The Ball In Hillary's Court

When Sarah Palin introduced herself to Americans last week, she made sure to explicitly lay claim to Hillary Clinton's historic run for the presidency:

I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and, of course, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

Clinton's response to Palin was lukewarm at best.

But now, in defense of Palin against the current deluge of scandal, McCain adviser Carly Fiorina has gone all-in with a whole hand of gender cards, claiming she's:

"...appalled by the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Governor Sarah Palin's experience. The facts are that Sarah Palin has made more executive decisions as a Mayor and Governor than Barack Obama has made in his life. Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the Presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin."

As Todd pointed out, it's not an isolated incident, either.

We'll see if this works. If McCain's surrogates continue abusing and misappropriating Hillary Clinton's legacy and accomplishment, I'd expect New York's junior Senator to step up and make a clear statement about exactly how much of her legacy Palin can claim. Sen. Clinton found herself on the receiving end of plenty of gender-based flack during the primary; I'd guess she's none-to-happy about Palin's people using sexism as a defense.

Update [2008-9-2 19:10:20 by Josh Orton]: Seems few in the traditional press are buying Palin's reflexive "sexism" defense (via AMERICAblog). Both Jake Tapper of ABC and Jonathan Martin at Politico aren't biting.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin (all tags)



Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Or even moreso, the fact that Palin is trying to compare herself to Clinton, which is just a joke.  I, too, have been hoping that the Clintons get out in front and start attacking Palin for misappropriating Clinton's track record and accomplishments.  I can't imagine that Hillary Clinton is anything but offended, and I can't began to conceive Bill's reaction to this.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-02 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Of all people, President Bill Clinton got shafted during the primary. How crazy is it accusing Bill Clinton of racism? Yet he had to defend himself against the accusation!

So I guess my feeling is that with the degree of shameless shameless card playing that has gone on in this election cycle, I think the Clintons are probably going to be a little too numb to get excited about Sarah Palin.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: My Guess Is

That's more your hope than an honest observation.

But, hey, you may have just missed the DNC last week.

by LtWorf 2008-09-02 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: My Guess Is

Is that hope you can believe in?

by dMarx 2008-09-02 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Who accused Bill Clinton of racism?

by Jordache 2008-09-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

If nobody accused Bill of racism, why did he have to defend himself by saying, "I am not a racist."

Is he a delusional idiot?

by dMarx 2008-09-02 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Bill and Hillary Clinton are firmly on board with the Dem ticket and Dem party principles.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-02 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Right. They are looking forward to 2012. 2016 is probably too late for Hillary.

They will do just enough not to anger the base. No more.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 04:47PM | 0 recs
Gutter Journalism

Bad day for the New York Times and Blogland:

1. Sarah Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party, registered as a Republican since 1982. Holding my breath for the retraction from the New York Times and all media that repeated the lie.

2. Sarah Palin did not support Pat Buchanan for President in 2000, despite the Obama campaign official statement that connected Buchanan and his support of Nazi's in a PRESS RELEASE this morning, for god's sakes! Reported in the Anchorage paper at the time - apparently 'journalists' just took the word of a blog as the basis of their reporting! (Hell, who needs journalism school?)

To say a major backlash is developing is an understatement. After Palin's speech tomorrow night the world will look radically different for those who engage in gutter journalism.

by oliver777 2008-09-02 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Gutter Journalism

Thanks Oliver!!!  

Your concern is duly noted.  Please go back to partying with your lobbyist friends in St. Paul now.  That band, Hookers and Blow, really rocks.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-09-02 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Gutter Journalism

Are these McTrolls ever going to be banned from the site?  We could really use some serious house cleaning here.

by auronrenouille 2008-09-02 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Gutter Journalism

Nah, it's always a good day when I read stuff like this:

"Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said."

and this:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

oh, and this:

"She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them.

Not to mention the polls.  Happy, for once, today.  But thanks.

by trustno1 2008-09-02 02:17PM | 0 recs
Mr. Palin was

a member until 2002.

Palin's husband was member of third party
By JIM KUHNHENN - 47 minutes ago

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, twice registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a fierce states' rights group that wants to turn all federal lands in Alaska back to the state. Sarah Palin herself was never a member of the party, according to state officials.


Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said Todd Palin twice registered under the Alaskan Independence Party -- in 1995 and 2000. Some members of the party have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party's platform. D5JB9qx1iUsd9xz-dBbwWBwD92UR2C81

by TomP 2008-09-02 02:19PM | 0 recs
Gutter Journalism

I guess we can look in on you to see what the effect has been on those who engage in gutter blogging.

by tonedevil 2008-09-02 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I can't believe that their strategy included whining this early in the process.  I mean, I thought that it was inevitable, but not before Palin had even spoken at the convention.  

I eagerly await Sen. Clinton dressing down these mor(a)ns.

by rfahey22 2008-09-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Why was this rated down?

by LordMike 2008-09-02 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Yes, the comment was about Fiorina and the Republics whining, why the downrate?


by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court


by rfahey22 2008-09-02 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

The comment was rated down by a hillary supporter.... I wanted to get their perspective on this...

by LordMike 2008-09-02 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Hillary Clinton is not your puppet

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Nor are you her spokesperson.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 03:41PM | 0 recs
There was a NY Times article

citing her unsourced "Clinton advisers" saying that HRC was furious at Palin for trying to appropriate her campaign theme about the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling and that she might increase her campaigning for Obama/Biden.

Her initial statement was fine; what the heck did you want Orton, for her to say that Palin was trash and completely unqualified?  She would have come off a bully and people may have thought that she was just upset that she wasn't on a ticket.  I thought her statement was sufficient and it seems kind of tacky if her assignment is just to hit Palin, though it seems as if HRC herself wants to embrace that role if you believe the NY Times article.

by Blazers Edge 2008-09-02 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: There was a NY Times article

When/if she does, I expect we'll know.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: There was a NY Times article

Good point.  Her initial remarks were entirely appropriate.

by rfahey22 2008-09-02 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: There was a NY Times article

The irony is she alos mentioned Ferraro, who would end up with a little scandal of her own during her run.

by venician 2008-09-02 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: There was a NY Times article

Maybe HRC is afraid to hit too hard, cuz, you know, she doesn't have the extensive EXECUTIVE experience that Palin does.  /snark

Seriously though, I think HRC should not be relegated to being the anti-Palin.  A well-timed quip by HRC would do wonders, but we don't need her out there bashing Palin constantly.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-09-02 02:05PM | 0 recs
Exactly right

Blazer has it, the single best point Senator Clinton can make is go out on the trial and show what the real deal looks like.

If she starts taking potshots at Palin personal, this will spring back.

NOTHING will make it clear that Sarah Palin will never be the politician that Senator Clinton is then seeing Senator Clinton do what she does best: Getting her issues out before Democrats and Independents, and getting them to vote democratic in the fall.

If the Obama campaign wants an answer for Sarah Palin, make sure Senator Clinton KNOWS her job is not to knock Sarah, but to get out the vote for Democrats!

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly right

ROFL. Where do you think Obama and Biden got their statement. Hello. It was Hillary's response verbatim with a paragraph tacked on top.I think it's the Obama campaign that could learn a few things on responses and their wording. No snark or offense implied in this statement.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-09-02 02:26PM | 0 recs
See my post in responde to

guid below.  The Obama and Biden joint statement was released before HRC's statement.  I bet the camps coordinated on this one.  The language is so similar as you noted.  However, you seem to suggest that Obama and Biden released their joint statement after HRC's statement; I don't think that's the case.  HRC released her statement pretty late Friday.  Obama and Biden released theirs in the early afternoon.

by Blazers Edge 2008-09-02 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly right

None taken - however I don't believe you have any idea what the Obama campaign is doing.  They're focused on McCain McCain McCain.

by Jordache 2008-09-02 02:31PM | 0 recs
No Josh

The ball is not in Hillary's court. Of course, Hillary is going to rebut Ms. Palin's shameless latching on of her VP candidacy to Hillary's umpteenth years on the national stage, but I don't think Hillary is obligated to come out and specifically rebut--categorically--Palin's comments out of the box. Hillary will be a major surrogate for Barack, and her rebuttal of Palin's coattail clinging to Hillary will be part and parcel of Hillary's campaigning.

Wow, you'd think Hillary was paying me...

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-09-02 02:05PM | 0 recs
Hillary's not the VP

It's not her job to be the bad guy and attack Palin, while Obama "takes the high road".

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-09-02 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

non sequitor.

by Jess81 2008-09-02 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

I think the idea is that this is supposed to be Joe Biden's job. How come we haven't heard anything from him about Palin? (I suspect he may be saving it up for the October debate, but that's still four weeks away.)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

Playing hardball while the nominee stays above the fray is Biden's job.

But that's not what this diary is about - this is about Fiorina and Palin repeatedly invoking Hillary Clinton.  Who best to hit back on that?

Anyway, that's why I wrote non sequitor.  Not to mention the point of political parties is that they, you know, help each other - you don't nominate two people and then take a vacation.  You help out.

by Jess81 2008-09-02 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

Exactly. I'm not in any way saying Clinton should be the attack dog on gender, or carry all the water for Obama. I'm talking about Palin and her surrogates explicitly appropriating Clinton's legacy by name.

by Josh Orton 2008-09-02 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

Hillary Clinton's legacy as the woman who made it furthest through a presidential nomination is for women, not for herself. Palin has every right to appropriate it, since she is also a woman.

Hillary Clinton can no more object than Jesse Jackson can object to Barack Obama's achievement.

by souvarine 2008-09-02 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

No, you don't understand.  She needs to burn her political capital by attacking Palin, so that Obama doesn't have to burn his own. That is how it works.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's not the VP

The problem with that (and I can't quite tell if you were serious or snarky, so I'm going to assume serious) is that if Hillary attacks Palin too strongly she's going to come off looking hypocritical to many women voters -- "I support women's rights -- unless they're REPUBLICAN women!"  That's not a winning line to take. I think in some ways it's harder for her to attack Palin than for Biden to do it, since she risks her standing among independent women, who are among the shakiest constituents for the Dems right now.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-03 01:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court


After the things you said about HRC don't you think it a bit much to tell her how and what she should do to help your candidate.  I am just saying.

And how dare you say this "Clinton's response to Palin was lukewarm at best".  No candidate who lost a primary has done more that HRC to help the winning candidate.  Just my opinion but my guess is you will have nothing but criticism for HRC not matter what she does.  I think before you post nonsense like this you should start my apologizing to both HRC and her supporters for you conduct.

And this is not about who we support in the fall because we all support BO now but this is about your poor conduct.  WHO are YOU to stand in judgement of HRC.  Sorry i forgot this is what you do.


by giusd 2008-09-02 02:13PM | 0 recs
Orton has no credibility

when it comes to HRC; I agree with you on that point.

Orton should have noted how closely the language from HRC's statement tracked the language used in the joint statement from Obama and Biden.  The similar language and phrasing suggests to me that there was coordination between the camps.  HRC waited for quite some time to release her statement on Friday.

HRC would have looked like a total bully if she trashed the first woman to ever be nominated for a Republican ticket on Friday.  Using her as a hitwoman on Palin will only diminish her and it appears that Obama himself isn't afraid to hit Palin as evidenced by his completely fair and nonsexist attack on Palin's equal pay stance.

by Blazers Edge 2008-09-02 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court


by Josh Orton 2008-09-02 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

CDS is a well establihed CNS illness.  Nornally for the likes of Coulter or Hannity.  But  you might consider professional help.  The NIH and NIMH has several studies and you most definately could be put on protocol.

Just saying.


by giusd 2008-09-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I think shock therapy is probably the only treatment.

by Josh Orton 2008-09-02 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....
Help us Hillary you are our only hope....

PS so sorry about the blatant disrespect and calling you racist.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
The power of Christ compels you! (Splash)
by mtnspirit 2008-09-02 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

This exchange = LOL!  :)

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-02 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

The firing squad needs to stand down and quick. I am warning you now folks feminists are watching and documenting all that is being said. Don't expect them not to just because she's a republican. There will be comparisons made and if we are not careful the Dems could look like real assholes. I can't believe the democratic strategists did not see this coming. It has the stench of Karl Rove all over it and many of you are playing directly into his hands.

I find it highly ironic how Hillary will now have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to Palin and blunting the GOP influence on women in the swing states. The feminists are right on this one. Sad time for democraic women.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-09-02 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Feminists think that women should be coddled and not have their opinions taken seriously?  That's news to me.

Other than a few jerks, the attacks on Palin have been on the issues.

by thezzyzx 2008-09-02 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

They don't agree with her politics but they will respond if she is attacked unfairly as she has been the last few days. It's one thing to attack her on the issues but another to attack her gender and family. Neither mydd or daily kos are representative of the movement. Women are talking about Palin and they are also talking about our primaries. Folks are noticing similarities. I won't take the time to summarize what's being said but the Beauty Queen comments I am seeing pop up everywhere are not helpful nor is some of the rhetoric I am hearing about the daughters choice to keep her child.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-09-02 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

What attacks is she going through that McCain and Obama haven't had to deal with?

by Jordache 2008-09-02 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

No one has gone after either the Obama or the Biden children. Well, there was some stupid talk about one of Obama's girls saying how much she wanted to redecorate the White House or some such, but it died a richly deserved quick death. Still, there's been nothing compared to the coverage on poor Bristol. (And don't tell me it's her mother's fault for running for office. That's like saying if something bad happens to one of Obama's kids it'll be his fault. Not true.)

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-02 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

When Obama took his kids to a photo shoot, there were grumblings about him involving his kids in politics, yes there were.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

That's not holding Barack responsible for his kids' actions and trying to make political hay over it.  Th example I cited -- where the kid said she wanted to redecorate the White House and people said "See, her Dad's so arrogant he's already promised his daughters he's going to be President!" -- is much more relevant.  

Re: The photo shoot: A few -- VERY few -- people objected to the photo shoot on the grounds that it was using his kids for political gain. I don't think it gains Palin anything politically to reveal her teenage daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-03 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

There's nothing to attack with Obama's children.  But there have been attacks on Michelle Obama.

By the way, imagine that one of Barack Obama's teenage children were pregnant.  The election would be over.  That's a luxury only available to white candidates.

by Jess81 2008-09-02 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

You are a racist.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Serious question...

by ragekage 2008-09-03 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

And they're already started attacking Palin's hubby, too (for his old membership in the Secessionist party.)  It won't be long before they attack him more fully -- they just need more info. And while I don't really support attacking spouses, at least they are adults and can stand up for themselves. The kids can't, so I think they should be left alone.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-03 01:43AM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Such as?

The Republicans are playing up all attacks on Palin's family, and inventing them when none exist.  Take her announcement that her daughter was pregnant - it was "due to rumors on the internet, we are announcing that Governor Palin's daughter is pregnant."  Say what?  Like you wouldn't have announced that otherwise?  

No, they just wanted to start up the meme "the poor little girl is being attacked."

The Democratic party and the Obama campaign have been incredibly disciplined.  What more do you expect?  The joke about "the oborg" was just that - a joke.  It seems you may have taken it a little too seriously.

David Axelrod cannot wave his hand and cause every blogger loosely associated with the Democratic party to stand down.

by Jess81 2008-09-02 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Sorry, I have to disagree. I think that Bristol's pregnancy would NOT have been announced until after she was wed if it has not been for that idiotic "Trig is Bristol's kid!" farce posted on Kos and picked up by other sources.

Think of it this way: Wouldn't the Palins rather announce the pregnancy after the girl is safely wed? Makes it much less scandalous that way. Yeah, she still had premarital sex, but at least she's not a single mother.

by SuGeAtARC 2008-09-02 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

It wouldn't have been announced, it would have been picked up by the media after one week in Alaska talking to residents.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

She's pregnant in every photo.  How are they not going to announce it?

I mean, yeah, better to announce it after she's married, or not announce it at all, but they don't have that option.

by Jess81 2008-09-02 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

OK, I am a woman, I am a feminist, but I'm sorry, this should have been announced up front.  And to say that it shouldn't have been announced til she was married??  Hello!  The girl is 17!!  Married at 17??  Are they insane?

She shamelessly plugged the fact that she had a down-syndrome child even when she knew it would be special needs.  If you are going to throw your children into politics in such a obvious way, then expect EVERYTHING to be brought to light.  

Palin can't have it both ways.  She can't use her children to political advantage and then pretend that she's incensed to have to announce her teenage daughters pregnancy.  

I am actually mortified that there ARE people who are saying that you "have to watch out" and that "she's being attacked unfairly".  It's crazy.  If she didn't have such a bad track record, there would be nothing to attack her on!

Enough with the feminist crap.  She should be treated like every other canidate out there.  She should have to answer questions about her associations, her family and yes, her politics.  The longer the Rethugs need to be on the defensive about her, the better!

by Pa Woman 2008-09-02 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

That's just fine as long as we are comparing it TO someone else and not just calling it bad because she's a woman. There have been plenty of personal attacks over the years when candidates have been announced. PLENTY.

Hillary's detraction was very sexist. It was always talked about in terms of being a man-hating bitch. This is because Hillary's qualifications were never in question.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Wait, I take it back. There WERE questions about her experience dealing with foreign governments, but those extended largely to her years as First Lady.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:28PM | 0 recs
Besides the pregnancy issue

What hit on Palin has been unfair?

The polls suggest that those with the most unfavorable opinion of Palin and her qualifications and readiness are women (see Rasmussen).  Obama's lead over McCain among women is at least ten points (10 in the most recent gallup poll, 13 in Rasmussen, 14 in Quinnipiac and CNN).

I agree in principle that whoever is pushing this pregnancy issue needs to stop doing so, though it's tough to blame that on Obama.  Should the Muslim rumors be blamed on McCain?

by Blazers Edge 2008-09-02 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Besides the pregnancy issue

The pregnancy issue is being pushed by the National Enquirer.  Apparently they're set to release a story that's even more salacious than that already floated, and so they may singlehandedly perpetuate the story for awhile (US Weekly also has a brutal issue coming out).  It appears to me that there was going to be a forced disclosure no matter what and that liberal bloggers were blamed for maximum outrage value (to be sure, some were guilty of pushing the smear, but they were not necessary to its coverage).  I'm having a hard time thinking of a story that actually originated within the liberal blogosphere that ultimately was reported by the media.

by rfahey22 2008-09-02 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I disagree.

She doesn't have to do any heavy lifting.

Senator Clinton doesn't have to break a sweat to show that Sarah Palin is not now, nor will probably ever be the skilled politician that she is.

She just needs to campaign on the issues, to remind Democratic and Independent women that the Republic party is NOT on their side, and forget about Palin, how about McCain?

This guy has voted against EVERY equal pay bill in congress, his comment was

"If women want to get paid more, work on their resume."

Evidently, he also thinks choosing qualified woman like Oly Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchison is not as important as a pretty face and an idelogue to satisfy the base.

Simple do as I expect Senator Clinton to do, campaign for the ticket.

No heavy lifting required to show Palin as a Pale Imitation of the real deal.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Palin strongly criticised Clinton for using the gender card during the primary season.   She talked about Clinton being whiney.    Palin seems to have no trouble attacking Democratic women, it is only Republican women that are above attacks.

by gavoter 2008-09-02 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Let's see, I lost my ratings here, not exactly sure why, but I guess it's cause I suggested Barack has some work to do to win over women and show he's not sexist and will pay attention to the issues women care about. Now I get it, it's Hillary that has to get to work.  Speaking out against sexism is wrong of her?  Suggesting Barack run smarter if he wants to win the women is wrong of anyone connected to her?  Interesting, offensive and weird, but interesting.

by anna shane 2008-09-02 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Of course she does.  As do I and mostly everyone in this thread.  It's what a politcal party does.

by Jordache 2008-09-02 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Oh, and as far as you losing your ratings, can you still see hidden comments?  If you can, the admins stripped you.  If you can't, then it's because the community has tr'd you to the point where you're no longer a 'trusted user'.  It wouldn't be over one statement unless the admins downgraded you.

Here, I'll throw you some mojo.  Just not that statement.  Say something worth mojoing and I'll be sure and do it.

by Jordache 2008-09-02 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I can't see hidden comments, but I don't think I'd been tr'd to death. But who knows.  It happened rather suddenly right after I started posting comments after having been gone awhile, so I suspected someone had complained about me. I'm often told to go away and at least two posters regularly post hateful comments.  I rarely tr myself, and when i lost my rating I couldn't go and see if one of my comments was hidden. Since I rarely tr it hardly matters, i just assumed it meant that I'm not welcome here.  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 04:22PM | 0 recs
I don't know why you lost your TR ratings.

Maybe some comments had been TR/HR-ed. Please keep posting here. I'm certain in final analysis you'll find that our party nominee is infinitely better than the Republicans in every issue that we progressives care about.

by louisprandtl 2008-09-02 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know why you lost your TR ratings.

what gives you the idea that I don't already think that?  (this is weird, how is it that so many people who don't know me assume I'm deceptive, I've always been consistent.  

But, thanks you wish that I keep posting.

How come you don't downrate the ones that tr me over nothing?  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know why you lost your TR ratings.

I'm sorry to give you the wrong idea. I don't think you're being deceptive.

I've already uprated several of your comments which seemed to me unfairly tr-ed. I hope you get back your TU status.

by louisprandtl 2008-09-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Not wrong, but if he has his hands tied from attacking Palin because she keeps invoking her name, I'd think she'd feel like she wanted to stop that. He doesn't really NEED Hillary to do it, there's about a dozen Democratic women in government that would be proud to do so. But they're going to be using her name over and over and over again unless she says they have no right to.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

he should tie his own hands, it's not smart to attack Sarah. He may not realize it but Hillary is trying to help him win. I've been trying to help too. Back in the old pre-strike days I regularly suggested that he stop his own sexist references, and tell his blogger supporters to knock it off.  it's widely perceived that his bloggers earn 'points' and so it's also widely perceived that he wants others to attack for him.   It's smart to get positive on his own plans and solutions and give women a chance to decide that he would be a big improvement in our lives.  The sexist stuff hurt him, not in the primary of course, but for the GE. It's not smart now either.

TM is posting awful stuff about Sarah and also commending Barack for saying families are out of bounds.  She seems to have the idea that she's doing for Barack what he can't be seen as doing for himself. So, it ends up on him, if he doesn't tell his supporters they are not speaking for him and that it's not what he wants, then it seems like what he wants.  I wish bloggers were out of bounds too, I'd like less hate directed at me.  

Whatever the 'truth' of his positions might be, it's the perception that matters.  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 04:28PM | 0 recs
Is this diary about you and your ratings?

It doesn't appear to be.  It appears to be about  how McCain surrogates are trying to insulate Palin from legitimate criticism by crying sexism.  If I were Hillary, I'd be mightily offended that they'd equate questions about Palin's credentials with some of the stuff that was thrown at Hillary.

Now, do you have anything to say about that issue or did you just want to vent about your ratings and repeat your off-topic mantra yet again?

by JJE 2008-09-02 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this diary about you and your ratings?

But it is sexist.  When you blog about her duties as a mother taking precedence over her ability to work, that's sexist. when you expect her to be 'in charge' of her daughter's personal choices, that's sexist too.  When you say she was picked only because she's a woman, that's sexist. when her dearth of experience is considered more of a liability than that dearth in male candidates, that's sexist. when you talk about her appearance, or her legs or her bathing suits, or that she likes shooting, as if these things are problems, it's sexist.  

Maybe the problem is that sexism is so ingrained it's unseen.

One thing do to is, every time you have a thought about her, substitute a man you admire and think, would this be said about him?   Or, if it were would it be a compliment for him while it's a smear about her?  

Barack's first sexist charge against Hillary related to her marriage, he joked about her 'experience' married to Bill and wondered how that qualified her to run for office. He pledged that his own wife would not be consulted on anything were he elected president. That was sexist.  I'm sure he'll have unelected advisors, being married to him should not disqualify Michelle.

There are studies that show marital partners have similar IQ's. If she's not qualified to weigh in on something that's one thing, but if she is, why should the fact of being married to him make her less qualified.    

by anna shane 2008-09-02 04:36PM | 0 recs
But of course

this diary is not about any of the things in your first paragraph.  It's about trying to label all criticisms of Palin's experience as sexist.

And of course even though your attack on Obama has no relevance whatsoever to any of this, you nevertheless are compelled to dishonestly  misrepresenting what he said.  

by JJE 2008-09-02 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: But of course

then correct me?  it's the way it's phrased, don't you want to know?  Of course I think Sarah has little experience, and she's not ready to take over should McCain croak.  But I don't think John's experience is any help at all, not with his ideas.

His other choices also had little experience, and they weren't spoken of that way. so, if you want to avoid sounding sexist, you have to say this isn't just for her, that many have little experience. Our candidate hasn't a great deal himself, and bringing up the vp choice on the experience question makes it seem like he has talents that she doesn't.  It's just dumb, no one who wants to vote for McCain will care, and no one who wants to vote for Barack will care either.  It's not about talents, it's about ideas.

I don't attack Barack.  I don't opinion anything about him that he can't help. he can help making himself look like a hypocrite by not using experience  as a reason to be against her. It's her ideas that matter. He says experience isn't as important as the right experience. You can say she has the wrong experience, and that would be fair, but mostly you have to say she has the wrong ideas.  

You downrate because you attribute motives to me that I don't have?  You could just disagree, and say why you think it isn't sexist and we could discuss it.  But ...????

by anna shane 2008-09-02 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Maybe they got wise and stripped anyone who brings Alegre's trash here.

by LtWorf 2008-09-02 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

here is an example, this is close to hate speech. Algere is a married woman and has a handicapped child who benefits from Hillary's early intervention program. She and I left kos because we could not blog anything positive about Hillary without being deluged with ugly smears against her and ourselves for supporting her.  Algere is not promoting McCain and yet she's been called a Republican troll and many made up ugly things are still said about her.  And by association I'm regularly told ugly things right here. I'm accused of blogging at hate sites (irony not being dead after all) in hate language.  

Are you getting Barack points for blogging hate?  Does this not implicate Barack if he doesn't tell you that it's wrong and unhelpful to him. He's trying to be non-sexist now, give the guy a break.  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Barack Points

Not terribly original Anna.

I've peeked in on Alegre's Corner.  I needed a shower afterwards for all of the idiots who hailed the nomination of Sarah Palin.

You and I have tangled before, primarily because you do nothing but spout disingenous garbage about Obama.

I know that some out there believe him to be the anti-Christ, but they are usually evangelical Christians backing Republicans, so please don't get righteously indignant when someone calls you on your B.S.

Were you as bad as Alegre during the primary wars?  No, but you sure as hell didn't help intelligent discourse.

by LtWorf 2008-09-02 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hate speech?

Now you've crossed the line into effin' self parody.

You've also whipped out the victimized woman card and the handicapped child card and then you say ''He's trying to be non-sexist now.''

You hypocrite. You want to point the finger at sexism and replay the primary wars over again?  Do so in your head.

And don't you dare talk to me about hate speech again.  I grew up in a segregated city being chased out of ethnic neighborhoods being called ''nigger'' and ''moulie'' don't you dare try that don't fly.

by LtWorf 2008-09-02 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hate speech?

wow, you really hate me? Disingenuous?  Why not sincere? I'm very consistent.  I'm sure you don't want to be responsible for every comment here, nor is she responsible for every comment at her blog.  It isn't a group think site, we don't all agree with each other a hundred percent, but there is much good advice for Barack there.  Barack has earned some criticism , and he can do a lot to remove the cause.  

but, the point thing isn't true?  If I'm not sure of something, I say I'm not sure, and that gives someone room to correct the record.  U can even be corrected when I am sure, I can be wrong.  It's an opportunity to communicate, doesn't need to be  something to be nasty about.  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court
Um, women support Barack Obama in larger numbers than they do McCain.
As for paying attention to women's issues, why don't you pay attention to what he's said and done over the last 11 years as a state and US Senator. Then compare them to McCain's positions and see if you can figure it out yourself.
No one is paying attention to you PUMAs anymore for a reason. You've become irrelevant.
by skohayes 2008-09-02 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

here is another example, I'm supposed to assume that Barack cares about women's issues based on researching him. That's nice, but it's up to him to educate the voters on what he stands for.

And another one, the assumption that since I don't think Barack is doing a good enough job now in winning the women who got turned off to him during the primary, I must be supporting McCain. Not only isn't it true, it's sexist. This poster think he knows me better than I know myself and is qualified to lecture me.

He or she tells me I'm a PUMA (I'm on record that I'll vote for our candidate, I've voted for men I didn't like much before, I'm used to it) and that I'm irrelevant.

What am I supposed to take away from that?  

by anna shane 2008-09-02 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court
Yes, it is up to him to educate the voters  on his issues- that's why he has a web site that lays out his plans and his dreams for America, what issues he supports and those he opposes.
You can also go to other web sites to look at his voting record, other web sites to see what other legislators think of him, other websites to find out who's donating to him etc., etc.
As for the sexism charge, since I didn't accuse you of supporting McCain, I wonder if you're using the sexism charge like the Republicans do- to reflect legitimate criticisms?
Words mean things, anna, sexism is a real threat to women trying to get ahead in a man's world, and you and your PUMA friends have cheapened it to the point that the republicans are now imitating you.
Aren't you proud?
by skohayes 2008-09-03 02:55AM | 0 recs
Fiorina has experience blaming sexism

Because she did it when she ran HP into the ground and then blamed "sexism" when the board finally canned her incompetent ass. She's using the same playbook this time and it won't work. It didn't save her back then either.

by HisRoyalHighness 2008-09-02 02:36PM | 0 recs
Svengali, the feminist....

As I've pointed out in previous comments, I believe that the McCain advisors-and Karl Rove in particular-intentionally picked a candidate with no experience and no obvious gift to the ticket so that they can label every lack of experience arguement as a sexist attack.  Every surrogate seems to have received that talking point.  While they were initially uncertain of how to defend her "record", they now appear confident in labelling every skeptic with the sexist moniker (including staunch Hillary supporters like Carville).

So it appears that while they didn't bother to properly vet her, they certainly had a strategy in mind for her.  And even though they've yet to create an ironic name for their pioneer brand of feminism (the kind where you do absolutely nothing for women's issues), they are certainly making a risky attempt at co-opting feminism--possibly even with an agenda to move some of those voters for good.

I would prefer that this didn't happen and I'm offended that it did--but it will make for an interesting rendition of "Trilby".  Forget the fact that Palin will make a much more compliant Trilby, just imagine how perfectly McCain would fit that role:

"(He)would either fawn or bully, and could be grossly impertinent. He had a kind of cynical humor, which was more offensive than amusing, and always laughed at the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. And his laughter was always derisive and full of malice."

by Tenafly Viper 2008-09-02 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Svengali, the feminist....

Kind of like how Bill Clinton's statements were called racist when they clearly were not.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Svengali, the feminist....

You can fight your outdated battles on somebody else's comment; I have bigger fish to fry.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-09-02 02:50PM | 0 recs
Take a leaf out of McCain's book
Obama should come out and say that
``McCain has played the gender card and played it out of the bottom of the deck''
by ann0nymous 2008-09-02 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I don't think Palin is aimed directly at Hillary democrats. No, its aimed at Hillary independents who do not feel so strongly about abortion and what not.  Those women make up a good percentage of the electorate.

by dMarx 2008-09-02 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

"Those women make up a good percentage of the electorate."

You hope.

She was picked for the hard right evangelical base, cause Oly Snow and Kay Bailey didn't pass the ideoligical purity test.

If McCain wanted to appeal to Senator Clinton independents, he would have picked someone like those two, instead of this underqualifed woman.

If women were Clinton Independents, even if they don't care about choice (they do, you're just wrong and making up shit about that) then how about any other of Hillary's issues?

Care to think they like Palin's ideas on Health Care?  

Nope, IF they were Senator Clinton independents, they are closer to Obama's policies then Palins.

Unless, you think Dmarx, those Clinton independents will vote based just on gender?

Isn't that insulting them a bit?

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Otherwise called Reagan Democrats.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-02 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Yup, and those folks would prefer Sarah Palin to Joe Biden?

Not so fast, grasshopper....

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I hope not.  But you tell me how Sarah Palin is not Ronald Reagan Republican.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-09-02 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court
Frankly, it's laughable for the Republican party to start to cry about sexism, when it's one of the main legs of their platform and has been for years and years.
I don't think McCain has attracted many independents, though this pick will solidify the evangelicals behind him (talk about lukewarm).
But this has disgusted a lot of non-evangelicals, as they see blatant pandering and a young unknown that brings nothing to the ticket to shore up McCain's weaknesses.
by skohayes 2008-09-02 03:00PM | 0 recs
not so simple

Sarah Palin is apparently a woman, and she is the Republican nominee for VP, so her nomination does in fact honor the achievements of Ferraro and Clinton as women. And I am quite certain that Hillary Clinton will also not tolerate sexist treatment of Governor Palin. So far the sexism is confined to the media and the blogs, Obama has warned against attacks on Palin's family and has avoided explicitly sexist attacks.

The problem with Hillary Clinton defending the Obama campaign's attempts to belittle Palin's experience is that she was accused of using race when she belittled his experience. The Obama campaign put forward the notion that questioning a candidate's experience was de facto evidence of bias, neutralizing Hillary Clinton's ability defend an experience attack.

by souvarine 2008-09-02 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: not so simple

Well, if she doesn't do it, Napolitano and Sebelius will, I'm sure. I suppose if she still feels slighted, she wouldn't want to.

by vcalzone 2008-09-02 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: not so simple

It's not a question of feeling slighted, it's being stuck with the story Obama made up about her.

I'm sure she will attack Palin creatively and as appropriate, and she will defend Obama. But there are some points on which she is not in a position to credibly defend Obama's campaign.

by souvarine 2008-09-02 03:27PM | 0 recs
avoided "explicitly" sexist attacks?

oh good grief. You are accusing Obama of being implicitly sexist? A reference would make that go down easier.

by Neef 2008-09-02 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: avoided "explicitly" sexist attacks?

Sexism is deeply embedded in our culture, as is racism, it is hard to avoid unconsciously using implicit sexism. People on the Obama campaign will make mistakes, as Joe Biden did when he made the crack that the gigantic difference between him and Palin is "She's good-looking."

by souvarine 2008-09-02 04:21PM | 0 recs
Ah, I see

although I would like to think that's "inadvertent" sexism, as opposed to implied sexism.

But I get your point.

by Neef 2008-09-02 04:59PM | 0 recs
Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton

Quayle: Three times that I've had this question -- and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is, "What kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president," "What kind of qualifications do I have," and "What would I do in this kind of a situation?" And what would I do in this situation? [...] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.

Judy Woodruff: Senator [Bentsen]?

Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause.) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the --

by sepulvedaj3 2008-09-02 03:12PM | 0 recs
I'm curious when/what Hillary will

speak out.  At the very least, Palin is cheapening the Hillary brand name by branding herself as the Hillary Clinton of the right.  If Hillary doesn't speak out forcefully to distinguish herself from this, then Hillary's own brandname will suffer.

This is like Shasta Cola calling itself the Coke of the 21st century.  Coca Cola attorneys would go berserk.

by Dumbo 2008-09-02 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm curious when/what Hillary will

Its diaries like this that cheapen the Hillary brand.

Hillary must do this.

Hillary must do that.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm curious when/what Hillary will

Dtaylor, Why do you think Senator Clinton's reputation is so weak, some crazy folks on a blog can affect her reputation?

Funny, you run around like she needs defending 24/7/365 days a year.

I don't think she is that defenseless or vunerable actually.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-02 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm curious when/what Hillary will

There is a Cabal who revel in slanting everything to undermine Hillary.

Hillary must this, Hillary must that.

Oh can't poor Hillary stand up for herself?

I wouldn't let you talk about my mother like that.  And thats no disrespect to my mothers reputation or strength...

So run along and badmouth someone else...

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 07:01PM | 0 recs
smells like...

Smells like Karl Rove's dirty tricks, planting nasty fliers in the opposing campaign's garbage, planting fake memos to distract us from the true content, etc.

Big-money media love the back & forth controversy, so once it's out there, it gets big pretty quickly.

What's the most effective way not to get ratf&^$ed?

- Tight discipline on the message, so that there are no "loose cannons" who can in any way be linked to the campaign.

Ironically, part of Obama's success in the primaries was due to the under-the-radar attacks on Clinton:  he could keep the high road for all official public statements while the more vicious dirty laundry on his opponent would get circulated anyway.  

As much as I got tired of everyone on our own side believing that Obama wasn't doing any negative campaigning, that strategy made perfect sense against Clinton.    

This latest GOP dirty trick is attacking that strength, Obama's superiority in decentralized "2.0"-style campaigning.  

Fortunately, Obama is also strong on message discipline, so these nonsensical attempts to link him and his campaign to "nasty Internet rumors" are not working, because nobody believes them.  

However, everyone who enjoyed the free-fire on Clinton may want to dial it back on Palin or the GOP will make a federal case out of it.  Don't give them ammo.  

It's all about McCain's dangerous temperament, his impaired judgment, his imminent (?) senility, his impulsivity, etc. etc. etc.  The less we say about his running mate, the better--she'll sink like a stone unless we let them change the subject to the meanies attacking her on the shady back tubes of the Internet.

by chiefscribe 2008-09-02 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: smells like...

I believe them.

Team Obama live to throw mud.

And the problem is because I believe them and everyone who knows me knows I am a democrat it hurts him.

Now my effect is small but then I am not the only one who believe them.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Couple of comments:

1.  Questioning Gov. Palin's motive's to run for VP when she has a ill child is not sexist.  It is about concerned parenting.  IF her husband were a stay-at-home dad (which I did for my sick infant son...who is thankfully well now) then this would not be discussed as THEN it woudl be sexist.  Last I heard, he is employed and the child who does need a lot of PARENT attention is not getting as much.  Or being dragged around with mom/dad which I also have a problem with as a concern of GOOD parenting.  Either way, it is career over family.  Not sexism.

As for what to do with this...oh jeeze, this is so easy.  Let them self-destruct.  This is not a over-confidence comment, this is strictly a look-at-the-mess-they-are-making comment.  Rep. Bachmann (from my state to my eternal she is a whako) is defending her...believe me, that is not a GOOD thing for Gov. Palin.  But they believe it is.  Let them keep Bachmann talking and watch as the voters bleed away.  And Palin making those Pray to God comments, especially on the Iraq war...???  WTF???  Are they TRYING to loose?

And why is the Nat. Enquirer and the other rags going after Palin?  Because it is Conservatives who LOVE to gossip behind peoples backs...I know Liberals who like to hang the opposition by their petard, often in a game of I-told-you-so, but the conservative right absolutely LOVE to gossip about inpropriety.  I just don't see how this can end up being a win for McCain among those who are not already going to vote for him.  (I mean, if there are THAT many uber-conservatives who can be pulled in and can swing the election, we are all pretty much hosed as a country anyhow...)

by Hammer1001 2008-09-02 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Its pretty sexist when you are trying to make career decisions for Women based on their child or childless status.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court


Did I miss something?  I believe my point was that BOTH parents need to be scrutinized for how they are dealing with the care of their youngest child.  That means looking at the career choices of BOTH parents, including one Gov. who wants to be VP while Dad is also working.  I never said SHE needed to immediately quit, but I do think it shows poor judgement on her part considering.  Unless you suggest that the child should in fact be raised by someone other than his very busy a nanny?

IF that is sexist, then there is no hope.  I think you just see everything through the sexist lens and that there is no way to convince you otherwise.

by Hammer1001 2008-09-02 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

Did you question Edwards running with 2 kids and a wife with cancer?

Peoples family decisions aren't my business or yours.

Women AND men have the right to make their own personal decisions at home and be judged at work independent of their home life.

Your position if not sexist boils down to no one with a special needs child should be president or anyone with a special needs child should have a parent stay home with them (wonder which one that would be...).

A reasonable extension is that only single working parent families can be president.

Kind of like the 1950s when only single working parent families were GOOD parents.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-02 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Ball In Hillary's Court

I guess I should be smarter about this.  Go troll someone else, I have to many other things to do.

by Hammer1001 2008-09-02 08:13PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads