Whatever else is happening, Hillary Clinton seems to have a clear lead in Rhode Island. Crucially, only heavily Catholic northeastern states that hold primaries count, so she's in good shape.
« Sausage Being Made | Main | Election Day »
Clinton Country
01 Mar 2008 05:56 pm
Comments (56)
In the end, the Great Chain of Being will prevail.
God- Reagan
Angels-St. John McCain
Kings/Queens
Archbishops
Dukes/Duchesses
Bishops
Marquises/Marchionesses
Earls/Countesses
Viscounts/Viscountesses
Barons/Baronesses
Abbots/Deacons
Knights/Local Officials
Ladies-in-Waiting-Hillary Clinton
Priests/Monks
Squires-Barack Obama
Pages
Messengers
Merchants/Shopkeepers
Tradesmen
Yeomen Farmers
Soldiers/Town Watch
Household Servants-
Tennant Farmers
Shephards/Herders
Beggars
Actors
Thieves/Pirates
Gypsies
Animals
Birds
Worms
Plants
Rock
Is Matthew ever going to get tired of this "counts or doesn't count" broken record?
Looks like something crawled up Tim's ass and died.
I'm worried. At this point, we're talking gangrene. Can't be good for your intestinal tract.
I think Clinton carried Malta in the Democrats Living Abroad category.
Besides, Matt, you forgot Connecticut, which Obama won. Only heavily Catholic northeastern states THAT USUALLY VOTE DEMOCRATIC BY OVERWHELMING LANDSLIDES count.
By the way, today's Survey USA poll of reactions in Columbus, Ohio to that last TV debate indicate that Obama definitely gained from it ( http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=1249a1e2-9017-44e7-8276-0f29cacafd27 ) -- which, given that he was already breathing down Hillary's neck in the state, is something she really could not afford. Meanwhile, however, McCain has now moved into a fair-sized lead over both of them in Rasmussen's polls of who would do better in handling the economy (!) and the war in Iraq(!!): http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mccain_trusted_more_than_obama_on_national_security_iraq_and_the_economy .
The Dems had better dig out that video clip of McCain singing "Bomb, Bomb Iran."
Matt--can you predict again a Hillary sweep? We are counting on you!
I'm not sure Hillary's lead is as large as polls let on. It could be wishful thinking on my part, but according to the Providence Journal we're likely to see an abnormally large number of new voters this tuesday. Furthermore, all of the young Obama supporters I know only have cell phones. Wouldn't this demographic tend to be underrepresented in polls?
Did Actors really come after Beggars but just beat out Thieves/Pirates?
Too funny.
Look, Matt, it is entirely clear that which states count and which don't cannot be determined until after the votes are tallied. This is why the Clinton campaign is empirical undertaking and your blog is not.
If Clinton can win Rhode Island by only nine points she's toast. Rhode Island is probably the most favorable state left other than West Virginia. Clinton won cities in Southern Mass. such as New Bedford, Fall River, Taunton, Dartmouth, and Worcester by close to four to one. On the flip side Rhode Island is an open primary whereas Massachusetts was not.
Jesus, Joseph and Mary, when will you finally leave off with the damn "doesn't count" shit? I agree with the commenter above that you've become a broken record.
The Atlantic already has one of those with respect to Clinton--Sully's "that damn uppity bitch don't know her place!"
Actually, given the Clinton camp's recent "Obama has to win them all on March 4th or he's in trouble" spin, I think the official line is now "no state counts unless it's won by Hillary Clinton."
Yes, gustav, because all criticism of HRC comes because she is a woman. It's all sexism!
You know, that might have been funny once but now you've just become the "I Didn't Do It" Boy.
Hillary will MAKE every state Hillary country:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html#comments
WTF!!! How dumb are we as a nation? A man who admits to knowing nothing about economics would do a better job handling the economy?!?!
It worked in Vegas.
I had this dream last night where something really visually stunning happened and I said the dumbest thing imaginable: imagine how that would look on acid.
In the future the break dancer will often win.
Does Hillary "know Alfonso"?
PS This kid named Jay (who got into that monk school in the desert of like Arizona or California or wherever [not sure if it really exists]) decked the Dean of Housing and got kicked out of school. I'm wondering if it is the same Jay above.
Nah.
"How dumb are we as a nation?"
You don't want to know...
As for Hillary, I can see the spin now - "We won the smallest state in the entire country! Obama's in trouble now!"
Somebody give this broad a sedative and send her to bed.
Better yet, somebody - other than Bill, of course, who won't - get her in bed and bang her senseless so she stops being such a total loser bitch.
It's guys like Richard Steven Hack who give misogyny a bad name.
Clearly the people on this thread are true-blue liberals. NOT. You are the kind of people who would have followed Hitler. Some democrats.
I'm not misogynist at all - I'm anti-Hillary.
Not the same thing.
Don't let the terms "broad" and "bitch" fool you. When they're correct, they're correct. When they're not, then they're misogynist.
Clearly the people on this thread are true-blue liberals. NOT. You are the kind of people who would have followed Hitler. Some democrats.
There is no way a real Democrat Hillary supporter would say this.
GoAT.
Actually, ruth Kaplan, I agree with Richard Steven Hack. When the chick involved is a bitch and it looks like she does need someone to bang her back into a feeling human, it's not misogynist. Many's the time I have wondered if George W. Bush was getting properly laid and, if he were, might things have gone better for the country. Is that anti-male bias, thinking he needs a good lay? Or is it only sexist to think Hilary needs to get laid?
I totally don't understand how someone got that folks in this thread would have followed Hitler. Are you suggesting that if we were true Democrats, we would follow Hilary over a cliff in Rhode Island, like lemmings?
I keep wanting to tell Hilary to take a chill pill,or a sedative, as Richard Steven Hack suggested. I would expect someone with thirty five years of experience to be better able to self-regulate. I can't believe the way she whines so publicly. It looks to me like she has shorted out, unable to grok that she can't order all of us to vote for her and let her be king of the hill. Even if she does think she is the smartest and the best, if she really is presidential timber, she should be able to restrain her whining in public. So, yeah, maybe she needs to take a chill pill and have a steamy night of hot sex. How is that sexiswt? That's human. Lots of humans, even smart women, relax and refresh by restoring their intimacy with their intimates, relaxing, having sex. Sex is not misogyny, right?
You are the kind of people who would have followed Hitler.
Boo!
Those of us who are up on the latest thoughtful, serious, scholarly writings of Jonah Goldberg see no contradiction between being true-blue liberals and the kind of people who would have followed Hitler.
I was impressed when Digby turned off her comments for a while in this election season because people were cursing her and each other and being infantile and horrible. The comments against Hillary in this thread easily pass that threshold, and also violate the policy at the bottom of the page: not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. (Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by defending comments like "needs to get banged" as exercises in your ad hoc version of Reichian psychology.)
Too many people use Hillary as a mirror: better look in a real mirror, folks. And while you vent and spew, the Republicans make their plans and get ready to win another one. You trolls probably are among them; but I think Matt needs to step in here, and also stop encouraging it to some extent with his own rather immature gotcha comments. There's a war on, people; hundreds of thousands dead already, maybe more. Just stop, and do something productive that will make a difference about that.
I was impressed when Digby turned off her comments for a while in this election season because people were cursing her and each other and being infantile and horrible. The comments against Hillary in this thread easily pass that threshold, and also violate the policy at the bottom of the page: not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. (Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by defending comments like "needs to get banged" as exercises in your ad hoc version of Reichian psychology.)
Too many people use Hillary as a screen for their hatreds: better look in a real mirror, folks. And while you vent and spew, the Republicans make their plans and get ready to win another one. You trolls probably are among them; but I think Matt needs to step in here, and also stop encouraging it to some extent with his own rather immature gotcha comments.
I deleted my comment about there being a war on, because I didn't want to get into a tedious argument about the authorization vote; but it posted anyway. Well, let it stand: lobbing insults from the safety of your home computer is particularly objectionable when your nation lobs real bombs at real people all over the world. We could stop this war tomorrow: if all who claim to be against it marched on Washington, that would be it, in one day, over.
We don't, the vast majority of us, and we will be judged for that. We sit and fiddle and flame strangers on the internet, and murder is done in our name. We are as guilty as if we pulled the trigger: no wonder we want to hide from our own guilt by scapegoating people like Hillary Clinton--"her vote! She did it! This never would have happened if it weren't for her!"--and then turn, sucking our thumbs, to some new savior who we dream will get us off the hook without our having to actually do anything difficult or dangerous. We are a sickening spectacle these days, those who are for the war and many of those who claim they are against it: in their deluded self-aggrandizing fantasies.
Only action means *anything*. What are you *doing* to stop the war?
I don't understand the connection between ethnic, east coast Catholics and Clinton. Is the connection real? And why does such a connection exist?
I hate to throw this out there.
But is there still an element of truth in the stereotype of Irish Catholics not trusting African Americans?
Good Lord. Be decent to each other, people.
Anyone else want the primaries to be over already?
Maureen Dowd has a great take on Hillary in the NY Times today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/opinion/02dowd.html?hp
TH:
Everyone knows Maureen Dowd does a new hit-piece on Clinton every week or so, it's not news.
Kevin E.
Thank you for making those comments.
As for Matt's use of snark acting as an enabler for the vitriol, I do agree. I think it's important, though, to be specific about why, because I do like snark. It's because he's using it in these recent cases as a political tool to deprecate the candidate he wants to lose. If he was more generous with the number of targets, more along the order of Dowd, no problemo.
But what he's been doing by hammering continually on one Hillary joke, is what Gitlin and Media Matters are continually screaming was done to like Gore in 2000 by Dowd types. Now I don't agree that Dowd types did that out of a wish to bring Al Gore down, I think they did it because they like to pick on politicians flaws. But I surely am sensing that Matt is specifically doing that because he wants to see Hillary lose.
Just sayin' that's the way I see it. It does lower my opinion of Matt's skill as a pundit, it's a somewhat hackish playing to the animal- house-type-fraternity of ye olde liberal blogosphere, snapping towels at each other and such.
what is this hostility that Matt displays towards Hillary? give it up man. she has lost anyway.
One thing I can say I am proud of is the fact that while I have been very critical of Obama, it has always been based on his policies, rhetoric or political strategy. I have never talked about such irrelevancies as drug use, his middle name, rumors of Muslim heritage, trumped up gay sex changes, or anything of that nature. Every so often somebody does post insults about Obama like that on this blog, and I find that deeply disturbing.
Having said that, the fact is criticisms of Hillary Clinton by many more people on this blog are deeply personal and vitriolic. In very few instances do they have anything to do with her policies, and usually have to do with never proven or discredited alleged ethical violations, her husband's known womanizing, or simply calling her "polarizing."
Poor Tim K, fighting the lone fight of reason for Clinton, against the hordes of unthinking Obama cultists.
Is the sky blue in your world, where unthinking Obama nuts mercilessly attack Clinton personally, and the lone warrior, Tim K, valiantly battles for the light?
In short: Cry me a river.
Kevin:
Well that's an absurd caricature and straw man argument if I've ever heard one.
I was just making the point - which is completely accurate - that the sheer volume of personal, and often petty, attacks on Senator Clinton on this blog far out-strip what is ever said about Obama.
Of course there are also substantive criticisms leveled at both Clinton and Obama here by intelligent posters.
With the way the internet is, you could probably find enough anti-puppy threads out there to make it look like the American national pastime is drowning puppies, the cuter the better. Drum's law against picking out wackjob comments and extrapolating general trends from them (like how a random comment on Kos gets turned into "Kos wants Feingold to rape Cheney" or something headlines).
Kenya doesn't count because it has lions. Norway counts because it lion-less and enjoys water sports.
Did I kill the meme?
Yes, gustav, because all criticism of HRC comes because she is a woman. It's all sexism!
Dude, I didn't say Matt was being sexist, only that we've heard this already.
As for Sully, well, have you read his blog? It's all "Hillary's a scheming, soulless, ambitious bitch," at least when he's not lecturing women on how feminism "requires" them to vote against Clinton.
But I'll grant that he's not as bad the shit we're seeing in these comments. See
Somebody give this broad a sedative and send her to bed.
Better yet, somebody - other than Bill, of course, who won't - get her in bed and bang her senseless so she stops being such a total loser bitch.
And
I'm not misogynist at all - I'm anti-Hillary.
Not the same thing.
Don't let the terms "broad" and "bitch" fool you. When they're correct, they're correct. When they're not, then they're misogynist.
Followed by
I agree with Richard Steven Hack. When the chick involved is a bitch and it looks like she does need someone to bang her back into a feeling human, it's not misogynist.
Sure guys, talk of "banging" "bitches" so they'll "loosen up" isn't misogynistic. The "chicks" need a firm hand, don't they?
A little primer: when you call women "chicks," "broads" or "bitches," and say they need to "get laid" in terms that evoke rape, you're not being funny. You're being an asshole.
gustav, just do what I do: once you realize that a post was written by the convicted felon who is convinced he's a cyborg named Richard Steven Hack, just skip over it. The guy has stuck a gun in people's faces. Arguing with a crazy person is like trying to nail jello to a tree. It just isn't worth it and you just end up tired and stressed after the effort.
On the other hand, Obama's inability to connect with Roman Catholics should be of concern; this group's preference is usually a predictor of November election success.
I don't see Matt going on and on with the 'not counting' snark as hammering Hillary so much as hammering Mark Penn.
particularly objectionable when your nation lobs real bombs at real people all over the world.
Which reminds me, Hillary is for selling cluster bombs to countries that use them again civilians while Obama is against it:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0309-23.htm
Obama's inability to connect with Roman Catholics
Since McInsane has just gotten into bed with someone who thinks that the Roman Catholic church is the Great Whore of Babylon, that shouldn't be a problem. They'll either vote Democratic or stay home.
how about west coast states with more electoral votes than any other, or crucial swing states like florida where she was outspent by barack obama? do those count too?
Matt,
I was at the Obama rally at RIC yesterday. 10,000 people showed up. 2,000 showed up for Clinton's rally at the same place the week before. I think She is in for a bigger fight than is being predicted.
I don't see Matt going on and on with the 'not counting' snark as hammering Hillary so much as hammering Mark Penn. Posted by Ovid | March 2, 2008 9:03 AM
Good point, taken. But you really have to be into the meta of this site to get that. and, I would argue, it goes over the head of some audience. The in-joke thing can also work to reinforcing an animal house fraternity atmosphere.
pegstander: obama outdrew hillary for crowds in california too. American idol outdraws both of them for auditions. Billy Joel sells out 100 tickets for concerts at casinos. Hannah Montana is good at pulling crowds too.
I think there isn't a great deal of correlation between crowd size and voting results.
Michael c.
I agree with you about the correlation, however, this is Rhode Island we are talking about. A state where anything further than a 5 minute drive away isn't a necessity and driving more than 30 miles away requires one to pack a lunch.
;]
"The in-joke thing can also work to reinforcing an animal house fraternity atmosphere."
Well, you have to remember, Matt's only been out of college for four years.
And if you've seen the "Table" videos, well...
Let's just say Blutto Blutarski has nothing on Matt...
Gustav: "A little primer: when you call women "chicks," "broads" or "bitches," and say they need to "get laid" in terms that evoke rape, you're not being funny. You're being an asshole."
Now YOU need to loosen up, asshole. I said nothing about rape. I did not imply rape. No term that I used implied rape. "Banging" does not imply rape. "Getting laid" does not imply rape. That entire line resides in your own head and not mine.
The terms "chicks" (which I didn't use, but have on occasion, so I'll let that slide), "broads" and "bitches" are terms I use to either avoid having to type "female" (I'm lazy) or use in negative connotations - which are entirely appropriate in the case of females who ACT LIKE the stereotype of "bitches", "broads" and "chicks."
(Let me guess - you also denounce rap music for using the term "bitches". I might agree with you there since I have the experience of living near ghetto blacks for years, and I know how they talk about women. Ice T tried to make the claim on NPR once that it wasn't "real", but he was lying through his teeth.)
I happen to give up nothing to anybody over my respect for women of intelligence and accomplishment. Virtually all the women in the world I view most favorably are women of intelligence, strength, imagination, compassion and accomplishment.
In fact, even in Hillary's case, I've never said she was stupid - at least, not in the sense of having a reasonable degree of intelligence in conducting her affairs (the current incompetent campaign notwithstanding), if not in policy matters.
But the woman has issues. There isn't any doubt about that. It's been noted by many, many writers, both pro- and anti-Hillary, both male and female. She's a power-obsessed, self-obsessed politician - and that frequently, if not invariably, grows out of an inability to relate to people and an unsatisfactory sex life. She has a serial cheater as a husband. You think this doesn't impact her behavior? Her own husband is alleged to have said that he was born 17 and stayed 17, and Hillary was born 40 and stayed 40. If you've got a complaint, take it up with Bill.
And Reality Man, if you can't deal with real arguments, if you can't provide reasoned points in rebuttal, try to STFU. I'm not interested in your ad hominem bullshit. What I did in the past is not relevant to what I'm saying right here and now - and even if it was, you still have to deal with the arguments I present in the here and now. If you can't do that, you're the asshole here.
Finally, this notion that everybody is a "misogynist" because they criticize Clinton is just bullshit. Ninety percent of the criticism Clinton gets is totally deserved on its merits (except the crap from Chris Matthews, of course), and completely irrelevant to her being female. Any politician who did the sort of crap she and Bill have done would deserve the criticism they're getting. Those two are corrupt, they are assholes, and they are wrong on just about every policy issue (in foreign policy, at least - I don't care about most domestic policy issues.) She has also clearly run an incompetent campaign. She has played the sex card, the race card, and the bend the rules card.
She deserves every bit of criticism she's gotten so far that is not based on her being female. And to suggest that it's all based on her being female is bullshit.
Did I say the woman has issues?
And I'm supposed to be a "misogynist"?
Read it and weep, assholes.
Note that Obama was apprised of the contributions made to his campaign and he returned the money - except for the wife's contribution, which I thought was a bit bizarre hair-splitting, but whatever
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx
Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics
By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.
The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."
In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.
"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."
Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.
Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.
The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”
Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.
Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.
In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.
Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.
However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.
Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.
Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.
Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.
"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."
Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.
The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.
Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.
IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."
Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."
She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.
The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.
Why do the gays at the Atlantic hate Clinton? DOMA was shite, but she is good on LGBT issues. Since they both supported the war in Iraq it must be something else.
Comments closed March 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's the Rhode Island firewall strategy. Brilliant in its stupidity.
Posted by Chuchundra | March 1, 2008 6:14 PM