I find the whole discussion about what Hillary Clinton will or will not do tonight to be a little bit hysterical (in both senses of the term).
The facts of the matter are as follows:
* After tonight, there will be no more delegate selection events.
* At some point within the next 48 hours (possibly tonight), Barack Obama will have secured commitments from at least 2,118 delegates required to form a majority of all available. By the end of the week, he will probably have substantially more than the number required.
* Both superdelegates and pledged delegates can switch their commitments. So Obama's nomination will not become final until the convention in August.
* Hillary Clinton will not have a political future if she mounts an active, public campaign to flip delegates.
* However, if some mission-critical event intercedes between now and then, she will of course have an opportunity to argue that conditions have changed and that she deserves to be the nominee. She does not need to be running an active campaign to do so.
* Things like Clinton's tone, rhetoric and behavior could matter in the extent to which Barack Obama is eventually able to consolidate Democratic support. But semantics of a formal "concession" are just one dimension of this, and perhaps not the most important one.
* It is certainly not Clinton's job to announce she is conceding before the final primaries and any sentient press shop would move to quash rumors thereof until the voting is actually concluded.
6.03.2008
BREAKING: Hillary concedes that she conceded to concede...
@ 12:16 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments
I concede the point.
You forgot:
"Despite knowing all this, the media will continue to feign ignorance in order to give their overpaid pundits airtime and speculate on the inevitable outcome with breathless inanity."
Blargh.
I'm hoping this results in dead air for CNN, as revenge for their incredibly annoying coverage all year (and Lou Dobbs, who is an asshole). I want for once, Anderson Cooper to say, "well what does our panel think?"
*silence*
Well we go to our big map...
John King says "Anderson, its over. Nobody gives a crap about whether Obama did better in Helena or Butte."
*Donna Brazile spontaneously combusts*
Oh and Wolf Blitzer breaks down and admits, that if you keep repeating that you are the "best political team on television" then you probably aren't.
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, further to Jay's point, the fact of the matter is this primary is in the same position now as it has been since mid-March.
1. Neither can clinch the nomination based on securing pledged delegates.
2. It is/was impossible for Clinton to surpass Obama in the number of pledged delegates.
3. Superdelegates will need to make up for the lack of available pledged delegates.
The way some in the media have presented this Democratic Primary as somehow "up in the air" has been one of the most frustrating things I've ever witnessed.
Three new SUSAs:
Massachusetts Obama +5.
New England loves McCain this month.
Oregon Obama +10
This is unspectacular. The last three SUSA polls there had him ahead 9, 9 and 8 points, so 10 is not really interesting.
Washington Obama +16
Wow. That should bring Washington to a California-like Win Percentage for him.
I like their headline for Washington:
"Regardless of Veeps, Obama sweeps"
*-*
HRC is going to concede tonight if she loses South Dakota; otherwise I think if Obama has gotten enough people on board that the delegate math goes his way she'll also concede.
I'm really puzzled about this, however. It came RIGHT after someone leaked to drudge that HRC's camp believes it has a 25 point blowout coming in South Dakota. This after the HRC shop told Marc Ambinder, who got to look at their internals, they would lose by ten or less in South Dakota. And would definitly be blown out in Montana.
Then comes the conceding bit.
Changes the expectations and story a bit so I have no clue what is going on but that campaign is either brilliant and attempted to change the subject to avoid another IN and have a rationale to go to August OR they're flummoxed about the way forward.
Why couldn't she have pulled a Romney when Romney pulled a Romney? Who doesn't love a martyr who steps down for the sake of God, country, and one's own pocketbook.
Nate: Can pledged delegates really switch commitments if they are not released by their candidate? If so, why are they called 'pledged' delegates? Since they are representing voters, shouldn't there be a penalty for being faithless, as in the case of some states' electoral college representatives?
h-to-h: I have to admit picturing Donna Brazile spontaneously combusting cracks me up far more than it should.
Lisa:"Why couldn't she have pulled a Romney when Romney pulled a Romney?"
Is 'pulling a Romney' when you declare that voting for the other party is the same as surrendering to terrorists and that the worst fate for the US is ending up like France?
