Closing Arguments

Robert Borosage has a solid roundup of the Democrats' closing arguments as they head into Iowa. For my part, I think there are reasonable cases to be made for both Edwards and Obama. It still seems to me that absent the presumption of inevitability, there's little reason to prefer Clinton but she's defused most of my initial hostility to her. I congratulate the people who feel a high degree of confidence about their preferred candidates' "theory of change" or "electability" but from where I sit it's very hard to say who's right about that stuff. Mostly, though, I'm super-pessimistic that any of the stuff any of them are promising to pass will actually pass no matter who gets elected.

Photo by Flickr user Catherine Trigg used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

There's no way I want another Clinton except versus a Republican. The first Clinton administration did more bad than good in my opinion; and I've seen nothing since then to make me expect anything better now.

I'm not sure who I prefer between Edwards and Obama. I definitely like Obama better, since he's not quite as opportunist, or at least not as obviously; but I guess I prefer Edwards' campaign promises so far. Overall, I think the differences between them are too small to justify any kind of passionate argument, though I expect passionate arguments have already been posted while I've been typing this.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Mostly, though, I'm super-pessimistic that any of the stuff any of them are promising to pass will actually pass no matter who gets elected.

Which is something I've tried to express to people as well. 'Electability' as a criterion is doubly wrong: because it puts pragmatics over principles, and because it reinforces the presumptions that the establishment is better at judging a candidate's worth than an voter.

But if lefties are gonna go with pragmatics, they ought to focus on the likelihood of a candidate actually enacting the legislation which comprises their platform. On that score, it seems to me that Edwards would enact the fewest planks, Obama more than Edwards, and finally, Hillary (because her views are less radical/generally congenial to the GOP as well as right-leaning Dems) would enact the most.

Posted by scudbucket | December 30, 2007 11:18 AM

I like the photograph; like an Edward Hopper in Iowa painting.

If Hillary wins Iowa, I'm swearing off political news for the next nine years.

Posted by lampwick | December 30, 2007 11:44 AM

Mostly, though, I'm super-pessimistic that any of the stuff any of them are promising to pass will actually pass no matter who gets elected.

Sounds right to me.

Posted by otto | December 30, 2007 11:48 AM

"'Electability' as a criterion is doubly wrong: because it puts pragmatics over principles, and because it reinforces the presumptions that the establishment is better at judging a candidate's worth than an voter."

I think the Democratic candidate's electability should just about be a foregone conclusion, no matter who gets the nomination. Have you seen the Republican candidates? What's a more interesting and more important question is which Dem nominee will have the longest coattails to ensure strong majorities in Congress. If you're pessimistic about the chances for passing planks, that should become a factor.

Posted by Trevor | December 30, 2007 11:53 AM

Pessimism is in and of itself a political ideology and I hope it doesn't take you over, Matt.

Posted by Freddie | December 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Daily Dish doesn't allow comments so am posting this here...

Yesterday Andrew wrote:

Still, a generational struggle is an interesting dynamic of the Clinton-Obama race. Remember: Clinton's only five years older than Obama's mother.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/obama-and-boome.html

Clinton is five years older than Obama's mother??
Obama's mother was born in 1942....and Clinton in
1947....must be a typo or I am really missing something !!

Posted by Lauren | December 30, 2007 12:05 PM

"Mostly, though, I'm super-pessimistic that any of the stuff any of them are promising to pass will actually pass no matter who gets elected."

Right. You think politics doesn't matter.

You don't understand politics and its power.

Posted by Petey | December 30, 2007 12:07 PM

“It isn’t just a question of giving a great speech, giving an ennobling idea,” Dodd said of what the presidency takes. “It isn’t enough just to be sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband necessarily deal with problems over the years.” A President should be more than soaring speeches and talking vaguely about the future.

"And seeing someone from a distance dealing with great issues and problems isn't getting experience, it is watching someone else get experience. My wife knew and sometimes saw me dealing with getting a Congressional plurality for the Family Leave and Medical Act, but she gained no experience herself in the sort of work that entailed."

(Hillary as Potemkin in Pantsuits)

All said a few days ago by Chris Dodd.

And the other in the Democrat top 3 as Dodd is soon to be forced out despite spending more time in Iowa than the other candidates is a trial lawyer and a one-term Senator who left the Senate when it was clear his politics and actions made him unelectable in his home state.

Never have the Democrats run a slate to top tier candidates so lacking in executive leadership credentials gained in the military, private sector, and government as this bunch.

Just so we all know that Dodd is not making a pitch for the flummoxed, stumbling Richardson, Dodd called the remarks of the sitting executive leader of New Mexico responding to Bhutto's death "breathtakingly dangerous and reckless". For calling for suspension of aid, Musharaff stepping down, and a "broad-based coalition of all democratic parties" to run Pakistan instead of the military..

Not in the last 150 years of Presidential politics has the resume` of the Dem frontrunners been so thin. Even the Boy-Mayor of Cleveland (Kuchinich) is more qualified as a past leader than the Big 3.

I know this is supposed to be the Democrats year because of the evil Bush-Hitler, murdered brown babies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the poor NOLA parasites, and Darth Vader being VP - but where are the Warners and Bayhs? Deterred by Hillary and Obama's wealthy Hollywood donors? Each of the top 5 Republicans has successful years of executive leadership experience. Add Duncan Hunter who is a Congressional leader and former Special Forces Group commanding officer in Vietnam. Even Ron Paul, who was a military officer (flight surgeon) and successful businessman in medicine and finance.**

The Democrats might be served with a later entrant like Warner or Bayh who does have the credentials.

** - Completely beside the point and I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but he was also a standout athlete and damn fast for a white guy in his youth. He was Pennsyvania State champ in the 100-yard dash (9.67 seconds), state champ in the 220, 2nd in the 440. Injured his freshman year (knee surgery) as a top national sprint prospect, he switched to wrestling and baseball and was in
contention for an Olympic spot as a wrestler. Recovering his knee function, he went back into track in his senior year and set 3rd best in history (at the time) conference collegiate marks in the 100M (9.88) and 220 (21.77). At that point, as his Dad ecked out living as part owner of a small daily farm and he had 4 other brothers, Paul said the part scholarship he got to Duke Medical ensured he hung up his track shoes. Dr. Paul is one of, if not the most - athletically gifted people to run for President.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 30, 2007 12:09 PM

...the poor NOLA parasites...

Classy, Chris, very classy.

Not in the last 150 years of Presidential politics has the resume` of the Dem frontrunners been so thin...Each of the top 5 Republicans has successful years of executive leadership experience.

Oh, rully? Fred Thompson, 8 years in the US Senate. Hillary Clinton, 7 years in the US Senate and counting. John Edwards, 6 years in the Senate. Huge differences in experience?

Posted by Jeff S. | December 30, 2007 12:25 PM

Lauren--
Clinton IS Obama's mother.

Nice work on negotiating website obstacles.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 30, 2007 12:25 PM

Petey, I think MY is trying to make an empirical assessment of the objective chances of passing legislation, and saying MY believes "politics doesn't matter" is unfair & inaccurate. Matt simply doesn't think Dems will have the media or the votes. Matt could try to look at the evidence, the change elections of 64, 80, 92, 00 and recognize that momentum & narrative can have disproportionate effects. Reagan did not have a strong conservative majority, and Clinton did manage to barely get some decent stuff passed, even without a honeymoon.

1) I think any "coattail effects" of Obama & Edwards will, on the margins, meaning eg Senate races not won otherwise, will be on the center to center-right of the ideological spectrum.

2) So I think both Obama & Edwards will be able to pass significant new initiatives, Obama center-right, and Edwards centrist to center-left. Obama would move the Overton Window and the Democratic Party slightly to the right (while spewing liberal platitudes), and so I almost would rather have HRC or a Republican than Obama.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 30, 2007 12:35 PM

What are you people talking about? Executive experience? Fred Thompson commanded the USS Enterprise.

http://plantman998.blogspot.com/2007/09/reel-ruminations-hunt-for-red-october.html

Posted by El Cid | December 30, 2007 12:40 PM

Addendum:HRC would govern very much like Obama but with the benefit that she would energize & activate the progressive wing of the Democratic Party in opposition, whereas I think Obama would disappoint and dispirit that progressive wing. With Obama's style and charisma, it will be difficult for progessives to oppose him.

My first choice would of course be Edwards.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 30, 2007 12:42 PM

Lauren--
Clinton IS Obama's mother.

Nice work on negotiating website obstacles.

Posted by Robert Powell
--------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the clarification....
Amazing....just amazing !!

Posted by Lauren | December 30, 2007 12:48 PM

"Mostly, though, I'm super-pessimistic that any of the stuff any of them are promising to pass will actually pass no matter who gets elected."

That's justified skepticism, though a bit over-the-top IMO. If picking up a few Senate seats causes Democratic leadership to grow a spine, progress could happen, and that's not really that unreasonable a scenario, though hardly one that can be counted on.

The real problem though is that, with his talk of bipartisanship and compromise, I'm super-pessimistic that a lot of stuff Obama isn't promising to pass will actually pass if he's elected. We can probably fix four coming years of doing nothing, but four more years of active enabling? Doubtful.

Posted by R Johnston | December 30, 2007 12:48 PM

Matt is betting that Republican legislators will remain unified after a splintering presidential primary and crushing general election. I doubt it, but it will take some real leadership in the White House to overcome congressional Dems' preferred cowardice.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 30, 2007 12:52 PM

If the Democrats could capture the fabled 60 seats in the Senate, what would the next excuse be for supporting a Republican agenda, even under a Democratic President?

Posted by El Cid | December 30, 2007 12:53 PM

El Cid:

Question: "If the Democrats could capture the fabled 60 seats in the Senate, what would the next excuse be for supporting a Republican agenda, even under a Democratic President?"

Answer: Why *protecting* all those newly-elected moderate Democrats from swing-states, of course!!

Posted by RKU | December 30, 2007 1:03 PM

Obama is the most electable Democrat and the most progressive. Look at his 10 year legislative record; Edwards has an admirable set of policy proposals, but while in the Senate, he was very centrist!

Posted by Jacob | December 30, 2007 1:24 PM

If you're pessimistic about the chances for passing planks, that should become a factor.

Posted by Trevor

Fair enough. But it cuts both ways. Edwards could certainly rally moderate dems to his side on big issues - the fact he got elected would demonstrate that voters support those policies. But still not enuf support to overcome GOP filibusters/obstructionism, which is what Edwards would be up against more than the other candidates.

And again, these considerations apply only if you go the pragmatic route.

Posted by scudbucket | December 30, 2007 1:34 PM

Obama is the most electable Democrat and the most progressive

Obama trending to the right, Edwards trending to the left = Obama as most progressive?

Posted by scudbucket | December 30, 2007 1:48 PM

Not in the last 150 years of Presidential politics has the resume` of the Dem frontrunners been so thin...Each of the top 5 Republicans has successful years of executive leadership experience.

Jeff S - Oh, rully? Fred Thompson, 8 years in the US Senate. Hillary Clinton, 7 years in the US Senate and counting. John Edwards, 6 years in the Senate. Huge differences in experience?

Rully, Jeff S.

The Senate doesn't count for executive leadership unless you are in Senate leadership. None of the Dem Top 3 were there.

Fred Thompson claims his executive experience from a rich and varied life.

1. He ran two of Sen Bakers reelection campaigns and co-chaired John McCains 2000 Presidential effort.

2. He served as Special Counsel, running a large legal staff - to the Watergate Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. He interacted with foreign leaders in his work on Foreign Affairs and Intelligence.

3. Successful business exec, owning a lobbying firm and a media production company for over 20 years. Has represented major clients from Japan, THeGulf, Europe, the USA and has worked in media production as well as being a sucessful actor (24 films, extensive TV experience).

4. Well regarded member of several firms Board of Directors, most notably Stone&Webster engineering and.

5. Chaired the Foreign Policy Council and Chair of State Dept's Emerging Strategic Rivals Policy Board.

6. Brought down a sitting governor on corruption charges, helped institute corruption reforms in Tennessee and advised other governors on those reforms.

A substantial life, with varied experience and frequent calls to serve private business & government in a leadership and executive
role at a high level.

Edwards, Hillary, Obama?

Edwards was in the Senate two years before he began campaigning for President, then VP, and ran up then-records for absences. He became unelectable in North Carolina on his absences and his national Democrat - Hollywood donor positioning putting him at odds with voters. In terms of practical Senate experience, he is about 1 year ahead of Obama.

Obama claims his inexperience is actually an advantage given what he claims is his superior mind and miraculous judgment on issues when he isn't absent or voting "present".

Hillary, even if you dismiss her "Co-Governor, Co-President" claims as Potemkin artifice, even if she was elected as her merit as the housewife of a famous man, and previously getting all her jobs and Board appointments through that powerful man - DID work hard in the Senate. She IS intelligent. Not Bill Clinton intelligent or Romney intelligent, perhaps not even as bright as Edwards or Thompson or Paul...but plenty smart enough to be President given the mental abilities of some of our most successful ones that had great success as executive leaders or other talents like oratory. Hillary's problems are that she lacks that experience as the Potemkin aspects of her past become clearer, and she doen't have the oratory or the side talents of someone like Reagan or FDR to read people well. She is simply smart, hard-working, obsessive about her causes and her enemies.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 30, 2007 2:22 PM

Obama is the most electable Democrat and the most progressive.

Obama is probably unelectable. For those who think otherwise, I wonder: do they not appreciate what a racist, xenophobic country this is?

Americans will not elect a man with brown skin and a Muslim name.

Posted by Jason C. | December 30, 2007 2:35 PM

"Obama is probably unelectable.... Americans will not elect a man with brown skin and a Muslim name."

In general, Democrats are probably unelectable. They're women, and Blacks, and Latinos, and gays, and Jews, and like Edwards, faggots. Americans will not elect Democrats. Our best bet, as always, is to nominate a Republican.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 30, 2007 2:52 PM

As always, I take my political advice from Chris Ford and all these other people who really care about the Democrats and liberals especially when they accuse them of being traitorous dogs who want us all hanging from lamp posts after they let the Muslims out of the caves to kill us all.

Posted by El Cid | December 30, 2007 3:37 PM

In general, Democrats are probably unelectable. They're women, and Blacks, and Latinos, and gays, and Jews, and like Edwards, faggots. Americans will not elect Democrats. Our best bet, as always, is to nominate a Republican.

If you think that serves as an accurate satire of my comment, you're quite wrong. Nominating a Republican-lite is probably the worst electoral strategy.

Is this really the time to bet on America's social enlightenment? Let me ask you a question: suppose we had a Democratic candidate who was perfect in almost every way: reliably progressive on policy, but reasonably close to the mainstream; extensive executive experience, perhaps a self-made businessman and governor of a large state; oodles of charisma, a brilliant public speaker; clean record, absolutely no scandals or other skeletons.

But: he's gay. Been with the same partner for years, not in any way ostentatious about his sexuality, but still - he's a homosexual.

Would you suggest that we nominate this man?

Posted by Jason C. | December 30, 2007 4:49 PM

To clarify: I'm not even saying that in my hypothetical we definitely shouldn't nominate the gay candidate. All I mean to say is: in such a scenario, we ought to think long and hard before we risk the presidency by running someone who might well be unelectable because of people's prejudices.

These are the highest stakes imaginable. I don't think it's enough just to stand on the principle that it shouldn't matter if a candidate is gay, or has a Muslim name. If there's a very real possibility that those traits will keep him from getting elected, we may well have a moral obligation - to the rest of the world, if no one else - to run someone who, while just as good on policy, has a better chance of winning.

In endorsing Mitt Romney, the National Review articulated its test as something like: we pick the most conservative viable candidate. I think that's a reasonable test. Flipping it around to our side, it would mean nominating the most liberal viable candidate. That ain't Obama, who is NOT the most liberal, and arguably isn't viable electorally.

Posted by Jason C. | December 30, 2007 4:57 PM

Jason, if there were a gay candidate who was as widely recognized as being gay as Obama is recognized as having brown skin and a Muslim name, and who trounced all his Republican opponents in all except one head to head poll that I've seen so far; and if there were studies for me to read showing that the equivalent of a so-called Wilder effect had actually happened only once if at all, so that I had no real factual or statistical reason to believe he'd lose the election - if I can assume all that, I'd expect my gay candidate to win. I have no doubt that Obama would defeat any of the Republican candidates.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 30, 2007 5:15 PM

There are no studies, no data that will tell us much about electability in next year's presidential election. Presidential politics is a different sort of animal.

Head to head polls at this point are less than meaningless. They tell us absolutely nothing about what the preferences of the electorate will be after ten months of an intensive and dirty campaign.

Think about what we know of the American electorate. Will they elect someone named Barack Hussein Obama, who sounds like a candidate for president of Pakistan, not the U.S.? After almost a year of insinuations that he is a Muslim and a terrorist sympathizer?

A lot of people will, of course. It's not that I think Obama would get trounced. But in a presidential election that will be won or lost to a substantial degree on issues of foreign policy, can we trust enough of a notoriously xenophobic populace not to vote with their reptile brains, despite a long history of doing exactly that? Americans hate foreigners. Not all Americans, but a lot. Obama reads as "foreigner" for a lot of people.

A lot of Democrats seem to be buying into the extraordinarily dangerous notion that this election is a gimme. I cannot express in words how stupid it is to take this approach. We have no reason to assume that this election won't be as close or even closer than the last one. Hell, take a look at those head-to-head polls everybody cites - even they indicate a close race. This is going to be another toss-up. Any of the major candidates in either party could win and any of them could lose. In all likelihood, we will be biting our nails on Election Day once again. Once again, it will probably come down to a couple hundred thousand swing voters in Ohio or Florida.

There is very little margin for error. I'm frankly kind of amazed that so many Democrats seem to think otherwise.

Posted by Jason C. | December 30, 2007 5:43 PM

Well, here's another thing to consider in support of Jason C.'s general analysis...

As I've mentioned before, Obama has only run one real political campaign in his entire life, against Alan Keyes, who had no money. Since Keyes had no money, I think there's a pretty good chance Obama has never been hit with a single negative TV ad in his entire career, unlike Hillary's who's probably been hit with $100M worth or so, or even Edwards, who has carpet-bombed in the 2004 campaign, and before that also hit in his NC races.

And the dynamics of the current three-way race, make it very risky for any of the candidates to attack another, lest the third one benefit. Also, just consider what a blogosphere pounding the Obamabots gave Paul Krugman (Paul Krugman!) when he merely raised some very legitimate policy questions about Obama.

So...how much would you bet on a heavyweight contender who's never actually had to take a punch during his entire "fighting" career?...

Posted by RKU | December 30, 2007 5:49 PM

9.67 seconds, huh...

Posted by Danny | December 30, 2007 5:51 PM

1. Catherine Trigg's photo set is very impressive.

2. Dr. Paul is one of, if not the most - athletically gifted people to run for President. How about Gerald Ford or Jack Kemp?

3. Obama's electability - A brown-skinned guy with "Hussein" in his name would certainly *seem* unelectable, all else being equal, but I think he does a remarkable job of getting people to like him once they see him in public or on TV.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 30, 2007 7:32 PM

Obama trending to the right, Edwards trending to the left = Obama as most progressive?

This is a remarkably substance-free allegation. Obama's rhetoric has been quite consistent over the years, as have been his actions. Where is the supposed trend coming from? As for Edwards, his rhetoric has clearly changed, but there has been no opportunity for him to demonstrate this change in the realm of actual legislative action. You're taking it completely on faith that the rhetorical change of approach is anything other than a calculated gambit to win Iowa and secure the nomination. That's a wing and prayer, not a trend.

Posted by J.B. | December 30, 2007 11:01 PM

Get rid of the damn filibuster, and quite a lot of "the stuff they're promising to pass" will get passed. It will have to be done at some point; why not now? (And especially why not when the GOP uses it to block any health care reform?)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 31, 2007 12:01 AM

I'm really getting rather tired of Chris Ford -- well, on a lot of fronts, but specifically regarding his insistence that Edwards couldn't have won another term in North Carolina. Fox News' North Carolina exit poll on Election Night 2004 showed that he would have beaten Richard Burr by 6 points, and the last poll before he decided not to run for another term as Senator ("Research 2000", June 2003) showed him beating Burr by 8.

As for Fred Thompson's supposed qualifications: it's no accident that George Will and Richard Nixon have both referred to him as a dumbbell of the first water (Nixon while chuckling on the tapes about how useful he'd be as a cat's paw during the Watergate probe; Will while commenting on some of his recent statements on the campaign trail). I will say that he was the most intelligent-sounding of the GOP candidates when they were asked what they regard as "the most dangerous country on Earth", but that is very faint praise.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 31, 2007 12:09 AM

Edwards was primarily a plaintiff's lawyer fighting large institutions and corporate America since about 1985. He began giving a version of the "Two Americas" speech in the fall of 2003. If Edwards is faking it, then he has been doing so for quite some time.

Posted by jackson | December 31, 2007 12:12 AM

I've known too many plaintiff's attorneys to believe it's a saintly occupation. It's (usually) honest, necessary work, and I'm hardly on the lawyer-bashing, tort-reform bandwagon. But medical malpractice and product liability representation is a hugely profitable business (as Edwards' personal fortune attests). There are many avenues for public service in the law that don't involve pocketing tens of millions of dollars. I don't hold Edwards' career against him, but neither does it come off as particularly meritorious. Not every plaintiff is an innocent victim, and not every doctor or business is an evil villain.

As for the rest of it, I've seen no proof that Edwards trended left as a senator. He seemed pretty consistently hawkish and centrist. As I said before, his rhetoric is certainly far to the left of his past record, but it takes more than that to show a trend. It doesn't require a whole lot of courage to run left in a Democratic primary, and there has never been any gut-check test of Edwards' new populism.

Posted by J.B. | December 31, 2007 1:00 AM

Adam Villani - Dr. Paul is one of, if not the most - athletically gifted people to run for President. How about Gerald Ford or Jack Kemp?

One introduces bias in any evaluation of sports because we all favor certain sports as "worthier". We know other Presidents or candidates were athletic - Washington was an astounding athlete for his day. Old Hickory was formidable. Lincoln purportedly was inordinately strong and a noted wrestler in his youth. Eienhower played for Army back when Army was like today's USC or Florida - at the top - and was noted for holding his own against running back Jim Thorpe. Jesse Jackson was a college football scholarship player. Nixon was athletic enough to have played college ball mainly on will and determination, but not well. Bill Bradley, of course was a standout basketball player. Benjamin Spock a gold medal Olympic rower.

But a white or Asian guy with Paul's speed is very exceptional. Rare even in Congloid blacks with the genetic fast twitch muscle fiber advantage. But to look at Paul you would not know he was once a great athlete anymore than John McEnroe - if you meet him - appears anymore than a thin, fit Metrosexual New Yorker.

So it's my bias. I could care less about football. If a great tennis, soccer, track, or baseball player was running - I favor them as better athletes that football ones...

Other athletes running in 2008, though not in Paul's class - are Thompson(college basketball), Richardson (semi-pro baseball), Romney (distance running events), Hillary (HS varsity field hockey), McCain (boxing, wrestling).

********************
Moomaw - I'm really getting rather tired of Chris Ford -- well, on a lot of fronts, but specifically regarding his insistence that Edwards couldn't have won another term in North Carolina.

Awww, poor Brucie! Getting tired of people and all!

Getting nominated as VP and the hundreds of millions in extra exposure impresses people and makes homestate voters more positive about someone in their state for being selected, but in Edwards case, he was in serious trouble before and after he failed to carry his home state as VP. Yep, voters passed on Edwards in 2004. After the contest when he was thinking about reversing and going back in, voters like with Max Cleland and his favoring gays over Boy Scouts down in Georgia - said once was enough.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 31, 2007 1:21 AM

I adore Baseball, but on what grounds would you consider your average baseball player more athletic than your average football player?

Posted by DRR | December 31, 2007 1:51 AM

I adore Baseball, but on what grounds would you consider your average baseball player more athletic than your average football player?

Posted by DRR | December 31, 2007 2:01 AM

Getting nominated as VP and the hundreds of millions in extra exposure impresses people and makes homestate voters more positive about someone in their state for being selected, but in Edwards case, he was in serious trouble before and after he failed to carry his home state as VP.

Posted by tansel | January 1, 2008 5:58 AM