Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

It's rather interesting that Boxer, Salazar, and Biden are going to campaign for Lieberman's primary election. Not a surprise, really, since incumbents tend to support their own in primaries.  Let's not forget that Hillary Clinton, who has acted appropriately by both supporting Lieberman and acceding to the will of the voters, is technically supporting Joementum in the primary.  Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton have both done the right thing.

It's quite shocking of course that Salazar is going to support Lieberman.  Oh wait, it's not.  Salazar is one of those fake centrists who likes to showcase his maverick status by voting for corporate giveaways while tut-tutting fellow Democrats over socially liberal policies.  Which makes him, well, Lieberman's base.  Salazar, along with Lieberman, just voted for a corporate 'free' trade pact with Oman, a country with some of the worst labor standards in the world.  10 Senators broke with the bulk of the party to pass the legislation, and I imagine that it's these people who are the most likely indy Lieberman supporters.

Who will stand with Salazar and Lieberman, and against Connecticut voters?  That's my question.

I bet that Obama, who went to Connecticut to stump for Lieberman, really wishes he didn't have to choose.  I imagine it'll be tough for him to go with Lieberman, since Obama's stump speech has as its central plank the importance of voting.  But then again, he voted for the Oman trade deal.  He's somewhat of a maverick himself.

Tags: Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

123 Comments

Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I would not be surprised if Obama campaigned for Lieberman.  After all, Lieberman is his advisor in the Senate, and Obama and Lieberman share a penchant for criticizing their own party.  And both of them are mavericks, if we are to define maverick as someone who consistently votes against the interests of their constituents.  Both Lieberman and Obama are out of touch with the voters who elected them and with the progressive politics I and many other constituents uphold.  Obama will campaign for Lieberman, and Obama will not respond to emails from his constituents when asked why he feels entitled to intervene in local primaries.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I imagine it would be very hard for Obama to campaign for Lieberman if he went Indy.

by Matt Stoller 2006-07-05 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

But not for Salazar.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-07-05 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

You are probably right, Matt.  Besides, Clinton will not insert herself in the primary, and Obama will once again follow her lead.  But Obama should apologize for already raising funds for Lieberman in Connecticut.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Obama raised funds for the Connecticut Democratic Party, not for Joe Lieberman.  Much of the money raised by Obama will go towards worthy House candidates like Chris Murphy and Diane Farrell.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I hope you are right.  But he did stump specifically for Lieberman, who similar to Obama consistently votes against the interests of his constituents.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Lieberman, similar to Obama consistently votes against the interests of his constituents.

Not even close.

Lieberman supports school vouchers for private religious schools.  Obama opposes it.

Lieberman said he would be willing to listen to plans that privatize Social Security.  Obama is not.

Joe Lieberman says there should be more tax cuts, including cuts on 95% of Americans.  Barack Obama believes we should roll back Bush's tax cuts.

Barack Obama proposed the toughest ethics legislation to date.  Joe Lieberman opposed it.

Joe Lieberman supports the War in Iraq, and has supported it since it began.  Obama was opposed to the war going into it, and supports withdrawal.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

You are really out of touch with his voting record.

He did not vote for Kerry/Feingold.

He voted for class action reform.

He voted for Condolleezza Rice.

He voted for cloture on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

He voted for the Oman trade agreement.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

If you have a problem with his voting record I encourage you to find a primary challenger for him in 2010.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 05:05PM | 0 recs
Be careful what you wish for....

If you have a problem with his voting record I encourage you to find a primary challenger for him in 2010.

We're cutting out teeth on JoeMo this year. The reform movement's training wheels will be completely off by 2010. Obama and a lot of others had better rethink whom they want to represent.

by Sitkah 2006-07-05 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Be careful what you wish for....

Good luck.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

While I sympathize with the politics on this blog, I would be in the majority than to be ideaologically pure.  I live in LA--a state  with a little blue but becoming more and more red.  Mary Landrieu will certainly lose her senate seat and the Bobby Jindall will almost certainly defeat Blanco in the governors race.  So that my frame of reference and it ticks me off that you bash centrists democrats.  Who would you prefer to Salazar in Colorado?  No other Democrat could have won the seat.  I'm senidng money to Lieberman, Jim Webb, and Bob Casey.  While I wish all were more progressive, I think they are all pretty good and a damn sight better than another Congress led by the Republicans.  So, in short, get a grip.  Let's not devour our own

by woodyprice 2006-07-06 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

It's one thing for Salazar to stump for Lieberman in the primary, but quite another to support an independent over a duly nominated Dem if Ned wins. I don't know about other state parties, but here in NM the Party bylaws prohibit any Dem in a position of power from supporting non-Democratic candidates. This applies even to ward and precinct chairs, SCC members, etc. Certainly it would include elected officials.

Why should the Dem Party of CO accept this turncoat behavior?

by barbwire 2006-07-06 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Apparently Salazar has said he'll back Joe's indie run, according to the Dailykos.

Ugh.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-07-05 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Here's the link

by HellofaSandwich 2006-07-05 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Man, am I red-faced.  I dumped that link in this diary before actually reading the content.