Ayinde, I would add to your three true statements one thing that has changed since mid-March: the announced supers have swung from favoring Hillary to favoring Obama. In principle that could have gone in the other direction, setting up a tension between the will of the people as captured in the only metric with meaning, the pledged delegates, and the choices of the supers. The fact that that hasn't happened is what really means this is over.
Rasmus,
All of that tells what exactly? McCain isn't expected to be competitive in the latte drinking states.
Maybe it's just my paranoia but this seems like another tactic to make it appear the media - and by extension Obama, since he, you know, lords over them all - are forcing Clinton out of the race (in reality, the exact opposite has been true for months).
On the other hand, it makes sense that the Clinton camp's messaging would be breaking down and leaking all over the place at this point.
I'm just sick of the drama, the hysterionics. Maybe that's all this is about - trying to steal attention from Obama's big night, because everything always has to be about the Clintons. They've got Chuck Todd and Jonathan Alter saying tonight is Clinton's night.
Oliver, very good point.
ptrsin,
You can read the DNC rules for "pledged" delegates. The rules state that upon election, each delegate signs a "bona fide" pledge of support for his/her candidate. Further, the rules state that these delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." There is no penalty specified for delegates who break their pledge. I imagine there's not much precedent for these delegates being actively lobbied by other candidates or delegates breaking their pledge.
And yes, that's exactly what pulling a Romney is.
It is certainly not Clinton's job to announce she is conceding before the final primaries and any sentient press shop would move to quash rumors thereof until the voting is actually concluded.
This is the thing that's been driving me crazy about campaign coverage for the last two days. Why would any candidate, at this late date, announce a concession before the two final primaries are over? This isn't like a candidate withdrawing from the race in February or March due to an opponent's getting damn close to the number of delegates needed to clinch.
The press should STFU about it already, and let the voters vote. But then again, if this election (oh hell, the last 15 years) has taught us anything, it's that the press prefers to gossip than act responsibly.
Oliver, if you remember back in March, that's exactly what many predicted would happen, that the state delegate count would go to Obama but the party establishment (i.e., the superdelegates) would side with Hillary. Yet that's not what we've seen. The establishment has realized the importance of honoring the integrity of the process, as bizarre a process as it may be. I do imagine we'll see the primary system adjusted before 2012.
Oliver:
Re: Superdelegates
Actually, I think that once voting started (after Iowa), superdelegates have consistently come out in favor of Obama. A significant portion of Hillary's supporters were well before this contest even started. Of course, the more Obama continued winning, the quicker the pace they started hopping on board, but I think in general, he's been winning the superdelegate fight all of 2008.
John Cole offers another theory:
"Some days, it is almost like many of you have completely and totally forgotten the Clinton modus operandi, and never lived through the 90’s or this campaign. What we are seeing is what the Clinton family does best- create confusion while they figure out what the best deal is for them. Trust me- as a Republican during the 90’s, it was maddening (particularly when you factor in the fact that the GOP was not exactly chock full of honest brokers)."
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10520
Correct, Nick. Clinton had a 100 superdelegate lead before Iowa. Obama then starting getting a lot of endorsements from Senators and was Clinton's lead down by 5-10 before Super Tuesday. A month later, before 3/4, Obama had cut Clinton's lead in half. This can be be verified at demconwatch.blogspot.com
It became readily apparent in md-Feb. that the nomination was Obama's to lose and there was nothing Clinton herself could do to stop him. It became about whether Obama would collapse from an external event, which is always a 5-10% possibility.
There is a growing suspicion that Clinton is simply stalling as long as possible in hopes that enough Obama shoes will drop that the delegates do indeed declare him unelectable and then transfer the nomination to Hillary. I have no idea if this is true, but it doesn't seem unlikely.
I don't know. It looks to me like she may concede after all. Look at McAuliffe's statement: Obama "doesn't have the numbers today, and until someone has the numbers the race goes on." (CNN) What he said is a far cry from 'we're taking the fight to the convention'. He said they are in it until someone has a majority of the delegates. Obama will probably get those numbers tonight or in the next few days. I'm thinking the subtext of McAuliffe's quote is "Clinton may not concede tonight, but it will be soon."
SUSA polled Missouri twice on 5/17.
One time they showed McCain leading by 3, the other time Obama leading by 2.
Gregory, Clinton's campaign manager made it clear that the one thing Clinton will *not* be doing is conceding:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7894
I'm concerned about all this buzz of Hillary conceding. It is true that she could be hurt at the polls, but hey, Obama too.
Just imagine Obama's supporters thinking to themselves: Well, it's over, my guy is the big cheese now. Why bother going to vote?
I agree conceding is just one dimension. It is not essential in and of itself. But the point is that Clinton has to tell her supporters that Obama won fair and square; for this, she must first of all tell them that Obama won, period.
This, in a way, will be even more difficult for her to do than to concede (in the sense of declaring the end of her active campaign or even releasing her delegates).
She isn't conceding. According to a growing number of sources, including Bob Berkel this morning on Fox, a devastating video featuring Michelle Obama will be released shortly.
At the very least, she is waiting on that.
Err, Bob Beckel that is...
I read somewhere that the video in question shows Michelle Obama on the same stage/platform as Louis Farrakhan.
It is not enough for Senator Clinton to stop campaigning and for other people to treat Senator Obama as the nominee. Silence won't do.
She needs to endorse, and she needs to campaign, and she needs to start campaigning this month.
She knows that full well.
The stalling is to prove that she fought on for some good reason: the last two months haven't been a waste of time, money, and hearts. Maybe the good reason is veep, or some nuance on health care, or something else, but she's aiming for one more concession of some kind before she endorses.
In turn, that's why her camp is trying simultaneously to signal that she'll do the right thing but she won't do it tonight.
Mercifully, her most important backers (not the noisiest ones) are responsible Democratic leaders. They'll endorse within the week, which means she needs to do it before they do.
The SUSA poll for MO has Obama +2. I think they re-weighted their polls, causing the discrepancy. Same thing happened with NE.
Don't say "hysterical".....you'll be accused of sexism ;-)
"Anonymous
The SUSA poll for MO has Obama +2. I think they re-weighted their polls, causing the discrepancy. Same thing happened with NE.".
The first SUSA poll had 1523 respondents, this (from the same day) has 600. So I don´t think it´s the same, but that they got paid for the bigger poll and their smaller poll was their monthly tracking poll for the 15 states.
Maybe this is also the reason why they waited so long with publishing the results?
A contract that they wouldn´t publish other MO results before June or so?
I don´t see why they should wait with publishing a 5/17 poll until June.
While it isn't that big of a deal, please avoid using words like 'hysterical' when describing Clinton. It is as cringe-inducing as when I hear people call Obama "articulate." Its at best a mildly benign stereotype. Please just stick to the data, as that is your strength. I like you, and we don't need another Chris Matthews et al. in the blogosphere. There's enough of them.
Good advice. Just say hilarious? Or is that risky, too, these days? (Only one letter "l" there. . . .)
Nate, perhaps title your last column about the nomination "It ain't over 'til it's over," but by no means should it be titled "It ain't over til the fat lady sings."
Better yet, "It ain't over til Terry McAullife shuts the f*ck up."
Lisa,
How should the Democrats change the nomination process? Fewer superdelegates? No more caucuses? Winner-take-all? Redistricting?
Yeah, the process kind of sucks but I don't think W-T-A is the right move. This *particular* primary showcased some pretty specific flaws that are unlikely to be demonstrated again.
Terry McAuliffe has said that "she will congratulate him [obama] and say he's the nominee" today or tomorrow. That sounds like a concession.
Nick, you're entirely correct that in mid-March the derivative of the super endorsements was already strongly towards Obama, even though the absolute number had not yet broken in his favor on account of HIllary's huge head start. Which is what made it possible to forecast how the race would turn out even though in principle she could have swept the supers.
It's kind of amazing actually just how much of the endgame for the race was predictable already after Super Tuesday.
