Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The mask is finally off among Democrats, but does it matter?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Wall Street Journal begins an article with:
One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do."
Those of us who have watched the Clintons, and yes, I mean both of them, have long understood that to be the defining "principle" of their political existence. They will do whatever it takes to gain and maintain the position and power they seek. Bob Dole was totally unprepared for that fact.

And, Barack Obama may have problems with it too.

But the beauty of the situation is the same amoral ruthlessness that the Clintons have unleashed on Republican candidates in the past is now being unleashed on a popular and attractive Democratic candidate. And suddenly the scales are falling from the eyes of those on the left who refused to acknowledge the truth about the Clintons.
The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?"
Where's the outrage? Perhaps it is building. Hillary Clinton was booed twice in the SC debate, the only candidate to get such treatment. From Democrats. The race card has been played by Clinton and may morph into a permanent split among African-Americans. The gender card has been played by Clinton, yielding early positive returns, but is ripe for a backlash. And, of course, the standard distortion of the opponents record played by the Clintons is certainly nothing new. To say the Clintons are divisive is to badly understate their approach.

But given all of that, the most encouraging and revealing thing, for Democrats and Republicans, is the fact that all of that is being used internally against one of their own. And the neon sign that has to be flashing in every Democrat's head - who isn't already fanatically committed to the Clintons - is "do we want at least another 4 years of this?!"

My hope is, the eventual answer will be no.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Does anyone else find it just a little bit ironic to find a drumbeater for the Bush administration complaining of others resorting to dirty politics? Four words: Karl Rove. Swift Boat.
 
Written By: True Conservative
URL: http://trueconservative.typepad.com
Does anyone else find it just a little bit ironic to find a drumbeater for the Bush administration complaining of others resorting to dirty politics?
Complaining? See I didn’t get that from the article at all. I see it as an observation of what has been and continues to be the MO of the Clintons and that it is now revealing itself to the Democrats in a way they can no longer ignore, i.e. attacks on one of their own. That, in my book, is real irony.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Does anyone else find it just a little bit ironic to find a drumbeater for the Bush administration complaining of others resorting to dirty politics? Four words: Karl Rove. Swift Boat.
And what did karl Rove do?

And "Swift Boating" that is now the term used when one tells the TRUTH about Democrats, right?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The cynic in me says the whole Obama/Clintons feud is all a ruse to set up a Clinton-Obama "unification" ticket. They’ll claim they’re healing the party by joining on the ticket.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
The cynic in me says the whole Obama/Clintons feud is all a ruse to set up a Clinton-Obama "unification" ticket. They’ll claim they’re healing the party by joining on the ticket.
I don’t think so...unless you were joking...it’s hard for me to tell sometimes. I doubt that two sizable egos running for POTUS really are going to just join hands and sing Kumbaya.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
And suddenly the scales are falling from the eyes of those on the left who refused to acknowledge the truth about the Clintons.

As a long time Democrat I can tell you that had the Republicans not gone so far off the deep end when Bill Clinton was president there would have been many of us critical of some of the things he did. But when it turns into an all-out brawl and there is no middle ground, you have to pick sides and Democrats picked the Democratic side.

That said, I think you have a good point. I think "The Clintons" have made a mistake by attacking a rising star in the Democratic party so vociferously and, I think, unfairly. I also think they would have done the same to Edwards, Biden or Dodd.

I think it will hurt them with quite a few Democrats and almost all independents, who seemed to be leaning toward the Democrats this time. Personally, I see Hillary herself as a candidate with an upper limit of about 45% of the electorate.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
Well Pug, I guess it’slike the ACLU/libertarian argument abut government power...whatever you give to one side you give to the other. It just seems odd to me that you were willing to accept the nastiness of the Clintons as long as it was D v. R and not understand it was really the Clintons v. their opponents...meaning if YOU were one of their opponents they’d be quite willing to do it to you.

I mean 900 FBI files, what they did to the White House Travel Office, none of that was about D v. R, but about the Clintons doing whaever they felt necessary to secure power. Why do you think they’d treat a fellow D any better?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
It’s not the party, it’s the power.

And I think she’s worse than him when it comes to that.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I don’t think so...unless you were joking...it’s hard for me to tell sometimes
Joe, I wasn’t joking. I find with the Clintons, no amount of cynicism is too much.
I doubt that two sizable egos running for POTUS really are going to just join hands and sing Kumbaya.
Bush pere joined Reagan on the ticket in 1980s, so it’s not like there isn’t a precedent.

But it’s not so far-fetched if you imagine Clinton and Obama deciding on this strategy back in mid-2007, with Clinton promising Obama full support for his run in 2016. Eight years as a VP would wipe out any of the complaints about his lack of experience.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
The irony in this is that the Clintons do not care about the Democratic Party. They brought disaster down on it. It took the Dems twelve years to re-win a Congressional majority after the realignment caused by the Clintons in the ’94 elections. And the Dem recovery in ’06 came about because of incessant fumbling by the Republicans in Congress alongside the usual second-term midterm fatigue with the party in the White House, not by the grace of distance from the initial impulse to relieve Democrats while the Clintons held office.

The only fallout for the Clintons themselves from that ’94 debacle, politically, was that whereas in ’92 the were about gays in the military, in ’96 they were about school uniforms.

Yet, they maintain a cult of personality among Democratic voters that defies rationality.

As for the Clinton scandals, they accomplished that on their own, and took some pride in it, eventually walking out of the White House stealing furniture and selling pardons in the apparent embrace of the party they had debauched.

Does anyone from the Democratic Party actually believe that the Clintons wanted John Kerry to win in ’04? Or that they didn’t do what they could to help him lose? Just measure the importance of their ambitions alongside their desire to see another Democrat sitting in their saddle.

And if by some miracle Obama wins the nomination, you know, Hillary won’t be too old four years from now to allow Democrats to finally make the right choice. No one has more opposition research on Obama than the Clintons, and they’ll make sure that gets into the right hands if he gets the nomination.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
It just seems odd to me that you were willing to accept the nastiness of the Clintons as long as it was D v. R

Well, Joe, I suspect you may have also accepted some nastiness. The Republicans don’t exactly tend to bring a knife to the gun fight. And, if I recall, there was some R vs. R nastiness in the South Carolina primaries in 2000.

I would have trouble accepting the proposition that "The Clintons" have always picked on the poor Republicans who, of course, have perfectly clean hands.

 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
As a long time Democrat I can tell you that had the Republicans not gone so far off the deep end when Bill Clinton was president there would have been many of us critical of some of the things he did. But when it turns into an all-out brawl and there is no middle ground, you have to pick sides and Democrats picked the Democratic side.
Ditto.

Clinton’s dissembling was minor when compared with the attacks against him. Impeaching him for lying about a collateral matter in a private civil suit? Please.

What is hilarious is how the same people who believe that Clinton’s lie justified his impeachment can see no possible justification for impeaching Bush or Cheney. Because, as we all know, unauthorized wire tapping, torture, and imprisoning American citizens indefinitely without access to the courts are not nearly as serious as lying about a blow job.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Love that argument, Pug - "yeah, sure Bill Clinton sold pardons, whored out the Lincoln Bedroom, cheated on his wife, sexually abused an underling, effected a wholesale cleanout of the Justice Department, illegaly gathered FBI files, destroyed the reputations of the people running the travel office, probably raped Juanita Broaddrick, told Paula Jones to ’kiss it,’ and groped Kathleen Willey, but if only you meanie Rethuglicans hadn’t said anything, we’d have criticized him!"

Darn that vast right-wing conspiracy! You didn’t want to defend Clinton, we maaaaade you!

The capacity of the left to indulge in utter delusion never ceases to amaze me.
 
Written By: Christopher
URL: http://
And, if I recall, there was some R vs. R nastiness in the South Carolina primaries in 2000.
so that woud RETROACTIVELY justify:
1) Clintonian nastiness; and
2) Your acceptance of that nastiness?
I would have trouble accepting the proposition that "The Clintons" have always picked on the poor Republicans who, of course, have perfectly clean hands.
You’’ll note at least half of the folks I cited had NOTHING to do with a D v R dispute, the White House Travel Office. My point was it’s hard to feel sorry for D’s now, you stood by when the Clintons ate others...I guess it’s akin to, "When they came for the trade unionists, I was not a trade unionist and so I said nothing." "When they came for Travel Office Director Billy Dale, I was not a member of the staff so I said nothing. ...When they came for my candidate, there was no one to speak." You might have thought a little beyond is he "my" POTUS or not...you’ll note a number of Conservative R.’s didn’t see it that way over Harriet Meirs or the Shamnesty Act.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
mkultra -

"Clinton’s dissembling was minor when compared with the attacks against him..."

Oh man, here we go again.

"...not nearly as serious as lying about a blow job."

If it wasn’t that serious, he should have just stood up like a man and said, "Yeah, I let her blow me, but it didn’t affect my job performance." If it was so "minor", why didn’t he do that? It’s because he is not a real man, and he still hiding behind snivelling boobs like you who think it’s better that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in America lie to a Grand Jury to save face rather than tell the simple truth.
 
Written By: coolpapa
URL: http://
It’s OK Bill Clinton sexually harassed an intern, secxually harassed a Arkansas state employee, and lied on National TV about his affair with Gennifer Flowers...or if not all right, well at least OK, because the Republicans talked about it!

Well OK, but now is it OK if they use the same disregard for the truth on a fellow Democrat?

I mean I’ll just accept that Democrats are so caught up in "beating" the Republicans, that they will accept anything from their party leaders, so long as it damages Republicans. But, the thread was about Clinton versus OBAMA? So as long as Republicans don’t comment what is your take on Clintonian nastiness directed at the nice, clean cut, articualte Obama?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
No no! Bush BuSH BUSH!!!!!

JOE!!!! it’s ABOUT BUSH!!!!!!!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I await with eager anticipation the freeing of all those ’Americans’ held without trials when the new administration takes office.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I await with eager anticipation the freeing of all those ’Americans’ held without trials when the new administration takes office.

So their cell space can be taken up by the Bush/Cheney Cabal after their trial for war crimes...and extra space may be needed for all the Conservative Think Tanks and 527’s that have daed besmirch the Great One!

So any way Pug and MK rather than re-hash the 1990’s how about it? Is it OK to be selective with the truth on a fellow Democrat? Note this isn’t SC 2000, Bush v. McCain, we’re not impeaching anyone? Just asking is it OK for the Clintons to exercise their SOP on one of you?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I wonder they don’t try and make it about Nixon, he was much easier to dislike, and the camera didn’t like him.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Apparently Tom Daschle has now come out and criticized Bill Clinton (no one appears willing to lay this at Hillary’s feet; after all, she has little to do with the man). Daschle, I think the word he used was "destroying," said that Bill is destroying the Party.

I think that Daschle is a little late with that news.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
As a long time Democrat I can tell you that had the Republicans not gone so far off the deep end when Bill Clinton was president there would have been many of us critical of some of the things he did.
Not unlike today, is what you’re saying. It’s called Bush Derangement Syndrome for a reason. Sheesh.

That said, I’m beginning to think that another Clinton presidency would be the best thing for the Republican party, might make em focus like a laser beam and find their bearings... certainly will reverse any Dem momentum nationally in terms of Senate and Governorships.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Love that argument, Pug - "yeah, sure Bill Clinton sold pardons, whored out the Lincoln Bedroom, cheated on his wife, sexually abused an underling, effected a wholesale cleanout of the Justice Department, illegaly gathered FBI files, destroyed the reputations of the people running the travel office, probably raped Juanita Broaddrick, told Paula Jones to ’kiss it,’ and groped Kathleen Willey, but if only you meanie Rethuglicans hadn’t said anything, we’d have criticized him!"


Christopher, I didn’t come here to argue and I’m not going to. I really only tried to agree with a point made by McQ in the original post.

You just made up my "argument" and then decided you had done a great job of rebutting what you had made up. It’s silly. I used no name-calling like "Rethuglican" and haven’t been disrespectful in any way.

If I wanted to argue I could use the same tactic you did and make a long list that contained things like "lied about WMD, outed a CIA agent, torture, etc" and then we could be off an a really cool flame war and start hurling feces at each other like a bunch of stupid monkeys. Not interested.

 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
Well Pug that seemd to be the thrust of your complaint..."If you Republicans hadn’t complained, we would have."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"lied about WMD, outed a CIA agent, torture, etc"
While I’ll concede the torture (I guess), the other two fall under... shall we say, "truthiness"... but you digress...
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
So as long as Republicans don’t comment what is your take on Clintonian nastiness directed at the nice, clean cut, articualte Obama?

I don’t like it and I already said I think it is a mistake. I think it will alienate a lot of Democrats who like Obama.

 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
I don’t like it and I already said I think it is a mistake. I think it will alienate a lot of Democrats who like Obama.
I agree. What effect, if any, will it have in the general election in your opinion (especially if Obama isn’t on the ticket)?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
I’m obviously not answering for "Pug," but it’s hard to guage the effect right now because the Clintons are not done with Obama yet. What they do in the meantime will be determined by their internal polls, but they don’t like to play it close. So I suspect that they will be calling in the air strikes. By the time that happens Bill will probably have backed off already, and the Clintons will be saying "we didn’t have anything to do with (fill in the blank)."

People who think this has been nasty, haven’t seen nasty.

Also, I would be shocked beyond shocked if Obama is on the ticket. They intend to ruin him. They’ll go with Harold Ford Jr. in order to win blacks back for the general election.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
What with the alleged back-room deals between Clinton and Edwards, I wouldn’t think it unreasonable to imagine Edwards taking on the "attack-dog" role in the near future - preparing a Clinton/Edwards ticket in advance might be advantageous, since they’ll have a (relatively more) charismatic Southerner to balance out the icy New Yorker, and they might be able to co-opt the liberal/populist/netroots wing of the party (that would otherwise be turned off by Clinton.) Plus, then they can co-opt the whole "change" rhetoric, since it will be (somewhat) more believable with Edwards on the ticket. He’d also be more suited to attacking Obama on "substance" w.r.t. "change," since they are closer together on policy views (more believable to attack an outsider with another outsider.)

Granted, the black constituency would remain alienated, but if White Man John Edwards is laying into Obama instead of Clinton (with the Clintons publicly pretending to try and make amends with Obama,) Clinton could keep her hands looking clean, and hope that she could sell to blacks based on name brand alone.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
All in all, shaping up almost exactly as I hoped it would.

With the one small exception the Republicans are going to leave me nothing to vote for of course.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
preparing a Clinton/Edwards ticket in advance might be advantageous
That actually makes perfect sense to me, it seems the most logical tack. And just think... Christopher Reeve will walk again!
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
The Clintons — no Democrat in fact — has a chance of winning without overwhelming black support in the general election. Edwards would not be enough to satisfy blacks in the wake of Obama’s destruction, in my opinion. They (black voters) will require a black running mate. (And they’ll also get an enhanced meme on Obama not being a real black, which is already out there, to salve what hurt remains.)
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I’m not saying I think that’s a winning combination - merely that I think it’s the more likely path the Democrats will take. I think it would be bizarre if Obama and Clinton suddenly kissed and made up, and I don’t know if people would buy it.
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
I agree. What effect, if any, will it have in the general election in your opinion (especially if Obama isn’t on the ticket)?

I agree with Martin McPhillips that "The Clintons" attacks on Obama have not been nearly as nasty as it would get in a general election.

As far as the effect on Democrats, I think most will fall in line, but some won’t. I think there’s a good chance this will depress enthusiasm and turnout, especially among African Americans. It’s more of the same old stuff. My own opinion is Hillary Clinton will have trouble getting above 45% of the popular vote.

More importantly, I think, the independents who had been leaning Democratic desert in droves. Very few will vote for Hillary Clinton. It’s a perfect set-up for John McCain if enough Republicans hold their noses and nominate him.

I don’t think Edwards gets the VP nod. He’s already been there and he offends Hillary’s corporate backers. Harold Ford, Jr. is the kind of tactic "The Clintons" might go for. They might have to after they are done destroying Obama. The polls on African American support might require it.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
My own opinion is Hillary Clinton will have trouble getting above 45% of the popular vote.
I agree. I’ve always seen her as a "plurality" candidate. I have, however, said as high as 48%. Her baggage won’t allow any more.
More importantly, I think, the independents who had been leaning Democratic desert in droves. Very few will vote for Hillary Clinton. It’s a perfect set-up for John McCain if enough Republicans hold their noses and nominate him.
You may be very right. However, I’ve never seen McCain as anymore than a "plurality" candidate either. He too brings a ton of baggage to the Republican side.
I don’t think Edwards gets the VP nod. He’s already been there and he offends Hillary’s corporate backers. Harold Ford, Jr. is the kind of tactic "The Clintons" might go for. They might have to after they are done destroying Obama. The polls on African American support might require it.
Two calculations here. For one I think the calculation among the Clintons is Bill carries enough of a rep with the black community that they can get away with not nominating a black as VP.

Secondly I don’t think Hillary plans on sharing the spotlight with any rival, to include Edwards or Obama. She’s not sharing. I’m thinking someone safe and vanilla like Evan Bayh.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
The Clintons are known to be Shameless, and Prove it more and more each day! The Two Clinton Co-Presidents, knew in advance of the coming RaWanda Murders of over 1.25 Million Blacks; so what did Hillary do? She had Bill call Saint Petersburg’s Marxist Agitator, Joe Waller, and ask Joe Waller. Joe Waller said "Let the Murders Go Forward," so Hillary and Bill let the Murder of 1.25 Million Innocent Blacks, men, women and children go forward! Only Extreme Shamelessness would allow these people to call themselves the First Black President, of the Woman’s candidate, after consenting to the Murder of over Six Hundred Thousand women, girls and female infants!

Notice the Clinton’s did not call and ask a Christian Minister, leading one to see that the Clintons only find it helpful to pretend to be Christians, but are Really Not Christians, but Marxists, as Bill has proclaimed to in Italy.

If elected, Hillary will be perhaps Bush Lite, or perhaps, make Bush look like Hillary Lite.

People should read the Biblical Story of Baalam of Peor, who was hired to stir up a Lynch Mob against the People of God, Moses’ Israelites, and of Baalam’s Donkey, and how eventually God became Fed Up with Baalam’s Antics, and let Moses destroy Baalam, the King who hired him, and the Kings followers.

Today there are many, many Pretend Christians, who are really Baalams. Hillary and Bill Clinton do not Really Respect Blacks, only seek to manipulate them. That is why they had Bob Johnson, owner of Black Exploitation Television, which Slanders Black People for a profit, with every TV Production, attack Obama. Bob Johnson is is worse than any Slumlord. The Clinton’s Motto is "Rule of Ruin!"

Now Obama only praised Reagan’s Talent for Public
Speaking, not the evil uses to which Reagan put his talent; Obama was making a call for Democrats to work to Re-Acquire the Old Franklin D. Roosevelt practice of Effective, Inspiring Public Speaking, which Reagan stole for Genial Social Darwinism, better known as Genial Fascism!

The Clinton’s consider that the American Black People cannot see through the Usual Clinton Tactics, of Big Shameless Lies. The Clinton’s follow Adolph Hitler’s Dictum; "The Bigger the Lie, the more widely it will be believed and the further and faster it will be spread!"

Obama was Inspired by the Public Speaking of Franklin D. Roosevelt and sought to draw attention to Reagan’s borrowing of That Rhetoric, to promote evil purposes.

 
Written By: Xeno77777
URL: http://
"It’s hard for someone to hit you when you have your fist in their face."
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"there would have been many of us critical of some of the things he did"

Yes, I have noticed all the criticism of Bill Clinton by Democrats now that he is out of office and no longer being persecuted (or prosecuted).

"you have to pick sides "

No, you don’t, but that does require some integrity and courage.


"I already said I think it is a mistake. I think it will alienate a lot of Democrats who like Obama."

Of course, merely a faulty tactic that might backfire.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"The mask is off, does it matter?"

Likely, and sadly, no.

Have you ever tried to remove oil stains? Usually, an oil based solvent is best.

Along the same lines, since the attachment to Democrats was never based on fact, mere facts will not defeat them.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Pug:
I agree with Martin McPhillips that "The Clintons" attacks on Obama have not been nearly as nasty as it would get in a general election.
That’s not what I meant. I meant that the Clinton attack on Obama so far is not nearly as nasty as it will become if the Clinton’s internal polls show him having a shot at the nomination in the next two weeks.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
McQ:
I’ve never seen McCain as anymore than a "plurality" candidate either. He too brings a ton of baggage to the Republican side.
Speaking of McCain, in her column today Coulter peels his skin off.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin, I don’t know where that link was intended to go, but it doesn’t go to an Ann Coulter column.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Yikes, it looks as though FrontPage zotzed that column. I wonder what they didn’t like about that one. Maybe one of their major supporters threatened to stop contributing if they left it up.

Anyway, until it’s replaced next week by her new column, you can read it here. After that it should be in the archive linked at that main page. Her webmaster needs to archive as soon as a column is posted, so that permanent links can be established.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider