MyDD :: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke?

If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke?

by rhetoricus, Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST

(also at the G.O.S.)

Clinton just had an decisive 9-point win in PA after a gruesome six weeks. She's re-invigorated, and her followers are electrified. 10 million dollars streamed in from 500K new sources overnight, and the campaign is "fired up."

Unfortunately, Hillary's debts were up to 15.3 million dollars three weeks ago (counting the 5 million she loaned her campaign), and this latest influx of money has not been near enough to pull her out of the red.

If Hillary is indeed a viable candidate, how can her campaign still be in so much financial distress?

Poor money management is certainly one answer, and an important consideration, given that she wants to be at the helm of our economy.

But another factor points to a disturbing aspect of Clinton's candidacy, and one that hasn't been discussed nearly enough.

Clinton's core of support is extremely soft.

Now, there's no doubt that Clinton's most ardent admirers are just that. Innumerable women have waited a long lifetime for the opportunity to elect a female president. Policy Blue Dogs, "free trade"-ers, DLC Dems, hawkish defenders of Israel, health care issue voters, and people who just plain loved the Clinton presidency are rock solid for Hillary. That's exemplified noplace more strongly than here on this blog.

But there just aren't enough of such folks. How else could Clinton's loyal have allowed their candidate not only to go utterly broke, but to rack up embarrassing debts that have painfully stiffed a good number of the working folks and small business owners that Hillary purports to champion?

Money is a strong measure of general enthusiasm for a candidate, especially when it comes in small donations from a large number of donors.

Caucuses are also a measure of widespread passion, of the intensity of support for a candidate. It is no accident that Hillary finds herself trounced in them.

Pollsters like to blame Obama for the fact that 26% of Hillary voters say they'll defect to McCain or stay home if she's not the nominee. Pundits and Clinton-activists argue that Obama is not reaching people, that folks don't trust him, that Democrats on the whole are leery of committing to him.

"Operation Chaos" voters aside (and we have no way to measure how profoundly they've falsely inflated the Clinton vote), there are certainly Clinton zealots who would take out their disappointment on Obama, were he to become the nominee. But that isn't the bulk of the "defectors." The fact is, the majority of the "26%" are folks who may be fed up with W because times are hard, but they also have no basic loyalty to the Democratic party or to its greater platform. Many may be registered Democrats (or not), but they bring no particular devotion to progressive issues. Some are outright hostile to core principles within the Democratic party.

That's why they don't send Hillary money.

That's why, when interviewed out of polite company, their vote is usually against Obama for cultural reasons, rather than for Hillary on matters of leadership or policy. It's why so many of the Pennsylvania folks who voted for Hillary also indicated to exit pollsters that they don't particularly trust or like her. With the GOP candidate decided, the "Reagan Democrat" vote was not so much a vote of enthusiam for Hillary but a gesture of default.

George W. Bush has taught us, if nothing else, that capturing the "center's" capricious swing voters becomes less critical if the party base is thoroughly energized, and if high numbers of new voters are drawn from the party's natural wing. (And somehow, swing voters seem to find their way anyway to a charismatic candidate who refuses to pander and compromise.)

Not since Kennedy has the Democratic party seen as much energy and enthusiasm for a candidate, nor a candidate more able to draw crowds, money and new voters (including Republicans and Independents), as they have in Obama.

Ignoring this momentum, and staking our aim for the presidency instead on Hillary's "Reagan Democrats" is extremely dangerous, because they are fickle, and may just as likely be seduced by a "moderate," "maverick" McCain in November ANYWAY.

Tags: election, finance, Clinton, broke, debt, Reagan Democrat (all tags)

Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment

..and when you do pay your debts, Hillary (2.00 / 1)

..please pass over Mark Penn.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST

She is fiscally inept n/t (2.00 / 1)

by parahammer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST

If being broke were an issue, why is McCain the (2.00 / 1)

nominee instead of Romney or Rudy?

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM EST

Re: If being broke were an issue, why is McCain th (2.00 / 1)

They didn't raise their money from small donors.

By your measure, Clinton isn't broke either--she has 109 million dollars.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is obedient. (2.00 / 1)

I believe John McCain's willingness to bend his ideals to the will of his party is the reason he got the nod. He is a broken man, and will be broken further in November.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why is McCain the nominee? (2.00 / 1)

Because Huckabee torpedoed Romney, and Giuliani ran an inept campaign based on too few states (gee, that rings a bell....)

That's a different party.

by BlueinColorado on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or because money isn't the biggest issue. nt (none / 0)

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell that to the people (none / 0)

Tell that to the folks who don't have any, because Clinton sent their jobs to China.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ba dump bump nt (none / 0)

My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?

by PJ Jefferson on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

Why can't we just accept the fact that Obama supporters will support him because they think he'd be the best president, and Clinton supporters support her because they think she'd be the best president? Do we really have to trash each other's supporters? There's absolutely no point in this.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:03:31 PM EST

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

I hardly "trashed" her supporters.

I pointed out the difference between her true enthusiasts (like people on this blog) who will send her money, and people who are so lukewarm and close to the middle that they won't send money and might well vote McCain anyway.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

But you can't really argue that these people are 'soft' supporters who would vote for McCain anyway. The same can be said of many of Obama's supporters. They both have people who may or may not vote for them in the general.

I could actually make the reverse argument -- it is because Clinton has such passionate supporters -- and a smaller base, as you argue -- that we know her supporters are more likely to stick with her.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:12:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

That would only be true if my argument were arbitrary, and it's not. Hillary's entire "electability" argument is that Obama can't capture enough "Reagan Democrats."

My argument is, she may very well might not capture them either, because they are so close to the center, and cross over easily.

Obama's core of support is among younger voters, new voters (who are signing up for the opportunity to vote Obama), and black voters, many of whom have historically been too cynical to vote. This is a far more loyal voting population.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:18:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 2)

Fair enough.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

She is viable because she is broke.

That's how America works, don't you know?

by Fairy Tale on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST

One thing is clear (2.00 / 1)

Many of you are not in a financial profession or have never been responsible for managing a business. A leveraged balance sheet is no issue when fundamentals are sound - in this case, we can be reasonably sure that Hillary is not going to bankrupt her own campaign by sueing to get the $5 million back, for example.

What matters is cash-flow.

What's remarkable is being outspent 3-to-1, having the media stacked against you, and being swarmed by this sea of hatred and anger that emminates from Obama, but still trouncing your opponent in a victory so solid that you go on to raise more money in a 24-hour period than either candidate has ever done.

Hillary will continue to suffer a financial disadvantage because special interest dollars are going to go to the front-runner, clearly. Barack Obama has received over 60% of his funds from special interests, in the form of bundlers, state lobbyists, former lobbyists, Big Oil executives, Big Pharma executives, and in some cases when media scrutiny was applies, their spouses instead.

Right now Hillary is funded almost purely by folks like me - young, college educated, making over 50k a year - you know, "Generation Obama".

by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST

Re: One thing is clear (2.00 / 1)

What a fine raft of excuses.

Hillary has taken more special interest and lobbyist money in this campaign than any other candidate, including Big Oil, Big Pharma, and foreign interests.

Obama has more grassroots and small-donor support than any other candidate

Please prove this 3-to-1 nonsense. Including March, Obama spent about 7 million more than Clinton. It's not even 2-to-1.

Please prove media bias, especially given the fact that since Obama became the frontrunner, the entire GOP media machine has been shilling for Hillary. On the networks, she has Stephanopoulous, Gibson, Buchanan, Scarborough.. seriously, prove this "media bias" canard.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing is clear (2.00 / 0)

Putting on a blindfold or responding with unrelated platitudes does not make your case.

by bobbank on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing is clear (2.00 / 1)

Yes, keep repeating that to yourself until you get it.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Leveraged balance sheet? (2.00 / 1)

What do you think Hillary's current ratio is about now? If she has $10,000,000 of current liabilities then her cash flow is going to suck like you read about for a good long while.

If you want to lecture us about how to read a balance sheet them maybe you should learn a bit more about it first.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a fan of hillary (2.00 / 2)

But it comes down to poor strategy. They thought it would be a one month primary and therefore never created the donor base. Too late to start on 2/5. I dont think its really a lack of energy. If HIllary had played it smart and sought the small dollar donations early (rather than touting her $4600 donees), i think her fundraising would've been much stronger. Not to mention the poor lack of financial controls.

by highgrade on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:17:57 PM EST

Re: Not a fan of hillary (2.00 / 1)

Poor strategy is part of it, but small donors should have come through for her. She doesn't need to "seek" them, they can easily seek her.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 0)

I guess I am generation Obama too.. except for my age (almost 40) College education, making more than $50k, don't drink lattes though..

I don't see how fundraising = more competant nominee for the fall. It's like saying why can't Obama win since he is raising more money?

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

"I don't see how fundraising = more competant nominee for the fall."

This is partly about money management, which speaks directly to competence. Hillary had massive amounts of money, and squandered it.

It's also not about "fundraising" in the old sense (Clinton actually brought in far more special interest money). Small donors either send money or they don't. All the candidate has to do is put up a website and advertise a phone number.

Small donors are a measure of viability--of voters who are committed to voting for Hillary in the fall. When small donors won't invest in a candidate, it's a gesture of weak support.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

I just think fundraising prowess is a good indicator either way. If I recall correctly George Bush raised a lot of money and look what he has done fiscally since becoming President.

I admit that I am really glad she dumped Mark Penn though.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

"W" did not raise his money from small individual donations. He raised his money from fat cats and Wall Street, Abramoff and shell company scams.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

You really should, lattes are awesome. Espresso in general is pretty amazing.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

Funny...I live in the coffee capital (Seattle) and I can't stand the taste of coffee. LOL Going to Starbucks is the activity of choice for everyone here. I always stick out like a sore thumb.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

I'm not a huge fan of "coffee to look cool," but at this point I'm pretty much addicted to coffee. I like just about all kinds. I'm a Dunkin Donuts drinker here (in PA) because I lived in MA for 10 years. Actually, there are a bunch of nice independent coffee places here because it's Penn State and there is a captive consumer base.

by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

Why is Clinton's fundraising lacking?

According to some responses I've seen on this board, her supporters cannot afford to send in money (or attend caucuses and rallies once every four years) because:

1. They are hard-working, single mothers with three jobs, six kids, and they just put their last 8 quarters into the dryer at the all-night laundromat after pulling a double shift waitressing at Denny's.

2. They are hard-working white ethnic, lunchbucket blue-collar men that just finished a fourteen hour day at the coal mine and spent their last five dollars gassing up their rusty pickup trucks.

3. They were hard-working white people who are now retired and just spent their last five minutes deciding whether to refill their cardiac medicine or buy a can of Alpo to make stew for supper in their dilapidated mobile home.

Please feel free to insert the phrases "salt of the earth", "roll up your sleeves", "REALLY hard working", or the word "heartland" anywhere in the above descriptions.

Now, do I really believe that either candidate is going to do much for us turd miners, dirt farmers, or McDonald's waitresses? It would require a restructuring of the economy that neither candidate would have the audacity to propose. We might get a few band-aids, but I ain't hoping for much more.

What burns me is that Obama's supporters have been branded as those creative class, Prius-driving, latte sippers while the Clinton supporters that are peddling and pandering with their cries of "hard-working" type of examples I gave are also members of this demographic.

Me? I ain't mad at nobody. The tent is plenty big for everyone. Just stop the pandering. It is far more insulting than those misunderstood "bitter" comments.

by emptythreatsfarm on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM EST

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

People who love their candidate can send $5.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:If Obama is Viable (none / 0)

The Nominee of both parties will have More than Enough money for the GE.

The BIG QUESTION is, If Obama is a viable candidate, why is he Losing Every Single Ethic Group, every single religious group EXCEPT for Black people???

That's a TEN TIMES Bigger question than Money !

Next time, before you ask these type of questions, THINK FIRST !

by latinfighter on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST

Re:If Obama is Viable (2.00 / 1)

Hmm.. I guess voters under 45 and new voters have no ethnicity whatsoever.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I'm guessing that Hillary has raised the second highest amount ever for use in a party nominating campaign in the U.S. Her fundraising totals have been immense.

Obama has outperformed her in that area, and he should be congratulated, but being able to raise the most money isn't the only metric of a successful candidate. After all, the Republicans usually raise more money than the Democrats, but we still support the Democrats.

Obama has done a fantastic job on fundraising, and the lessons learned from his efforts will be studied a long time. However, Hillary has done an outstanding job on fundaising as well. I'm sure, for example, she has probably raised more than all the Republican and Democratic candidates for this race put together, besides Obama.

by markjay on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:49:11 PM EST

Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (2.00 / 1)

... but she has squandered it. As with every other significant resource she started this race with, Hillary has wasted her money so badly that she trails by every meaningful measurement standard in this primary campaign behind a skinny black one-term Senator with a Muslim-sounding name.

Obama has halved (at least) the gap on huge Hillary leads in the polling in every state where he has competed with her, and she hasn't managed to do that even once -- the best she has been able to manage is to hold on to enough of the lead she started with to win barely enough states to remain almost competitive with the skinny black guy with the funny-sounding name.

As with her mismanagement of the 1993 health-care plan proposal, she has mismanaged her primary campaign nearly into the ground.

Why should anyone not expect that she'd similarly mismanage her general election campaign?

And even if she manages to win the Presidency, why should anyone not expect that she'll mismanage that office as well?

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

She seems to have done pretty well with her personal finances. That is a better indication (to me) of how she views finances.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

I don't think you can draw any broad conclusions about Clinton's views on financial matters by the financial status of her campaign. She is doing what she has to do to stay in the race. She can't pay all her bills and continue to campaign, so she chose to keep campaigning.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

Plus she isn't involved in the day to day finances any more than Obama is with his.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

Hillary is responsible for the financial decisions her campaign has made, including hiring an expensive hack like Mark Penn.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

I agree that Mark Penn was a mistake.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her fundraising is a minor point in my comment. (none / 0)

The major point is how she has squandered her many resources, mismanaging their use, so that she is just barely hanging on against an incredibly unlikely opponent, someone her campaign repeatedly tells super delegates is a much weaker candidate than she is.

She can't have it both ways: either Obama is a much stronger candidate than she is, or she has managed her campaign against him incompetently.

Ignorance is weakness. Get strong.

by tbetz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

It's not about how she "views" her own finances, but how she manages other peoples' money, and how much investment from individuals she as a candidate can attract.

If a leader were to be judged by their personal riches, W would have done much better by us, don't you think?

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has done amazing fundraising... (none / 0)

There is nothing short of a personality transplant that could have made Bush do better by us. I grew up in Texas and have always known that Bush was bad ju ju.

by JustJennifer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 0)

If McCain is viable, why WAS he broke?

It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

by Gabriele Droz on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

McCain isn't viable. :)

And once he started winning big, the spigots turned on for him--he didn't stay broke.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 0)

Since when are campagin contributions the only measure of a candidate's viablity? We're not voting for Fundraiser-in-Chief, we're voting for Commander-in-Chief.

Besides, if she needs to, she has plenty of her own money she can use to keep her campaign going until she can utilize her GE funds.

by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

Did you even read this diary?

Small donations are not about "fund-raising" in the traditional sense, because the candidate merely has to post a website and a phone number. The small donors go to the candidate.

If we were gauging "fundraising" in the traditional sense of taking money from lobbyists and special interests, Hillary has Obama soundly beat.

Small donations, however, are a measure of individual investment in a candidate. If every candidate who voted for Hillary sent her even 5 bucks, she'd be out of the red. My point is, she's not worth even that to most of them.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

So you've just repeated your diary. You think Obama's the best because of his fundraising ability. I don't think that's the measure of a good president.

Clinton has plenty of small donors. But her donors tend to be from lower income groups than Obama's. Many of her supporters don't spend their time on the internet, or even own a computer, or even have a credit card that they can put a donation on.

You're welcome to think it's all about money. But the problem with that strategy is that the GOP usually wins that battle (but probably not this year).

by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

"You're welcome to think it's all about money."

I never argued this.

I repeated my diary because apparently you STILL didn't read it. It's not the "money" per se (Hillary's a much better special-interest and lobbyist fundraiser), it's the SMALL DONORS.

Clinton does NOT have plenty of small donors--that's her problem. If half people who voted for her sent her even 5 dollars, she'd be fine. (I presume her voters at least have telephones, and could call their local Hillary campaign and snailmail them a fiver.)

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (none / 0)

Okay. You're welcome to think it's all about small donors, but I still don't think that's the measure of a President. Is that better? Cause my point is still the same (I got your point the first time).

by LakersFan on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Elitists like Obama, Common folk like Hill (none / 0)

Elitists have more disposable cash, more free time.

These diaries are great for Hillary, by the way. Candidate of the people!

by catfish1 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST

(Slapping knees, wiping eyes) (none / 0)

If every person who voted for Hillary cared enough to send her even 5 bucks, she'd be out of the red. But most of them don't care about her. Hence my point.

And by the way? Your "candidate of the people" took more special interest lobbyist money, including money from Big Oil, Big Pharma, and foreign interests, than any other Dem candidate.

by rhetoricus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Hillary's Viable, Why Is She Broke? (2.00 / 1)

If Hillary let costs spiral out of control for her staff leading to this bankrupt state, what makes you think she will control costs in government?

by Pravin on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:28:37 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.