Anyway, at this point it isn't Clinton conceding or not conceding that really matters. What matters is endorsing. When, how and how strongly she endorses Obama is the last arrow she has in the quiver. Wish I could be a fly on the wall (or in the conference call) for those negotiations.
Lisa & Alex: Thanks for the information, Lisa. Penalties for unfaithful pledged delegates should be one of those things the DNC considers when they revamp the primaries for 2012. Off the top of my head, other things the DNC needs to change or add to their primary rules: the removal of superdelegates, a clear rule regarding penalties for states which disobey the Feb 5th rule regarding primary dates, a clear list of how candidates should behave in states which disobey the feb 5th rule (including whether or not to take your name off the ballot), and a demand that all states count the total vote (including caucus states).
On top of that, ideally it would be best to have only primaries (since caucuses severely reduce turnout) and allow the nominee to be decided by the popular vote. Delegates would still be elected to vote on other issues at the convention, like the party platform. Unfortunately, since the state parties decide on their own election procedures, and a few states are proud of their caucus tradition, we will probably still have a mixed primary-caucus system in 2012.
Jivas and Anon: Rumours of this video have been around for a while, but no one has claimed to have seen it. Larry Johnson, who's been the principal figure pushing the rumour doesn't even claim second hand knowledge of it. This is an honest to god quote from his site: "I have not seen [the video] but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape."
Wow! So a friend of a friend of his saw it! That means it's totally true!
Anon-MI writes:
What to change, what to keep?
Change:
1. Caucus vs. Primary: No more caucuses.
2. Superdelegates: Keep same number of SD positions, but reduce all SuperDelegates to 1/2-votes. This would make them feel less self-important individually as well as reduce their collective importance.
Keep:
1. PR vs. Winner Take All: Keep PR delegate assignments, which ultimately are fairer (and especially fairer than plurality winner takes all). Assign all delegates by CD; none at the state-level. But use a 1/2 delegate formula, so there is less "rounding error" and greater proportionality.
Comment:
It took our media a long time to figure out that the Democrats weren't using winner-take-all. (It took some time for a few of Clinton's team to realize it, too, unfortunately.) But most of the democratic world uses some form of PR representation.
Hydrocodone order
Vicodin order
Order Ritalin Online
Order Percocet Online
Didrex 50mg
Buy Adderall.adderall no prescription.adderall online
Buy Percocet.Percocet without prescription.percocet 30mg
Buy Lortab.lortab without prescription.buy lortab on line
PURCHASE CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE
Buy Xanax Without Prescription
ooh, percocet! That's my favorite! After spam, of course. Spam is my real favorite.
I had to laugh at myself, I posted a little diary to note an anticipated Boxer/Schumer press conference reported by MSNBC to be about super delegate votes. It was on the rec list within two minutes, which was pretty shocking to me. It turned out to be about legislation. I updated to talk about the AP story on concession, which apparently was wrong. Wound up deleting the whole sorry mess.
Those who want to eliminate the caucuses ignore the most important aspect of a victory in November which is activist boots on the grounds.
Obama won this nomination largely because he had more enthusiastic supporters as reflected in caucuses in WA, CO, ME and MN.
You will see an army of organized volunteers never seen before an election in the US. How do you think W won Ohio in 2004? with volunteers and a highly sophisticated network of outreach. Our campaign will dwarf them.
Anon-MI writes:
My guess would be that there's a huge premium to having activist boots on the ground in primary states to promote GOTV as well as general campaign presence; and that if those states had run primaries rather than caucuses they'd have figured out how to optimize the allocation of resources for that purpose.
Hi, Alex,
I didn't say I thought they *should* change things. I just think they *will* change things. We live in a very reactionary (rather than pro-active) society, and I think as a reaction to this chaotic season we'll see some changes.
After all, the whole reason the DNC is in the mess it's in is due to a reaction to the messes in 68 and 72. The DNC decided to fix the system and go with this Superdelegate thing. Now we know that this only resulted in a whole new set of problems...so they'll fix the fix.
If it were up to me, and seeing as how I'm not a Democrat I doubt very much that will be the case, I would axe the Superdelegates. Nothing good can come of a group of elites with the power to overturn the vote of the populace. Now, whether the Dems want to go with winner-take-all (which certainly has certain advantages) instead of a proportional system is up to them.
I would also have it stated in writing that pledged delegates are not "for sale" to other candidates, and perhaps establish ahead of time a penalty for states that violate primary regulations.
I also think - if they're going to tweak - they need to review what made the primary process so difficult in 68 and 72 to try to come up with one solution that addresses the complications of 68, 72, and 08.
Regardless of what specifically changes, I do think *something* will change, because it's just human nature to try to fix what's busted, so to speak.
Rather than the term "hysterical," which is sexist, I suggest using the term "syphilic rant," which can describe either of the Clintons spouting off without regard to his or her respective sex (thanks to Bill's lack of regard with respect to sex).
I live in NYC, I should go see her speech tonight - I would love to be there when she finally concedes. I cannot wait to finally get to concentrate entirely on the general election. Clinton should be ashamed of herself for all of the energy she has sapped out of the Dems.
I think the only positive of all of this is that Obama has already been through hell - and so many BS negative stories against him have already been brought up that he's gained a very thick skin of teflon.
To MysterioMusic: Please don't go. This is Hillary Clinton's time. Alot of people support her strongly and if you show up to spoil the fun, then the same could happen in Denver for Obama.
I wouldn't go to raise a fuss or wave an Obama sign. Just to see it go down. Hell she'd like that - it'd make her audience look bigger.
I've seen Ms. Clinton give a speech before ... a few years back - she gave a speech for a convention thing for my job at the time... the next year it was Elliot Spitzer, actually.
Well that's completely unrelated.
As far as Clinton supporters in Denver - I wouldn't be surprised if there are some - but I think there will be a lot more Ron Paul supporters at the GOP convention!
---
Also re: "hysterical" - I think it's funny that the Clinton team/supporters keep saying that the Obama side is playing the "race card" yet they get upset by things like that.
The comments on "hysterical" are a little, well, hysterical. While there might have been a sexism argument if Poblano had called Hillary hysterical, he never made such a claim. Read it again ("I find the whole discussion about what Hillary Clinton will or will not do tonight to be a little bit hysterical"). The subject of that adjective is the discussion fueled by the apoplectic cable news punditry.
I'm all for being careful about words that have taken on unfortunate connotations in certain usage (e.g. articulate, hysterical), but I'm not about to throw those words out altogether. Just as I don't see a problem with someone calling 538 an articulate blog, I don't have a problem with someone calling cable news talking heads hysterical (since in both cases the descriptions are accurate, and in context, free of bigoted connotations).
On the off chance that I'm missing intended irony, my apologies to those of you who have raised the issue (Anon at 2:04 and Audient).
Good points, Lisa.
I don't think I'd axe supers completely--as Jay Cost points out, a nomination process must have a way to break ties (the Republican delegates are only bound on the first vote, for example). I'd sharply reduce the size of that pool though--from 20% of delegates to perhaps 5%. Then they could be a small voting bloc but not a way to overturn a large pledged delegate majority.
Agreement on simple codification of the process. Hard rules for states and candidates regarding cutting in line, a bit of process simplification, perhaps.
Although I'm unlikely to vote for either Obama or Clinton, I think the way the Democrats count delegates has evolved slowly to a point of impracticality, as shown by this campaign. There should be some core tenets for delegates (for either party...).
Delegates for 2012 should be weighted based on:
1. 70-75% of delegates should be by congressional district, 25-30% (e.g. the current superdelegate people) should be WTA statewide.
2. The number of electoral votes in a congressional district should be based on:
- the number of actual Democratic voters in recent past presidential and congressional elections e.g. 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004
- whether the state won in 2008 and 2004
3. Get rid of the superdelegates. My understanding was that they could step in and "correct" close campaigns, and 2008 has demonstrated the peril of actually doing so.
4. Even more explicit penalties for moving the primary, but being aware that you don't want to give the other party too much ammunition to force a move.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,a片,成人網站,美女交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊,聊天室,美女視訊
成人網站,成人影片,av女優,h漫,成人網站,成人電影,a片,色情,成人影片,色情,成人電影,色情,h漫,成人影片,成人電影,免費A片,色情,成人電影,成人影片,免費A片,色情,成人網站,情趣用品,免費A片,成人網站,色情,a片,成人影片,情色,免費A片,微風成人,情色,成人影片,微風成人,av女優
成人網站,色情網站,av女優,色情,成人網站,成人影片,成人電影,av女優,a片,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人影片,av女優
色情,h漫,sex,情色,a片,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情
h漫,sex,情色,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友
情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
成人網站,av女優,成人網站,a片,成人影片,成人電影,h漫,成人電影,色情,成人影片,色情,免費A片,成人影片,免費A片,情色,微風成人
美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室
美女交友,美女交友,美女交友,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊辣妹,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天室,成人交友,成人交友,成人交友,視訊美女,視訊美女,視訊美女,聊天室,聊天室,聊天室
a片,成人網站,av女優,h漫,成人影片,免費a片,情趣用品,色情,微風成人,情色,sex,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,成人電影,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,成人電影,成人網站,情色,情趣用品,色情,sex,免費a片,h漫,av女優,成人影片,a片,微風成人,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊,聊天室,美女交友,辣妹視訊,視訊聊天室,成人交友,美女視訊
a片,a片,a片,a片,a片,av女優,av女優,av女優,av女優,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,h漫,h漫,h漫,h漫,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,成人網站,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,免費A片,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,成人電影,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,微風成人,色情,色情,色情,色情,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,色情,色情,色情,色情,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,成人影片,情色,情色,情色,情色,打卡鐘,跳蛋,持久液,色情網站,黃金回收,借錢,植牙,牙醫,成人網站,成人影片,av女優,色情,h漫,情色,sex,黃金價格,黃金,黃金買賣,黃金存摺,鑽石價格,鑽石回收,鑽石買賣,當舖,辣妹視訊,080視訊聊天室,美女交友,情色視訊,哈啦聊天室,ut聊天室,聊天室,打卡鐘,火鍋吃到飽,創業加盟,賺錢,吃到飽麻辣鍋
花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花莲租车,租车,租車,花莲,租車公司,行易花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮,一日遊,一日遊,溯溪,賞鯨,泛舟,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花莲租车,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲,花莲旅游,租车,花莲租车,花莲,花莲旅游,花蓮,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,花蓮,租車,花東,花蓮,旅遊,花東,租車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮,租車,花東 旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮,旅遊,租車公司,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮地圖,包車,花蓮,旅遊租車,花蓮 租車,租車,花蓮租車資訊網,花蓮旅遊,租車,花東,花東地圖,租車公司,租車網,花蓮租車旅遊,租車,花蓮,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊,租車網,花蓮海洋公園,租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車,租車網,花蓮租車公司,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮包車,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車公司,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮泛舟,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮溯溪,花蓮泛舟,花蓮泛舟,花蓮溯溪,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,花東旅遊萬事通,花蓮旅遊,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮太魯閣,花蓮包車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮 租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,租車,花蓮旅遊推薦,花蓮旅遊包車,花蓮租車,花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮地圖,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊資訊網,花蓮旅遊景點,賞鯨,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊租車,花東旅遊景點,花東旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮,旅遊達人,旅遊達人blog,花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮,租車,花蓮,花東旅遊,地圖,租車,賞鯨泛舟溯溪,租車,[ 芝麻店家 ] 花蓮租車旅遊資訊網,花蓮租車-花蓮旅遊租車資訊網 ,旅遊網,旅遊景點,花蓮行程,花蓮,花東,旅遊租車,旅遊,花蓮,租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車旅遊,行易旅遊民宿資訊網,民宿,推薦花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿推薦,花蓮民宿,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮民宿網,花蓮民宿資訊網,花蓮,旅遊,花蓮,一日遊,花蓮好玩的地方,花蓮,,一日遊,花東,租車,旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊-花東旅遊萬事通
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment