don't take lightly someone putting my name in the email field. Try that crap again, and I'll ban you for it. I don't usually mind alias emails, but don't put my name on your opinions. Capiche? Posted by: Stephen Green at October 19, 2004 10:50 PMHillary obviously learned a lot from her health care fiasco, she is now a much shrewder politician than I ever gave her credit for. Watching her go up against Pretty Boy Edwards next time should be a hoot. He'll never know what hit him. Sorry to contradict the foaming-at-the-mouth Hillary haters, but she's a moderate Democrat not a left-liberal (even Instapundit has made somr kind remarks from time to time on her foreign policy stances, and he's correct), substantially more within my comfort zone (as a lifelong centrist Democrat) than Kerry, and the Dems could do a whole lot worse next time than to nominate her. (I couldn't care less who she sleeps with, by the way.) Of course, since we're talking about the "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat" party, they probably will do a whole lot worse... Posted by: Steve LaBonne at October 20, 2004 07:10 AMMcGeehee, I see your point, although I disagree and remind you that FMA, while reflecting the "mainstream" did not reflect an "overwhelming majority" of sentiment in this country. It also did not reflect the "overwhelming majority" of Americans who, although they might agree marriage is between a man and a woman, they do not agree a constitutional amendment is the right course and they do think that gay couples should receive the benefits that FMA would deny them. So to say Bush is on par with mainstream sentiment is just untrue. He's pandering to the religious right who do not want gay couples having any recognition and touting this as something "mainstream" when in reality is is only one facet of the entire issue. And "mainstream" America does not support an amendment. And frankly if Kerry is trying to bait religious voters to not vote for Bush, so what!? He's pointing out a fact. Bush is pandering to you by saying he won't support gay equality in this country all the while his VP disagrees with this stand and does so because of his gay daughter. I think that is incredibly appropriate since the republicans are just as quick to point out where Kerry and Edwards might "disagree" on an issue. Everyone panders, but the Republicans are certainly no less guilty of it than the Democrats. And if you're going to pander to a group over an issue like gay rights, then it's appropriate in my opinion to point out how your actions don't match reality. As for Chumley...you're so witty, I'm humbled. Posted by: Britton at October 20, 2004 09:39 AMOh and for everyone who was discussing how the Clintons are "absent" from Kerry's campaign: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/clinton.campaigning.ap/index.html Posted by: Britton at October 20, 2004 09:39 AMThe point you're missing Britton, is it doesn't matter what you think of Kerry's remarks, you're already supporting him. It doesn't really matter what we Bush supporters think of them either, we've already got our candidate. But to the decisive swing voters, who see both candidates as being not very far apart on the issues, it spoke to Kerry's character, they have in the majority disapproved of it, and it may have cost Kerry this election. Posted by: John Irving at October 20, 2004 04:52 PMThat knife in Kerry's back has Hillary's fingerprints on it. No, wait, that's not right, she'd use gloves. Compared to Hillary, Lady Macbeth was a den mother. |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Vodka--it's not just for breakfast anymore."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