Sorry about that.

by HellofaSandwich 2006-07-05 04:24PM | 0 recs
No reason to be, good article n/t

by MikeB 2006-07-05 05:21PM | 0 recs
THIS is unacceptable


  I can sort of understand the others helping out Joe in the primary.

 Continuing to help him if he loses the primary is treason.

 

by Master Jack 2006-07-05 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: THIS is unacceptable

It's the same as if they decided to support Nader against the Democratic Party.

by Sitkah 2006-07-05 07:39PM | 0 recs
These arn't the questions you should be asking

You should be asking whether or not these Senators will support Ned Lamont if he wins the nomination.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

that is the question I'm asking...

by Matt Stoller 2006-07-05 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

as you should.  lol.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

We should also ask Obama why he already intervened in the local, progressive, on the ground dynamics in the Connecticut primary.  Although he has a tendency to engage in such deplorable actions, I do not believe we should sit idly as he performs violence against the democratic process.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Bloggers endorse candidates all the time.  Why can't Obama?  As long as he supports the Democratic nominee, as we will, what does it matter.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Bloggers do not represent an entire state.  In fact, bloggers are independent writers who collectively agree after much debate to endorse a candidate.  When Obama endorses a candidate, he speaks on behalf of the state of Illinois.  Bloggers, on the other hand, speak on behalf of themselves.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

I don't believe he's speaking for the entire state by endorsing a candidate.  He speaks for the entire state when he votes on and propses legislation.  If Barack Obama said he roots for the White Sox and not the Cubs, is he speaking for all of Illinois?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Because Obama serves as a Senator for the state of Illinois, he lends credibility to candidates with his endorsement.  The voters of Illinois invested Obama with that power when they elected to the seat he presently holds, a seat that enables him to give endorsements to candidates who seek authority and visibility.  Because that power ultimately stems from the voters of Illinois, Obama is effectively transferring it to candidates such as Lieberman when he visits their state and either raises funds or offers a speech on their behalf.  In other words, he is parlaying the credibility we have lent Obama.  And your analogy is inapt, for Obama is a politician endorsing another politician.  He is not a baseball player lending support to a particular baseball team.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Are you suggesting that every move a politician makes be based on popular opinion?  I thought that was a Republican tactic.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

You misunderstood the comment.  Perhaps you need to reread it.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

I read it correctly.  You are claiming Senators speak for the states they represent.  Doens't this mean their statements and actions could correspond with voter's opinions?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

No, not necessarily.  For if you have read any poll recently conducted on the war in Iraq or on the approval of Congressional Democrats, then you would understand Obama is not voting in the interests of his constituents.  Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with these polls before espousing bilge.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Give me a break, please.  Obama never said "All of Illinois endorses Joe Lieberman."  Even though he represents Illinois in the Senate, he speaks for himself and only himself.  If Illinois voters are unhappy with his representation, they have the responsibility to vote him out of office.  

And bloggers, as they become more and more prominent within the movement and within the party, also need to realize that with power comes responsibility, and they do have a duty to represent accurately the views of the party and the movement.  And if the readers are unhappy with their representation, they have a responsibility to stop reading.  

by njfellow 2006-07-05 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

You are wrong.  For Obama's seat in the US Senate lends him and his endorsements credibility, whereas a blogger endorsing a candidate does not attract a wide audience.  And here you are disagreeing, while I have to wait until 2010 to disagree with Obama.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

sorry -- i dont see your point.  you can disagree now, through this blog, through letters to the editor, through phone calls and letters to his office.  just like if you disagree with him over abortion or gay rights or any hot-button issue... so to follow through with your logic... everytime he makes a speech about any of those issues, he speaks for all of Illinois as well... well I'm sure that upwards of 40% disagree with him on many of those issues, too... does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to give speeches because he's not speaking for all of Illinois?

by njfellow 2006-07-05 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

It means he should not insert himself in primaries in other states.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Are you really that naive?  

Then, by definition of your statement:

"It means he should not insert himself in primaries in other states."

No senators should take up supporting candidates from other states during primary season.  That certainly puts Chuck Schumer and the DSCC out of job.  My guess is you would not be so upset if he was endorsing Lamont.

Also, since you are a fellow Illinoisian, I regret (actually I am pleased) to inform you that you are in the minority on Obama record with the voters.  Since his has a net +46% approval rating (71% approve; 25% disapprove - Survey USA 6/20/06), his constituents think he is doing just fine.

by Nick A 2006-07-06 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Hey njfellow

Nice going, zeroing out my post, in which I expressed my newfound hatred of Boxer, and my intention to vote Nader.

Everyone on this blog knows that I am generally extremely easy-going and forgiving of the foibles of liberal-leaning politicians who goof up. But I am not walking diplomatic machine, and I get mad as hell sometimes. Right now, I feel like anyone who can begin to stomach Lieberman belongs in North Korea. If you can chain yourself to a tree -- and never run off the reservation in a huff on occasion -- you must be some sort of super-person. Congratulations on your self-control.

In two years you will burn out because of all the pent-up angst from holding in all your anger, and I will be left to carry on. Looking back, as a Vietnam protester, I've seen it happen over and over for 40 years now. Lots of luck.

And don't zero people out because the don't "contribute to your discussion. Don't even give a "1". Save that venom for the many insidious stealth trolls who are insidiously disrupting the threads.

by blues 2006-07-06 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

way to take your own advice.  

Nice one.  RE: you rating ALL of my comments with zeroes.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

Look, the guy gave one speech you liked. Obama is not a progressive.

by srsjones 2006-07-06 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking

His record says he's a progressive...

by Sue Reen 2006-07-06 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Are there any senators good enough for you Matt with all the shots you take at Obama?

by MattyR 2006-07-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

It is not Matt who is shooting at Obama; it is Obama who is shooting himself and his constituents in the feet.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Explain how I'm 'taking a shot' at Obama.

by Matt Stoller 2006-07-05 04:34PM | 0 recs
Fiengold

I missed the MTP where Feingold spoke about Lamont/Lieberman.  Did Feingold say he is staying neutral or did he say he'll support Lieberman unless he loses the primary?

Also I'd be interested in knowing if any bloggers here would support Lamont if he ran as an Independent against Lieberman, should Lieberman win the nomination.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Fiengold

Russ's surname is spelt FEINGOLD.  And Lamont already pledged to support the Democrat who wins the primary.  Lieberman has not made such a pledge, thereby revealing to everyone that he is more interested in himself than in the will of the party who supported him.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

I believe it was a typo as you see I spelled it correctly the second and third time I wrote his name.  My question was did Russ Feingold say he supporting Lieberman in the primary or was he remaining neutral?  And in the hypothetical, Lamont did run as Independent, would you support him?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

Because Lamont is a person of integrity, there is no hypothetical.  And Feingold will not support anyone in the Primary.  If you watch his most recent speech in New Hampshire, he discusses how his 1992 campaign for the Senate, which he won, was ignored by beltway politicians, as they refused to support a grassroots campaign.  He believes the party should allow LOCAL voters, not DC politicians, to determine their candidates.   He will therefore support the Democrat who emerges from the primary.

Feingold has integrity.  Obama lacks it.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

Did he specifically say he is neutral or he just wasn't asked?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

He was asked, and he said he would support the Democrat after the primary.  So remains neutral, and he will support the Democrat, whoever that may be, after the primary.  He will not endorse any candidate in the primary.  This is the policy of his PAC, and it is Russ's personal policy, a policy to be followed by all DC politicians.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

If Feingold endorsed Lamont would you still be saying "DC politicans shouldn't be involved in the primaries?"

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

Again, you must resort to hypotheticals in a vain attempt to invalidate the strong points made by your opponent.  Because Feingold does not endorse any candidate during the primary, this situation would never arise.  The question is therefore irrelevant.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

Yes or no?  Look I'm not trying to get into a thing with you here but you keep trying to turn this thread into a slugfest.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Feingold

I do not believe anyone but the local candidates and the local voters should be involved in a primary.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I am really tired of all of this talk... when did we become such fans of guilt by association.  

As hard as it may be for many of  us to understand, these people are real, actual PEOPLE with real, actual working relationships.  They work together day after day in the Senate, and many of them have socialized together for many years.  

And if what Matt says is true about these politicians living in a bubble (and I agree that most of probably them do), then we can't expect them to think that Joementum is really going to lose the primary, and THEREFORE we have to expect that they are supporting their friend the incumbant senator in the primary, not only because of personal connections but also because of political pragmatism and the expectation that they will have to continue working with him in the future (and we already know that Joe is vindictive and retalliatory).

It does get trickier after the primary when seeing whom these senators support for the general, but WHY ARE WE WORRYING ABOUT THAT NOW?  Let's cross that bridge when we get to it...I'm all for taking out Lieberman, but there's no need to take down every Democratic Senator who's ever had coffee with him while we do it.  Is that too much to ask?  

Again, CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD.

by njfellow 2006-07-05 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

njfellow said:

As hard as it may be for many of  us to understand, these people are real, actual PEOPLE with real, actual working relationships.  They work together day after day in the Senate, and many of them have socialized together for many years.

How long have you been working to together, day after day, socializing with US???

Your first post here was on 06/14/2006, and you have 20 posts.

My first post was on 11/30/2004, and I have 1277 posts, about 64 for each of yours. I've been here 19+ months, you, a tad over 2 weeks. But you zero out my angry little rant for not taking account of the socializing needs of these poor senators. Real nice, njfellow.

by blues 2006-07-06 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

My post is in response to Matt's diary, not your post, and what is with all of this exclusionary "I'm better than you because I've posted here longer" crap that so many commenters like to spout off.  I have been reading this site for much longer than you have been posting, and never felt compelled enough/always felt I was too busy to actually post.. I'm glad I finally started interacting rather than "lurk" (which is such a creepy term), but I don't think my posts are any less insightful than anyone else's just because I started posting here more recently.  

Thanks for the warm welcome. No wonder so many choose to "lurk."

by njfellow 2006-07-06 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

My post is in response to Matt's diary, not your post, and what is with all of this exclusionary "I'm better than you because I've posted here longer" crap that so many commenters like to spout off.  I have been reading this site for much longer than you have been posting, and never felt compelled enough/always felt I was too busy to actually post.. I'm glad I finally started interacting rather than "lurk" (which is such a creepy term), but I don't think my posts are any less insightful than anyone else's just because I started posting here more recently.  

Thanks for the warm welcome. No wonder so many choose to "lurk."

by njfellow 2006-07-06 08:29AM | 0 recs
Answers

Fine with me if they lurk to their heart's content. Not so great if they surface, and then launch headlong into zeroing posts of folks who have made strenuous efforts to contribute, even if those folks fly off the proverbial handle now and then. I don't, in the final analysis, "hate" Lieberman all that much. But I am floored to find that our better progressive Democratic candidates are willing to stick up for the fascism enabling Joe, just (perhaps) because of some misplace collegiality. How about a little collegiality on this blog for longtime participants, like me. Too damn much to ask, I guess.

by blues 2006-07-06 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Answers

No not too much to ask... great comment... the other one was exactly what you said it was... you flew off the handle.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

by the way, real nice hiding all of my comments in retalliation for down-rating just one of your crazy make-us-all-look-bad rants entitled something along the lines of "Boxer Sux"

Very mature of you--I can tell why you spend so much time "socializing" online.

Also incredibly mature to just rate every single one of my comments with a zero, even those that several other users gave a 3.0.  Some would call that ratings abuse.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Damn cut the guy some slack.  Is there some unwritten rule that bloggers must be here for a certain amount of time before we listen to what they say?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-06 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Just to clarify, in another comment that is now hidden for reasons unbeknownst to me, I stated that I have been a die-hard reader of the site for close to three years... I simply started COMMENTING only recently.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 10:49AM | 0 recs
Stumping for Joe

I believe Obama spoke on behalf of the Connecticut Democratic Party, an organization which invited him to speak.  Part of our strategy to retake the House involves several key House races in Connecticut.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Stumping for Joe

But he still nonetheless spoke on behalf of Lieberman.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Candidates like Chris Murphy and Diane Farrell should not be punished for Joe Lieberman's conservatisim.  They need all the help they can get.  Like it or not, Barack Obama is probably the Democratic Party's biggest star and his appearance at such an event brings in much needed donations.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I agree, which is why what Lieberman is doing is so selfish.  By refusing to either run only in the Democratic primary, or to run as an independent, he's jeopardizing our chances to pick up three House seats.

by Matt Stoller 2006-07-05 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

To hell with Obama, and fuck the money. This is about people doing the right thing, not some bullshit political theatrics. Obama is great at the theatrics but is bad at the actual nuts and bolts, his voting record is marginal, and his hiring of Tom Daschle's former chief of staff was when I knew Obama would be no better then the rest of our elected officials. Take your blinders off and see the politcal animal for what he is.

by jbou 2006-07-05 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Utter nonsense. Supporting Lieberman equals "standing against Connecticut voters"? So Lieberman is going to get 0% in the primary, or do non-liberal-bloggers not count as worthy constituents to our humble front pager?

Connecticut voters are made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Senators represent ALL of their constituents. I always thought "toe the line" politics was Tom DeLay's area of expertise, but now even red-state Democrats, miracles all, are supposed to toe the blogosphere line.

by OfficeOfLife 2006-07-05 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

This is a Democratic party primary not a general election, if the Democrats in CT vote for Lieberman then so be it, but the rest of the party should be standing on the sidelines waiting to see who the voters choose.

by jbou 2006-07-05 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

 I can understand any Senator, even Boxer, supporting Lieberman in the primary out of some sort of pro-incumbent protocol. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

 But committing to support Lieberman as an independent is beyond the pale.

 Salazar is dead to me. I'd rather a child molester move next door than that disgusting scumbag.

by Master Jack 2006-07-05 05:56PM | 0 recs
Your Objection should be with Chuck Schumer

Because he started singing the "I will support Joe Lieberman, even as an Independent" theme song long before Boxer, Salazar and Obama.

Obama continues to disappoint me with his triangulation tactics, and if Harold Ford wins Frist's senate seat, he'll be even worse than Obama.

by Political Junkie 2006-07-05 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Your Objection should be with Chuck Schumer

I thought we belived in innocent until proven guilty.  Let Obama speak before you condemn him.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Your Objection should be with Chuck Schumer

I thought he ventriloquized through you and all his other ardent supporters on this site.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Your Objection should be with Chuck Schumer

If you guys ever wanted to know why politicians laugh at the blogs, look no further than this diary.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 09:48PM | 0 recs
before, vs after, the primary

I don't find it at all remarkable that sitting Senators, all of whom know Lieberman, would be inclined to support Lieberman... in the primary.

I see a stark distinction between doing that and continuing any such support if Lamont wins it. Which I hope he will.

The whole situation is new. Numerous weeks will pass, with Lamont (I predict) gaining in popularity as voters hear his message. Senators love to hear themselves talk (it's one of the traits that leads people into politics) and some of them will regret shooting their mouths off too quickly if they commit now to Lieberman. I think we and they could all benefit by lowering the temperature and watching what happens during the primary campaign (or participating, to whatever extent is appropriate).  

And, as a final thought, I don't suppose very many of us expected that a brand-new senator from a Western state, one who flipped the seat he's in from Red to Blue, was too likely to be ideologically very far to the Left?  Part of the reason some of us are so cross with Lieberman's drift toward the right is that he's not one of the Senators from, say, Colorado. He's supposed to be representing Connecticut, a very different constituency. And they should throw him out, if they don't approve of the job he does for them any more. Looks, in fact, like they may.

by Christopher Walker 2006-07-05 07:29PM | 0 recs
campaigning for one of the candidates in a primary

Before I get too grumpy with senators who stick with Joe in the primary, I'm gonna ask myself: if some conservative Democrat were to file to run against Russ Feingold, next time he's up, wouldn't I be happy to see his colleagues support him in the primary (if it gets that far)?

by Christopher Walker 2006-07-05 07:38PM | 0 recs
Boxer Sux After All

Support the two-faced crypto- fascist Lieberman? Boxer sux the big one. Period. These "Democratic" turds can kiss my churly ass. No fucking more. No fucking more. My vote goes to Nader.

by blues 2006-07-05 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

im new to commenting/rating... so i'm not sure, is it a good thing to give people 1's and 2's in the comments?  b/c that's what illinois062006 seems to be doing to everyone he disagrees with, in order to lower their scores from 3.0.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems petty.  

Seriously, responses requested... couldn't find anything about it in the FAQ.

by njfellow 2006-07-05 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

i give 2s if someone is merely repeating talking points.  i give 1s if the comment is unfounded, accusatory and frankly counterproductive.  and i do not rate all comments with which i disagree.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

You are better off not rating anyone in a thread you are so active in. Your rating comments can be looked at as punishment or reward for people who agree or disagree with you, better to stay away from the rating all together, just my 2 cents.

by jbou 2006-07-05 11:11PM | 0 recs
Ratings system

i just decided i give 1's for immaturity/aggressiveness/arrogance and attacking other people... 2's and 1's for comments that make big statements without any facts to back them up. 0's for inflammatory statements that make everyone on the site look bad (i.e. Democratic Senator ___ is a fucking scumbag piece of trash)

if this is not a correct way to rate things, someone with experience please let me know.

thanks.

by njfellow 2006-07-05 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

what is petty is your complaint for having received a 2.  

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Jesus you don't have to be a jerk about it.  He said he was new to commenting.  He's not being petty he just had a question.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I don't get it either, but I notice he and others have been doing it.  I prefer the DailyKos way where you only can recommend or un-recommend comments.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-05 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I guess things are much more SIMPLE at DailyKos.  I prefer having many options, as 2s and 1s serve as warnings.  And besides, I am not a fan of binarisms.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

a warning to what? to disagreeing with you?
gee golly, that's so big of you.

buddy, you are in the minority in this thread... seriously, give it a rest...

and thanks for answering my question :)

by njfellow 2006-07-05 11:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Retract your ratings, or I will have to report you.  I lost the trusted user status for which I have worked so hard because you believe the majority opinion, whatever that is, allows you to rate those with whom you disagree unfairly.

And because you are new and still learning, you do not understand that Stoller is regularly attacked by a small group of interlopers who believe we should not engage in intraparty criticism.  You obviously do not know this, as you are unfamiliar with online discourse.  Again, you do not understand why I believe I have the right to warn those who regularly invade Stoller's diaries in order to invalidate him, and you do not understand why I am entitled to aggressively engage with these writers, as you have not witnessed my engagement with them for the past three months.  Again, retract your ratings, or I will ask those who manage the cite to terminate your account.

I thank you in advance.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Do you mind explaining why this comment also received a 1?

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Stoller is not attacked as often as he is disagreed with... I didn't see any actual "attacks" on him in this thread, although I could have missed one somewhere.  No one "invades Stoller's diaries in order to invalidate him" and you are "entitled to aggressively engage these writers."  Who are you and why do you speak in such harsh terms??!?!

Yes, I disagree with Stoller, pretty often, actually.  Does that make me a criminal?  I commend his activism and what he does, and I love this site, but we have different philosophies about intra-party politics.  And I think that's ok, and I think it's great to disagree with someone's arguments respectfully.  In fact, I thought that's what the whole commenting thing was supposed to be about, unless you and Stoller just want to see a love fest on every thread.

I'm sorry if you don't feel that way--but it's really not cool to get vicious with people and engage in personal attacks. Therefore, I downrated you.  If you think that's rating you unfairly, sorry, but I don't.  

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

That is not a compelling explanation, and you abused the ratings system by rating my request to retract your ratings unfairly.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I downrated it because it was so friggin' condescending and arrogant.  I'll concede that one however.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

But I do not believe it is condescending or arrogant.  Perhaps you should reconsider how you are reading and responding to texts.  And perhaps you should consider how the warping manner in which you are engaging with texts is inflecting your unfair and somewhat indiscriminate use of the ratings system.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

As I have observed your passionate responses to so many posts in this diary, one thing has become clear.  You like to attack, but dismiss any criticism of you, nor do you answer tough questions. You try to shield yourself from answering hypothetical questions (an action Chuck Schumer was ridiculed by the netroots movement last week when speaking on Meet the Press).  If you want to engage in debate, then do it.  Debates are filled with hypothetical questions...they do have predictive value. Don't say you have "Strong arguments" and then defend them by saying your opponent doesn't have merit.  

Take some responsibility, written posts don't have tone, so they are assumed by the reader.  As an outside observer of this thread, it is easy to see why others think you have an attacking style. If you lost your status, really the only one you have to blame is yourself.

I am sincere is saying, It is clear you want to improve the Democratic Party through meaningful participation. I do to.  I think you would be better served participating in the debate, instead of being dismissive.

by Nick A 2006-07-06 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Warnings? Hell, i sort of agree with what you have been saying, but the warning comment is a bit too, how you say, facist?

by jbou 2006-07-05 11:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

ok but to get back to the original question, is anything less than a 3 bad?  so the only option if you like what someone is saying is to give a 3?

and good idea about not rating in threads your active in...

thanks

by njfellow 2006-07-05 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

If you ask me I say don't rate good or bad in a thread you are active in, but that's just my own philosophy, it helps me avoid the whole bullshit of punishing people whose opinions you don't like.

by jbou 2006-07-05 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

no.  a 1 and especially a zero is bad.  but one should not categorically rate someone poorly if they happen to disagree with that person.  allow me to illustrate by citing you as a culprit, as what we call a troll rater on the blogs.  you have abused the ratings system, resulting in my loss of trusted user status.  let us look at your short ratings history:

) Re: Feingold [2.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 2
Posted on 07/06/2006 02:07:35 AM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

6) Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/06/2006 01:21:51 AM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

7) Re: Your Objection should be with Chuck Schumer [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/06/2006 01:06:46 AM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

9) Re: Fiengold [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/06/2006 12:41:06 AM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

14) Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking [2.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 2
Posted on 07/05/2006 09:54:36 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

15) Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/05/2006 09:26:53 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

19) Re: Stumping for Joe [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/05/2006 08:53:31 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

20) Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking [2.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 2
Posted on 07/05/2006 08:52:49 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

23) Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/05/2006 08:27:39 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

25) Re: These arn't the questions you should be asking [1.00], by illinois062006, Rated: 1
Posted on 07/05/2006 08:26:23 PM EST
Rated on 07/06/2006 03:15:35 AM EST

One will also notice how you have arbitrarily rated those with whom you happen to agree favorably, even if their comments were inappropriate or vituperative.

And I have lost my trusted user status because someone new to the site decided to misuse and abuse the ratings system.  I ask you to retract your ratings, or else I will have to report you to the site managers.

I thank you in advance.

by illinois062006 2006-07-05 11:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

If you would kindly note, I did give you a 3.0 for making a good comment (which you chose to leave off of your list)... I am disappointed that you choose to selectively cite my ratings history in order to boost your argument rather than show the full picture.  I could say it speaks to your character, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Several of your comments were vicious in nature, and more of them were over-the-top statements without any facts to back them up... My ratings had nothing to do with agree or disagree...I think you need to learn how to play respectfully and fair, and that's why I chose to rate many of your comments rather than not rate them at all... As far as I know, that is an acceptable usage of the ratings system.  (As I said, I welcome anyone with experience to tell me if I'm wrong.)  And while I may be new at "commenting," as I said earlier, I am not new to the site... I have been reading the site actively for over two years.  In the few comments I have made, I received high ratings and thus gained "trusted user" status very quickly.  You chose to down-rate me (and several others) simply because you disagreed with us, not because we were inflammatory or vicious or because of lack of factual support for our arguments.  Those are the reasons you were down-rated.  

I will not retract my ratings until told to do so by a "site manager."  And I think that you will easily regain trusted user status once you learn to disagree respectfully with fellow users rather than attack them.  I think you obviously have a lot of passion and energy and intelligence to offer the site, and I look forward to engaging in more meaningful discourse with you in the future.    

Best.

by njfellow 2006-07-05 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

No, I will not engage with you on this site, as you have abused the ratings system.  I recommend you read the diaries I have posted, and perhaps then you will understand why and how I acheived respected user status.  I notice many of the comments you rated unfairly were in fact factual statements.  You also rated comments unfairly that served as explications of my position.  And you rated comments positively by those with whom you agree even if they did not offer anything substantive to the discussion.  In other words, you capriciously rated users.  Retract you ratings immediately.  And I have already contacted a site manager.  Thank you.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

Buddy, you're wrong.  (And condescending to boot).  I have up-rated people who said things that added to the conversation, and I have down-rated people (mostly you) who have taken away from a meaningful discourse.  Please show me a comment that is "factual" that I downrated, and I will retract that rating.  

I believe I'm being reasonable.  I think you shouldn't have downrated people simply for disagreeing with you (on top of viciously attacking them).  If Matt or Chris or whoever thinks I'm wrong, they'll let me know.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

I believe you are punishing me for asking those who are making outrageous statements to reconsider their position.  Perhaps you do not believe others should be challenged.  And that is your right, although I will not stand by idly and allow you to invalidate those who happen to believe those who rely on talking points should be forced to explain their positions.  And nothing I have said or done is aggressive.  You may say it is, but that does not necessarily mean your interpretation of my utterances is the correct or definitie interpretation.  I do not believe they are aggressive.  As a result, I believe you should retract the ratings you unfairly and capriciously gave me.  For after all, I do not believe my utterances were inappropriate.  And many who posted on this thread also did not view them as inappropriate.  In other words, you are the only one who takes exception to what I have written.  Perhaps this is something you should consider before indiscriminately assigning poor ratings to those with whom you may happen to disagree.  And please do not patronize me by referring to me as "buddy."  That you choose to do so reveals the hostility that is motivating both your responses and your unfair ratings.

Thank you for quickly retracting your unfair ratings.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

I did not capriciously give any ratings, for the final time.  Each rating was considered thoughtfully.  And if my interpretation of your utterances is not the correct interpretation, whose is?  Isn't the ratings system in place so that every trusted user can apply their own interpretations?  I applied mine, and you can disagree if you want to.  

I do believe others should be challenged--you seem to be the one who does not believe Stoller (or yourself) should be challenged.

And don't kid yourself into thinking that you were merely forcing others to explain their views rather than spout talking points.  You were plain and simple belittling, dismissing, and downrating anyone who disagreed with you.

And seriously, what is your obsession with all of this B.S. ????  Give it a rest--Time for bed.    

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

I believe you are trying to exacerbate the situation by not admitting that the 10 unfair ratings you spontaneously and somewhat hastily gave over a very short period of time were not premeditated and in fact motivated by a mere impulse, a mere paroxysm.  This is why I ask you to reconsider your ratings.  If I were you, I would consider it sagacious advice.  And I would thank me for magnanimously offering such advice.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

Choosing to rate one comment with a 3 does not make you an objective analyst of blog decorum.  And the three is an outlier in the general pattern of unfair rating anyone can see on this site.  Retract all your ratings, including the three, immediately.  I already emailed a site administrator.

THANKS.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions


Yes, so you said.  

For an example of a "general pattern of unfair rating anyone can see on this site" please refer to your own ratings history.  You consistently rate people up and down simply for agreeing or disagreeing with you. That is an offense I am not guilty of, and anyone who looks at the actual posts will be able to see that.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

No, you are wrong.  And I recommend you read the entire ratings history under my name.  Perhaps you will find it edifying.  I also recommend you view the recommendations I have received for my diaries.  By the way, where are your diaries?  

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

OK--trying not to laugh and holding back from saying something mean.  

I am very happy for you that you take such pleasure from participating actively in this site, I simply wish that you would take less pleasure from attacking those who disagree with you rather than engaging in meaningful debate.

I am quite content going to work (within the progressive movement), reading the sites I like to read, making some comments where I think they would add to conversation (rather than boost my own ego), and getting a little sleep in here and there.  

If and when I find a topic that nobody else has written about that is compelling to me, I will diary about it.  I'm actually thinking about one right now--I want my first one to be a good one.

Thank you for encouraging me to become more active within the site.  If a site administrator asks me to repeal any ratings, I will be happy to do so.  

For real now, nighty night.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 12:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions

Perhaps you should become more active BEFORE you decide to rate those who disagree with you unfairly.

by illinois062006 2006-07-06 12:38AM | 0 recs
Re: meta-discussion, sigh

Meta-discussion is boring... but I'll note that I usually give "3"s when someone has added information that helps with decision-making, whether I agree with the poster's conclusions, or not. I sometimes also give "3"'s when someone expresses the intention to do something actually useful (like donate or volunteer or write a letter to the editor).

I seldom assign any other rating. When threads become personal or involve name-calling I skip over them. Once calm returns, the embarrassment of re-reading ill-tempered postings is probably punishment to the posters who made them. I know I wince over mine, if temper betrays me.  

by Christopher Walker 2006-07-06 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: meta-discussion, sigh

Agreed--should have duked it out over email or something rather than through the thread.  Sorry!

by njfellow 2006-07-06 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

The fact of the matter is that East coasters, and Matt Stoller especially, have no standing to criticize Ken Salalzar.

Maybe you east coast elites should care more about "fly over" country, then when a moderate Dem does moderate things.

Now, why don't you worry about Maine's two GOP senators, or why the hell blue PA sends to Republicans to DC?

Oh, but you coastal liberals, you know all!  

by pacified 2006-07-06 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

I agree. Salazar was the only democrat to win a seriously contested race in the senate last election, while other less fortunate democrats went down to defeat in Oklahoma, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, South Dakota and Florida. That shows some serious skills, and he should get some well-earned slack amongst the party faithful.

by JRyan 2006-07-06 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Well, I guess zeroing out stuff is one way to halve a 104 comment thread. Still, don't you think you're going a little hard on njfellow, blues? That's a hell of a lot of zeroes.

by JRyan 2006-07-06 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

Honestly it's absurd... I was better off lurking.  Well it's a good thing some of you guys spend so much time online... you'd never cut in the real world...

I'll just get back to work on the federal campaign I'm working for and get ready for the meeting I have with the national nonprofit I volunteer with.  Then I'll think about what I want to accomplish in the next meeting of the township democratic committee, to which I was just appointed.

Let's count the minutes until this is "zeroed."

Seriously, some of you (not most) have to get a life.

by njfellow 2006-07-06 10:33AM | 0 recs
Breaking

According to Obama's staff, Obama WILL support the winner of the primay.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-06 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking

Why did I get a 2 for this?  I'm reporting news.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-06 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking

I can't figure out why I got a 1 above for mentioning that blues zeroed out njfellow a hell of a lot of times.

by JRyan 2006-07-07 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking

I think Il062006 has gone off the deep end.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-07 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking

Was he particularly sane before?

by JRyan 2006-07-07 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Breaking

Thanks for trying to raise up all of my zeros...

those two nutcases have lost it, or like JRyan said, maybe they never had it to begin with.

by njfellow 2006-07-07 06:28PM | 0 recs
intrigued by Matt's treatment of Salazar

the way Matt showcases Salazar's support as 'surprising' implies people exist who see him as a true Dem. he seems so very pink from my vantage here in CO that i had not realized anyone saw him as blue... given our success in state races in 04, i have really felt it was less Salazar flipping CO than a shift in state ideology itself.

given pacified and JRyan's responses (and track record over on squarestate), i accept my take may be way off.

by jax 2006-07-06 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc

salazars pp score: 82

comparison:
kohl 81.9
inouye 81.8
pryor 77
rockefeller 86
lincoln 74
reid 81

for a divided state, thats a pretty solid voting record.

by yomoma2424 2006-07-06 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Questions for Obama, Boxer, Biden, Obama, etc
the way Matt showcases Salazar's support as 'surprising' implies people exist who see him as a true Dem. he seems so very pink from my vantage here in CO that i had not realized anyone saw him as blue... given our success in state races in 04, i have really felt it was less Salazar flipping CO than a shift in state ideology itself. given pacified and JRyan's responses (and track record over on squarestate), i accept my take may be way off. antivirus gratuit chanson gratuit chansons gratuit divx gratuit emule gratuit kazaa gratuit logiciel gratuit logiciels gratuit messenger gratuit mp3 gratuit msn gratuit music gratuite musique gratuite musiques gratuites nero gratuit parole gratuit paroles gratuit telechargement antivirus telechargement chanson telechargement chansons telechargement divx telechargement emule telechargement gratuit telechargement kazaa telechargement logiciel telechargement logiciels telechargement messenger telechargement mp3 telechargement msn telechargement telechargement music telechargement musique telechargement nero telechargement parole telechargement paroles telecharger antivirus telecharger chanson telecharger chansons telecharger divx telecharger emule telecharger gratuit telecharger kazaa telecharger logiciel telecharger logiciels telecharger messenger telecharger mp3 telecharger msn telecharger music telecharger musique telecharger nero telecharger parole telecharger paroles astuce auto bebe blague blagues carte carte2 carte3 cartes cartes2 cartes3 cartes4 cheat cinema code jeu couple diaporama diaporama2 diaporamas diaporamas2 ecran de veille ecrans de veille enfant erotique erotiques f1 rallye familiale famille fond d ecran fonds d ecran football golf histoire horoscope horoscopes humour icone illusion image humour jeu jeu2 jeu3 jeux jeux2 jeux3 lingerie massage partition partitions pps ppt programme recette recette2 recettes recettes2 safari sexy sexy2 soluce solution jeu spectacle sport sportive tarot tatouage tatouages tele television tennis tourisme touristique truc tuning tv vacances vacances2 video comique videos comiques voiture voyage wallpaper voyager yoga chat gratuit clip gratuit cul gratuit ecran de veille gratuit emoticone gratuit film porno gratuit film x gratuit fond d ecran gratuit gay gratuit gros sein gratuit hentai gratuit horoscope gratuit jeu adulte gratuit jeu de voiture gratuit jeu enfant gratuit jeu gratuit jeu gratuit cadeaux jeu pc gratuit jeu video gratuit logiciel gratuit mp3 gratuit photo gay gratuit photo porno gratuit photo sexe gratuit photo sex gratuit porno gratuit sexe amateur gratuit sexe gratuit sex gratuit sex gratuit beurette sms gratuit sudoku gratuit tarot gratuit telechargement film gratuit telechargement gratuit telechargement logiciel gratuit telecharger gratuit telecharger gratuit2 telecharger jeu gratuit tout gratuit traducteur gratuit video gratuit video gratuit2 video porno gratuit video sexe gratuit video sex gratuit video x gratuit xxx gratuit
by loperic 2006-11-26 10:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads