Between the 18 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and the many others who supported her candidacy but didn't cast a ballot for her, it is safe to say that John McCain will win the votes of literally millions of Hillary Clinton supporters in the November election. Almost all of these people will have well-considered and perfectly rational reasons for voting for McCain. Perhaps they don't think that Obama has the experience to be President. Perhaps they tended to side more with John McCain on the issues to begin with, but voted for Clinton because they liked her personally. An exceptionally large cross-section of the American public liked either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Although there is a heavy degree of overlap between the two constituencies, there is a lot of room at the margins.
McCain, however, appears to be less interested in speaking to the millions of Clinton voters who fall somewhere between the cracks, and more interested in engaging the handful of crazies who dislike Barack Obama for wholly irrational reasons. Take Will Bower, the founder of a group called PUMA ("Party Unity My Ass"). On Saturday, Bower met with John McCain. On Wednesday, Bower attended Larry Sinclair's press conference, saw Sinclair literally accuse Obama of murder, saw Sinclair's lawyer wearing a kilt, saw Sinclair flee the room after the press conference because he was moments away from being arrested, and came away saying that Sinclair's story was "worth exploring". That means that McCain is either one or two degrees removed from the lunatic fringe, depending on what you think of Bower's state of mind.
Another of the people McCain met with, Paula Abeles, has a history of unethical and arguably racist behavior. Another was Harriet Christian, who gained her 15 minutes of notoriety by referring to Barack Obama as an "inadequate black man". Another is an author for the blog/conspiracist site No Quarter, which within the past week has accused of Obama of behavior ranging from having a liaison with Sinclair to promoting pedophilia through his Kids for Obama website.
There is too much risk to McCain that one of these people will become even more unhinged, and do or say something that gives him guilt by association problems. This really isn't that far removed from meeting with the "9/11 trUthers for Johnny MAC!" Facebook group. And to what benefit? So that you can be accused of pandering by Michelle Malkin? News flash: these people are not swing voters. Will Bower founded a group named Party Unity My Ass. He is not going to vote for Barack Obama. Paul Abeles is probably a racist. She is not going to vote for Barack Obama. Harriet Christian's vote is in the bag, Senator McCain. You do not need to win her over.
So what can McCain do to speak to the overwhelming majority of former Clinton supporters who are not batshit crazy? I think the communication has to be more implicit -- in fact, almost subliminal. The McCain campaign has actually been close to doing this a couple of times, although the execution in both cases was clumsy. The first time was during McCain's "green background" speech on June 3rd when he repeatedly used the phrase "That's not change you can believe in!", which explicitly echoed a phrase used by Hillary Clinton during the Texas Primary debate (Clinton's coda, "That's change you can Xerox", was not received well by the audience). The second was yesterday, when the McCain campaign accused the Obama campaign of "frat house" behavior for insisting that they be allowed to join McCain conference calls -- though the reference seemed out-of-context here, the phrasing was very Wolfsonesque.
As I said, these are ineffective examples of what might be an effective strategy for McCain. But the point is that Clinton spent 18 months fighting Barack Obama for the nomination, and there are a lot of lessons that can be drawn from that. Some subset of those things her campaign did and said that were effective back then are probably also going to be among the most effective ways now to dog-whistle to her supporters.
6.20.2008
How (not) to win over Clinton supporters
@ 4:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
163 comments
I think this is another symptom that McCain's staff is not up to the challenge. They didn't vet Rev. Hagee. They didn't vet Rev. parsley. theyd didn't vet the talk show host in Cincinatti that McCain had to denounce. they didn't vet the Texas fundraiser with the notriously sexist past. they put McCain in front of a green screen with an audience of a couple of hundred senior citizens ina Bingo hall and had him porrly deliver an excellent speech. This just before Obama was to speak bfore 20,000.
You can like him or dislike him but his staff is second rate and he deserves better.
Don't forget the seemingly successful "We’re going through a process where you get a whole bunch of names, and ya … Well, basically, it’s a Google. You just, you know, what you can find out now on the Internet. It’s remarkable, you know" in response to being asked about the selection of a vice president.
Despite the notion of using Google for the selection of a vice president being ridiculous, no one seems to have noticed that he achieves nothing in this statement other than encouraging voters to become informed about people via Google searches (subliminal) and the only person he could mean as far as voters becoming more informed about is Obama (implicit).
In effect, McCain has lent creedence to the random stuff you would find in a Google search for Obama and is stating approval of the rumor campaign being waged on his behalf without ever having to get involved or say anything that he can be held to.
Hello, 538.
I'm the "Will Bower" you reference in your article.
After hearing the Sinclair press conference, I simply felt that that case sounded somewhat more credible than the blogosphere has thus far admitted.
I'm not saying I fully believe it yet, but there are some questions that haven't been answered... and some people are beginning to wonder why they haven't been.
Regardless, I only went to the conference so I could hear firsthand what Sinclair had to say. I am not acting as his advocate, nor am I trying to push this story. I was simply recognized by journalists at the conference, and I answered their questions as diplomatically and honestly as I could.
My only connection with John McCain is that I'm probably going to vote for him... and that I've met him once. That's it.
Thank you for your time,
Will Bower
PUMA
Will,
I've done a fair amount of media (almost all of it in sports rather than politics), and I can understand the instinct to respond in a convivial nature to a line of questioning. At times, I've caught myself going over the line and finishing a thought that isn't completely consistent with the case I'm trying to present. This is very easy to do, particularly when something is happening in real time.
If this is one of those cases, then this is your opportunity for clarity. Do you believe that Larry Sinclair is telling the truth, or don't you?
Nate.
I wish I could give you a simple "yes" or "no". It would be MUCH easier for me to simply state that I flat out disbelieve him.
On the other hand, I can't say that I believe him yet either.
All I can say is that questions were raised that have yet to be answered. That's all.
That is why I simply stated that it was "worth exploring".
This isn't a question of "easy" or "hard" - it's whether or not you are willing to denounce someone who is one of the most laughably idiotic - and least credible - smear merchants in history.
And if you're unwilling - or not have the common sense - to do that, Will, then why should we believe anything you say or do either?
Such a sordid claim is only 'worth exploring', Mr Bauer, to a damned soul. Try and divert your energies into a more elevated political discourse, please, if you are capable of it.
Jay.
Again, it would be SO much easier for me to simply denounce Sinclair.
I'm simply saying that questions were raised in the press conference that I felt deserved answers.
Once those questions have been answered -- and if/when they fully discredit Sinclair -- I'll *happily* come back here and share my official denouncement with you.
Sinclair has already been fully discredited.
Asmodeus.
I agree with you.
My efforts have been aimed at electroral, primary, and party reform. I am *not* interested in becoming involved in scandals such as these.
That said, it was a press event to which I had been invited. I simply went as an observer. It's a benefit of living in DC that I can do such things. The fact that I was recognized by Politico was beyond my control. When I was asked for a comment -- as I've mentioned here before -- I answered it as simply, honestly, diplomatically, and truthfully as possible.
McCain COULD win over Clinton supporters, and not just the racists in West Virginia who wouldn't vote for black man if he was the messiah.
However, it takes a very delicate touch to win over Huckabee and Clinton voters at the same time, and McCain's campaign is not even competent, let alone graceful. If anything, McCain's lurching from left to right is so oafish and opaque, he is losing both sets of voters at the same time.
If this campaign comes down to wooing Democrats and graceful presentation, McCain is starting off with a severe handicap.
As to *why* the McCain campaign would have the slightest interest in this matter - don't think about this helping "swing voters", but a constituency he's in far more hot water with - the Far Right.
The more credibility they can (indirectly) shine on outrageous claims about Obama - the better in their eyes.
Anonymous.
Again, McCain had *zero* to do with my presence at the press conference.
I went as an independent observer and nothing more.
It's probably also a bad idea to lecture feminists about the "rights of the unborn" if you really want to win them over.
Honestly, I just can't see how anyone who isn't bat-shit crazy can consider switching their support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. They're nearly diametrically opposed on every substantial issue in politics.
So your beef with Obama is over Democratic primary nomination rules? What did he have to with that? The rules were agreed on by all candidates prior to the contest starting. The Clintons had been at the head of the Democratic party for a decade and a half and could have had the rules changed themselves before if they had had a mind to it. Alas they did not. If you want reforms now, you wll have to take it up with Obama supporters and giving fuel to reprobates such as Sinclair will not help your case with them.
Mr. Bower, what questions that Sinclair is raising do you think actually deserve a response? That is to say, which claims of his do you find sufficiently plausible that the public should investigate?
Why do you believe these claims deserve attention? That is to say, how do you distinguish them from baseless accusations that someone has made up?
I am scratching my head. This post is trying to help McCain? As far as I can see it was a pretext for raising an issue that mires us in a silly season big time, unless the author actually gives credence to the charges. Had the honest purpose been to help McCain it would have sufficed to say he was on the wrong track dealing with discredited enemies of Barack. Scratch. Scratch. Wierd.
Maybe you need to add me to your list of wonke. :) For six months I have been posting things that are substantive that almost no one pays any attention to.
Given the hate-filled screed that Silver's writing partner put up on the site recently about all the things Hillary Clinton had to do to convince him she wasn't the devil, this is highly ironic.
Mr. Bower,
First of all, thank you for the civil tone in this discussion on Sinclair's accusations.
However, you will have to understand that as the creator of what can honestly be interpreted as an anti-Obama group, it's worth exploring why you would lend Sinclair's accusations even a hint of legitimacy after having sat through the entire press conference which was created to answer questions of legitimacy.
Asmodeus. This is more about the DNC for me than it is about Obama. If you want me to admit that Obama ran an intelligent campaign, I'll be the first to agree with you on that one. But, for me, it is now about matters that run much deeper than the merits of a well run campaign.
Bryan. If I were to answer your questions, I would be making myself the advocate for Larry Sinclair that I do not wish to be. I am interested in much bigger and better things.
Zogtastic. I hear and understand your point. That is why I'm here writing with all of you now, to explain more fully my own involvement in all of this.
Again, the last thing I ever wanted to be was a Larry Sinclair advocate.
I could have said "no comment" to the reporter that was there, but I don't think that would have done anyone any good.
I could have not gone at all, but I didn't want other people to disseminate the information for me. I wanted to hear it for myself.
I suppose that's fair. Perhaps you could answer in the general, then. When you say that there are questions that have yet to be answered, it implies that the questions deserve to be answered. Do you believe that every allegation made about a candidate, no matter how implausible and unsubstantiated, deserves a response from the campaign? If not, then you would say that you find these allegations to be plausible and substantiated by evidence?
Bryan.
I hear you.
It seems that there is little room for a person who finds themselves in the very narrow space between "advocate" and "denouncer". I'm not prepared to be either at this point.
Again, I would *love* it if I could just make it simple and easy for myself by picking up the "denouncer" mantle.
Mr. Bower,
I understand completely why you're here writing with us and I appreciate the time you're willing to give us. I just wanted to make sure you understood one perspective and it's clear you do understand it.
I don't blame you at all for going. Heck, from what I understood it was quite a show and I'm just sorry I missed it! What I'm interested in are the aspects in his story that you believe are still worth exploring. Did you say that because there is legitimacy in them or is there doubt in them? It seems to me, having read the profile on his history, that he might have some serious financial issues and should be put into the category of "people looking for hush-money." That's just the impression I've gotten out of the story but I haven't been investigating it.
Will, the problem here is that this shouldn't even conflict you. This is someone who has zero evidence to his claims, has a long criminal record with a history of fraud and was arrested immediately after his "press conference."
Why would any rational person even think his story holds a shred of credibility? Heck, this doesn't even pass the smell test to Drudge, let alone the mainstream media. If his story even had a modicum of verifiable truth, don't you think we would have seen the siren months ago?
Thank you for your understanding, Zogtastic.
Again, to prevent become a Sinclair advocate, it's best that I don't specify those questions that I found to be thought provoking.
If, however, you want to discuss political parties and/or party primaries, I'm all game! :)
Will, you are coming across as dodging the question.
I get it--you aren't advocating or denouncing him. That's fine. Let's not worry about whether you were advocating for him or not, because I think you know that if you were directly advocating for him, your whole movement would be sunk, and ultimately you'd be doing Obama and the DNC a favor.
Which, specifically, of his allegations do you think should be explored further? Please answer this, it's a request for information, not an accusation that you're siding with Sinclair.
First I don't think that McCain was agreeing with Mr. Bower. He was just trying to win one more voter, something it seems that politicians do all the time.
Second I think that McCain has done an abysmal job of trying to gain the Clinton supporters. The ones he's getting wouldn't vote for Obama for their lives. That is the cost of a long primary. Obama, on the other hand, has had the easier time. If Clinton supporters really supported Clinton and not a women in the White House, they would support Obama because that was who she supports now. What does Obama do? Well, he waits far to long. But I am confident that Mr. Sinclair's "Swift-Boating" of Obama is just that applied to a different candidate.
This is turning out to be longer than the original post, so I'll stop their.
Did McCain REALLY say that "he supported Bill Clinton with both Ginsberg and Breyer", Mr Bower?
This would push the National Review crowd over the edge.
Let's put these "people" in proper perspective. There is no support for Clinton here, and there is no particular love of McCain either. The binding element and the fuel for their momentum is hatred of Obama. View corrente and see if there is any logic or sanity on that page. The same with Johnsons site. They've crossed over to a place where Sinclair is plausible and "freedom kilts" are the norm.
Bowers seeming veneer of reason in the above postings won't last long.
Kyle.
*Thank* you for asking that.
McCain had *so* much more to say about the Supreme Court. However, only my one little statement got any attention.
McCain said that he wants more justices like *Roberts* and *O'Connor*.
He did not say that he *wants* justices like Ginsburg and Breyer.
He simply stated that he supported Bill Clinton's authority to nominate justices, and that he (McCain) felt that Ginsburg and Breyer were far too qualified to be rejected for any ideological reasons.
This age of sound bites is bewilderlingly amazing!
Mr. Bower,
I understand you're not looking to be an advocate or denouncer, we're looking for neither. I guess I should state that a clarification about what is worth exploring regarding the accusations wouldn't lend yourself to either category more than it already has loaned you to the advocate side. When you make a statement loaning legitimacy to a claim as slanderous as this one and then refuse to clarify, it rises suspicion that you're just trying to keep the rumors alive and I really don't think that's what you're intending. I'm just offering a chance to end that speculation by clarifying what in particular you were referring to.
Anonymous.
I agree with you about the kilt. I found it unprofessional and almost insulting.
And I hope I never lose my veneer of reason. In fact, I hope that it is not a "veneer" at all.
While it's true that I am not a fan of Obama, I would probably be supporting him had he won this nomination differently.
I initially had a *strong* dislike for John Kerry, but I was willing to support him all the same come November 2004.
On a completely unrelated note to previous conversation, I was comparing the map showing your theoretical Obama unity bounce, and noticed two things immediately: the blues and reds were less extreme than predicted, generally speaking, but also Obama's blues are lighter in the West and darker (or more existent) in the East that expected. Is that just voters making up their mind, or is there something to it, demographically, as there seems to be, at first glance, geographically?
The point I'm trying to make is that saying there are unanswered questions and that those questions are "worth exploring" is advocacy, and is not a neutral position. It raises the questions and claims above noise to something that must be considered. While you may not be advocating for Sinclair's allegations, you are advocating for the question, and many of us see Sinclair as presenting no proof for an implausible claim, and have to wonder why you would advocate for those questions.
An allegation against a candidate must be plausible and at least partially substantiated before it is worth exploring, otherwise Hillary Clinton would have had to spend her time fully debunking David Icke's claim that she is an extraterrestial reptilian in disguise. If I were to be asked about Icke's assertions, and I were to respond, "I'm not convinced, but it's worth exploring", I would be advocating for the question of her reptilian nature, even if I was not advocating that she was a reptile.
Please note, I'm not actually advocating for that question. As far as I know, Hillary Clinton is as human as you or I.
Someone said that Hillary Clinton shot Vince Foster. This is a question that should definitely be explored. There's no real proof, but when a ludicrous accusation is made by someone on the fringe by a mainstream political figure, it's really worth exploring no matter how silly. So let's all get out our watermelons and pistols and start shooting them in the backyard like Dan Burton.
So glad this is what our party has come to.
""While it's true that I am not a fan of Obama, I would probably be supporting him had he won this nomination differently.""
He won the nomination by the rules set forth and agreed to by all. The nature of caucuses, proportional rationing of delegates, Michigan and Florida being penalized for violating scheduling rules (one of the few impositions the national party makes on states)...none of these were surprises as the primaries began in January.
What exactly would you have had him do differently?
Additionally, in regards to "answering questions", it is impossible to prove a negative (I never did X in the back of a limo while smoking Y), so you set a standard by which every allegation should be examined and never go away, because most smears are so vague and shifting that they can never be disproved, even when they are untrue.
Mr. Bower, you seem like a reasonable man, and I'm not accusing you of anything. However, some people claim that your attempts to keep the question in the public eye are a way to denigrate Obama using lies given the lack of legitimate smears against him. I can't say that this is true, but you haven't proven this to be false. Is this also a question worth examining?
Mr. Bowers,
Hypothetically -- what if someone rented a room at the National Press Club and accused someone else, say, Will Bower, of illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior? What if an attendee with a recognizable name was asked about the accusations and said some accusations were worth exploring?
What if the attendee refused to state, in response to direct questions, which accusations were worth exploring?
Would you find that person believable?
"I could have said 'no comment' to the reporter that was there, but I don't think that would have done anyone any good."
So, what "good" did your comment serve?
Respectfully,
Just Asking
Nate, a word of advice:
Keep 538.com focused on the polls.
Mr. Bower, your claim that "if Obama had won the nomination differently" you would probably be supporting him doesn't hold water. Your statement implies that Obama did something unethical or unlawful to win the nomination. The reasons I have seen for this claim are that Obama and/or his campaign:
1) were somehow more unapologetically sexist than the Republicans, including McCain. The evidence I've seen for this is flimsy, sometimes laughable, and I happen to be the in the target demographic for this argument
2) were in collusion with the MSM to denigrate Hillary, also laughable in the face of her many months being proclaimed the presumptive nominee, until she started losing. And of course you are ignoring the way the press has obsessed on Rev Wright, Bitter-Gate, etc.
3) are somehow responsible for the Democratic party's primary rules which are based on number of delegates, not votes, and were wrong to figure out a successful plan to win based on those rules
4) attempted to disenfranchise voters in MI and FL, ignoring the fact that Hillary agreed with his position until it benefitted her to count the votes, and that most of the proposed solutions for revoting had drawbacks that concerned other people besides the Obama camp. Not to mention that the Republicans also disenfranchised these same states. Or that Hillary had no problem with disenfranchising caucus states when she presented her "popular vote" argument
Did I hit all your talking points? The point is, your arguments are not convincing anyone but the people who are already believers. Your story that Obama stole the election is about as unsubstantial and unconvincing as Larry Sinclair's story.
Hello again, guys.
At this point, I've fallen to far behind in your questions to keep up with all of them. Please forgive me in advance if I miss something.
Anonymous and JBryan: Perhaps "no comment" would have been a preferable statement. At the time, however, I felt that that would only serve to fan the controversy. "No comment" almost ALWAYS makes the giver of that statement look suspect.
The "good" I was trying to achieve was to speak honestly in as diplomatic a way as possible. That is all.
Cass: "Stolen" is a strong word, and it is one I try to avoid. I prefer to use the term "pre-wired". Again, my complaints are less with Obama than they are with the DNC.
Bryan: Again, if I could have gone unnoticed at said press conference, I would have done so.
What exactly did the DNC do wrong? How were they to deal with Florida and Michigan, other than how they did. Arguably, they should have punished them with half-reductions at the outset rather than the more draconian full reduction, but other than that, I don't see where else they erred.
Mr. Bower,
"Perhaps "no comment" would have been a preferable statement."
So, if "no comment" was a preferable statement, will you now formally retract your statement that the accusations were "worth exploring"?
Will you publicize that retraction? Will you report that to Politico?
Just Asking
I would like to urge everyone to not get sidetracked into debating Florida and Michigan. We could be here for days.
I would like to keep Mr. Bower on the topic of Larry Sinclair while we still have his time. Although I don't think we'll be getting a real answer from him about what in particular is worth exploring.
Anonymous:
I don't think a retraction would serve *anyone* at this point. All it would do is keep the story alive and bring attention *back* to my original "worth exploring" comment.
That said, if there is a change in the story in the near future which *provides* me with an opportunity to formerly denounce him, I'll gladly take it.
Mr. Bower, since you do seem to have missed this question, I'll ask it again, and in perhaps a more straightforward manner. Do you believe that a question must be plausible and backed by at least some legitimate evidence before it becomes worth exploring, or do you believe that all allegations should be explored by the public and addressed by the candidate?
Mr. Bower,
Thank you for taking the time and energy to come here and respond to some of our queries. I'll leave you alone on the whole Larry Sinclair thing, but I do have a couple questions I've been dying to ask a high profile person who switched support from Clinton to McCain. As I understand it, your vote is a vote against Obama and not for McCain. I also have been led to believe that this decision is not based on any policy issue or experience issue, but it is a position that you are protesting against what you see as unfair treatment of Clinton by the DNC. If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me, this is simply the impression an impartial observer gets in reading stories about you. So my questions are simple.
What about the DNC decision do you see as being patently unfair?
What would you have considered to be a fair decision?
How does punishing the candidate hurt the DNC, when they will still be around in 4 years even if the candidate is not?
Are the consequences of a McCain Presidency REALLY less important than making your point?
If you make your point by denying Obama the Presidency, what will that achieve, and will it be worth the cost?
Do you believe that there will not be a HUGE anti Clinton sentiment in 2012 if she attempts to seek the nomination after 4 more years of failed Bush policies as the direct result of her disgruntled supporters sabbotaging an otherwise viable candidate?
Mr. Bower,
"I don't think a retraction would serve *anyone* at this point. All it would do is keep the story alive and bring attention *back* to my original "worth exploring" comment."
Your inaction to correct your statement does far more to keep the Sinclair story alive than your inaction. Without a retraction, your statement is repeated and spread as if it properly reflects your view.
Your excuses are not tenable.
"That said, if there is a change in the story in the near future which *provides* me with an opportunity to formerly denounce him, I'll gladly take it."
Good, but horribly inadequate. You had a national platform at a televised press club event. What such comparable opportunity do you envision?
Your credibility is not served by a refusal to proactively and forcefully retract your statement.
Just Asking
I wonder if Mr. Bower has heard the expression to "cut off one's nose to spite one's face."
Anonymous: I don't feel the need to "correct" my statement at this time. Again, it was said as honestly and diplomatically as I was able, and nothing has changed since then to warrant a retraction.
Bryan: Again, I made my statement after hearing all that was presented. I can't say anymore on the matter without going into details that are of little interest to me or to the cause for which I'm now working.
Dale. I *love* your questions... and would love to answer *all* of them. I'm just not sure if doing it within the "comments" section is where I should answer all of these. If someone from 538 would like to discuss it with me more directly, I'd be happy to have that conversation.
Richard. Indeed, I have heard that statement many a time these past few weeks.
Instead of cutting off the nose to spite the face, I see it as removing a cancerous tumor in order to save the body.
I look forward to continuing the good fight well after November 5th.
Mr. Bower,
"I don't feel the need to "correct" my statement at this time. Again, it was said as honestly and diplomatically as I was able, and nothing has changed since then to warrant a retraction."
Two things have changed -- 1) your comments are being repeated and 2) you now recognize that "no comment" was preferable.
How is that your honesty and diplomacy prevents you from correcting a statement of yours that is actively being spread? What about a correction is not honest or diplomatic?
Why do people continue to obsess over getting the validation of a vanity blogger soaking up his 15 minutes (and milking them for all they're worth) who has evidenced zero interest or concern in progressive ideals whatsoever?
538.com:
In thread start you said ''Bower met with John McCain''. Because a link to the full politico.com story was underneath you may have a bit of an excuse, but I still say your bias is showing; i.e.:
In your lead you make it sound like McCain met privately with Will Bower. As the politico piece clearly stated:
''John McCain met privately with some 75 of those supporters at his Virginia headquarters''.
That is hugely different from McCain having a private meeting with Bower; it just sounds like some campaign operative didn't vet the attendees as well as they might have. Stuff like that happens all the time.
I have to wonder who let this total whacko (and crook) Sinclair into the National Press Club in the first place. And why Bower would mumble ''worth exploring'' is anybody's guess. In any case Bower was never a major player in the Clinton campaign.
Most of all: I don't care if 538.com is run by Obama supporters if you get your technical work right. But the context of your last statement in thread start just reeks of unfair and unjustified guilt by association. The people a candidate commonly associates with on a long-term basis IS a valid campaign issue, but not something like this.
If you are going to try and ding McCain on this, how about some objective equal time on Obama holding one of his initial ''meet and greet'' campaign events during his run for the IL state senate in the living room of admitted and unrepentent domestic terrorist bomber William Ayers ?? While it's fair for Obama to say that he does not in any way share Ayers' beliefs or condone Ayers' actions, what in the world was he thinking when he held that campaign event in the guy's living room ?? THAT is a lot more than just inadvertently ''bumping into'' somebody; and it's fair for voters to consider same when deciding who to vote for. The fact that Bower was in a crowd of 75 people that McCain met with that some not-to-diligent staffer set up doesn't even come close.
What happened to this being a data-driven, politically-independent site?
Mr. Bower,
I agree this site (or at least this particular board) is not the proper venue for my questions. However I would love to have a discussion about these with you and I posted them to get your attention, I'm glad I have. If you can suggest an appropriate venue, I will gladly meet you there.
Thank you.
Mr Bower:
The only thing worth exploring is the unfortunate exploitation of Mr. Sinclair's rather clear mental illness.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Just Asking: I ultimately have not said "no comment" *would* be preferable. I was musing the possibility, but came to the conclusion that "no comment" usually only serves to stoke the fires just as much as the actual comment I *did* make.
JBryan: If you had told me a month ago that I would be in the situation in which I now find myself, I would have never believed you. "Vanity"? Well, perhaps for the first few days, there was an exciting, novel aspect to all of this. Now, however, the seriousness and consequence of the situation have been made all too clear to me. If there was any vanity on my part in the beginning of this, it stopped when the threats started rolling in. I haven't been doing all that much smiling or laughing the past few days, trust me.
Ken: My attendance at the McCain meeting was by *far* more important than any of this Sinclair stuff. I don't regret my decision to attend said press conference. I simply regret that people have been -- as you've said -- drawing inaccurate conclusions about why I was at both events. I'll simply say that there's a lot happening here in DC right now, and I'm trying to stay as informed as possible.
Will Bower: "... there are some questions that haven't been answered... and some people are beginning to wonder why they haven't been."
Will, if you're still here, this line of argument is ridiculous.
The reason why Sinclair's accusations haven't been addressed to the extent you think they should, is because Sinclair has No Credibility. He was arrested on an outstanding warrant immediately after his NPC appearance, fer chrissakes.
To respond to Sinclair in any fashion but "He's a lying publicity hound con artist" is to grant him a credibility he doesn't deserve.
Your response is either nonsensical or utterly self-serving. There's no excuse for it either way. It simply continues the airing and propagation of a base smear.
.
I'm curious as to what the curretn "PUMA" would think of a "PUMA" inspried by Obama losing the nomination.
Obama won the nomination by the rules, but if Hillary had taken it, it would have been by altering or violating the process in place.
In short, a "PUMA" triggered by an Obama loss would seem to have much stronger legs than the current one does.
Metthow:
I definitely agree with you that this just lends credence to the silly Ayers debate. McCain can briefly meet with whomever he wants. If he chooses to make surrogates of these crazies (as he did with the radio commentator at a rally and almost with the fundraiser with the rape joke), then we can talk about it. Otherwise, let's let this go. John McCain's stance on women's issue should be enough in and of itself to discredit him to any voter concerned with protecting sex education, birth control and choice.
Mr. Bower,
You have been consummately polite and well spoken, and for that I'm glad. But at some point, to borrow a phrase, you have to sh*t or get off the pot. Please, please, tell us which accusations Mr. Sinclair has leveled are worth exploring. The ones that I have heard through the media strike me as completely not worth exploring. If there was something else he mentioned at the conference that has not been widely reported, what is it?
If nothing is worth further exploration, I don't think any of us will hold it against you if you were just caught off guard by the press before you had a chance to digest what Sinclair said. If you can't tell us what's worth looking into or admit there's nothing that is, I can't see why it's worth continuing to bother here.
Well, guys, I think I've answered your questions to the best of my ability at this point. I'm sorry if it wasn't enough for some of you.
Thank you for engaging in dialogue with me. Perhaps we'll meet back here in a future post.
Til then, be well,
Will
Good riddance, you smear-merchant-enabling, credibility-straining, concern-trolling, fake progressive!
Again Mr. Bower, thank you for your time and consideration to readers here. However, before you go, I hope you will provide me with what you see to be an appropriate venue for discussion the questions I have raised. I am not of the type to raise threats against someone, and I know there are Democrats who believe they have substantive reasons for voting for McCain (or against Obama). It is simply that those who have espoused the viewpoint that they will be voting against Obama predominately because they don't feel the nomination contest was handled fairly can not seem to provide me with even rudimentary answers to the questions I've raised, and as the mouthpiece for an organization dedicated to exactly that philosophy, I am hoping you will be able to explain it to me. Believe me, I have been very active in trying to seek out a substantive answer from ANYONE who takes the position you do and either I get claptrap that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever, or I get a pronouncement that they'd be "more than happy" to answer my questions, followed by a post that essentially says, "thanks for your time, I'm outta here." I'm hoping this isn't what you're doing, because I really genuinely want to clarify this, because I can't understand.
And a wonderful afternoon to you as well, Anonymous.
Dale, just let me know of a site and/or venue where we can continue this conversation, and I'd be happy to oblige.
And a wonderful afternoon to you as well, Anonymous.
Dale, just let me know of a site and/or venue where we can continue this conversation, and I'd be happy to oblige.
Dale, when you get those answers, do report them back here, since I'm very curious as well as to the answers to the six questions you posed in your first post in this thread at 9:57.
Please, no more about the kilt!
Yeah, I know, it's not going to happen, we're going to keep bringing that kilt back into the conversation, it's too easy a target.
Dammit, I love my kilts, and this shmuck has ruined the experience, I won't be able to wear it for a while without thinking about the shame Montgomery Blair Sibley has brought upon kilt-wearers everywhere.
Thanks for your time, Mr. Bower.
Now, I'm going to be a little more blunt about this. I do believe it is not unreasonable that Mr. Bower would be willing to maintain smears about Obama. My reasoning would be this article he wrote detailing his attendance at the DNC Rules Committee meeting regarding FL and MI: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/will-bower/my-evening-with-harriet-c_b_104594.html
The article gives an account of his admiration for Harriet Christian and how he urged her to create the display she did.
Having read this article and having read many other articles about the FL/MI decision from multiple sides, I have to seriously question the absence of unbiased logic people like Harriet, Mr. Bower, and especially Harold Ickes, and I know there are many others, used to approach their outrage and it will continue to remain in the front of my mind when I see further displays of political activity such as PUMA and the Sinclair press conference.
I just wanted to clarify my suspicions when asking questions to Mr. Bower. I just wish he had been able to dispel my suspicions.
Zog.
(Yes, I'm still here, dag nabbit.)
I *fully* stand behind my involvement with Harriet Christian. You wouldn't believe the outpouring of support that both she and I have gotten from that event. As I said in my HuffPo piece, her anger needed to be heard.
In contrast, my whole involvement with the Sinclair story begins and ends with my one little statement picked up by Politico. Had Avi not spotted me there and asked for a comment, my name would have never been brought in to any of this.
And if you suspect that I was there *seeking* attention, I encourage you to ask Avi himself as to how it all came about. It was not choreographed.
Ok. I'll try to resist a return trip here. It's important to me to be understood. Thank you to those of you who have been civil with me. It is most appreciated.
Will
Mr. Bower and curious onlookers.
I do not have my own blog or website, however I have been an active participant in the Askville community. Askville is a site run by Amazon that is somewhat like Yahoo Answers or any of the other Q&A sites where you can post questions, get answers and have discussions. I am deeply involved in asking and answering politically themed questions on this site.
It does not cost anything for a membership, you don't get any SPAM out of it, you just need to sign up for a profile and you can then participate. I asked a question a few weeks back about this exact topic, and I have gone to the discussion board and posted about my encountering Mr. Bower, I introduced him to those reading the discussion board and I copied my first posting here. Anyone who wishes to see this thread (or post to it) can sign up for an account at www.askville.com, and can join the discussion here:
http://askville.amazon.com/Clinton-supporters-vote-McCain-Obama-nomination-hear-reasoning/DiscussionBoard.do?requestId=10021748&page=1&scrollToLatestComment=true
I hope to see you there.
Oh, and Dale, if you're willing to post in here a way that I can contact you directly, I will do so. You seem stable and respectable.
I would offer to do the same, but I think you will understand why I won't be doing so. :)
""As I said in my HuffPo piece, her anger needed to be heard.""
That anger deserves to be heard suggests that it demands satisfaction...that someone was "wronged" rather than just losing at the game.
So, what satisfaction is deserved here? Who has been "wronged"? What is Obama guilty of other than winning the process, and what is the DNC guilty of other than upholding rules it imposed on a process that, frankly, it owns, and that were unilaterally consented to?
These are the questions I would add to Dale's.
Will,
I'll resist directly replying to your comment so we can both sever ties to the comments section and go on with our day :)
While I don't agree with you or Harriet, I do understand you both.
Thanks again.
The site I've directed you to has a private message component. If you go there, I'd be more than happy to share my personal email as well, just don't want to post it here.
Dale (& Co.)
I've answered your questions on the site you mention.
Thanks again,
Will
This site is clearly going down the toilet! Trading in Sinclair rumor-mungering, trashing McCain supporters who previously supported Clinton, Sean writing columns calling Clinton supporters 'racists.' And methodological changes incorporating national polls to make it look better for Obama than it really is?
On the concept of "Waiting for Sinclair to be discredited," it has about as much merit as waiting for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be discredited. You're not guilty until proven innocent when somebody doesn't have a morsel of evidence behind their accusations.
How do you know how it "really is"? Where's the link to your statistical analysis website?
McCain is flat out desperate. They really have nothing else to run on except to try and smear Obama. It's so sad because it represents an absolute destruction of any integrity McCain had. Now he's trying to do to Obama what Karl Rove did to him in 2000. Very sad indeed. I'm hopeful that Americans (at least a majority of them) have had it with Rovian tactics and will vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers this fall.
will bowers comments on here have made me question his motives even more.
lets be honest and stop the bs.
he is advocating for McCain.
"i am telling everyone I know, in a very public way that I am voting for McCain; but i am not advocating" Thats bogus. sounds clintonian.
his inability to say what issues should be looked at more closely also shows his silliness. seriously. where are the documents?
Brilliant analysis!
I am a Hillary democrat and will vote for McCain regardless of what he says or does.........just because.... he does not have to woo me - just be on the ballot - call it a protest vote if you want.
You can like him or dislike him but his staff is second rate and he deserves better.
After he slow-walked the Abramoff investigation past the 2004 election and hired Phil Gramm as his economic advisor, I'd say he deserves everything he gets.
My guess is that 90+% of Clinton Primary voters will vote for Obama with 2/3 of the rest sitting it out As a Clinton turned Obama supporter I have no doubt most Democrats agree with me. There are always some who need their 15 minutes and some Hillary supporters are doing that. Most want an end to Bush and McCain is as
of now a continuation of the same-just better spoken.
Newsweek Poll 51%-36%
I don't see Newsweek listed in the Pollster Ratings list. Any takes on their credibility?
here's the Newsweek link:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465
Again, it would be SO much easier for me to simply denounce Sinclair.
Well, it would certainly be easier if you weren't a fool, a jackass, and a liar. Your pretense at civility here is amusing given the sort of garbage you and your PUMA have spewed elsewhere. The activities of Larry Sinclair and yourself aren't about "party", they are about personal smears of Barack Obama. And voting for McCain over Obama isn't about "party", it's about policies -- disastrous policies on McCain's part. Lending credence to Larry Sinclair is really a tiny -- though indicative -- little thing compared to supporting McCain, who is bad for me, bad for everyone else at this site, bad for the country, bad for the planet, and even bad for idiots like you.
I am a Hillary democrat and will vote for McCain regardless of what he says or does.........just because.... he does not have to woo me - just be on the ballot - call it a protest vote if you want.
I want to call you pathetically stupid, intellectually dishonest, and emotionally immature, because you are. You're like one of those "bad seed" children in the movies who, having been caught in a lie by their parents, takes it out out on the family dog before moving on to grander crimes.
My guess is that 90+% of Clinton Primary voters will vote for Obama with 2/3 of the rest sitting it out
The evidence does not support your guess.
As a Clinton turned Obama supporter I have no doubt most Democrats agree with me.
a) Projecting your personal beliefs onto others is a form of mental disease.
b) "most" means more than 50%, so even if you're right it doesn't support your numbers.
c) Having no doubt is a form of mental disease.
trashing McCain supporters who previously supported Clinton
McCain supporters are trash by definition.
You wouldn't believe the outpouring of support that both she and I have gotten from that event.
Why wouldn't I believe that there are plenty of other mean angry self-centered self-serving racists?
As I said in my HuffPo piece, her anger needed to be heard.
Yeah, like Michelle Malkin's anger needs to be heard. It needs to be heard so we can better appreciate what sort of filth walks amongst us.
Believe me, I have been very active in trying to seek out a substantive answer from ANYONE who takes the position you do and either I get claptrap that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever, or I get a pronouncement that they'd be "more than happy" to answer my questions, followed by a post that essentially says, "thanks for your time, I'm outta here." I'm hoping this isn't what you're doing, because I really genuinely want to clarify this, because I can't understand.
Don't forget how Einstein defined insanity. Attempting to get anything but claptrap from the likes of Bower is an exercise in futility.
Well, guys, I think I've answered your questions to the best of my ability at this point. I'm sorry if it wasn't enough for some of you.
Odd that some people mistake that smirk for civility.
Larry Sinclair asked the press not to believe him, but to do their job and investigate the phone numbers he provided. He stated he was with Obama on Nov. 6 & 7 of 1999. He stated he received calls from Donald Young, who was later murdered. He provided the numbers on which he received those calls.
In an interview with Tim Russert Obama refused to release his schedule for the time he was in the Illinois State. That would also cover the time Sinclair claimed he and Obama met. Obama has also refused to release his full medical records, which might - or might not - indicate an ongoing history of addictive use of cocaine.
We've had Presidents and many politicians in the past who've become involved with call-girls or other criminal activity. Certainly many in this country believe past Presidents were involved in murder schemes.
So none of this is as outlandish as it might seem. I will not speak for anyone but myself. In this country part of the duty I feel we have as citizens is to ask hard questions of our elected leadership. I want to know for certain my President has not continued to use illegal and addictive substances.
It doesn't surprise me that a man with a criminal past and an attorney somewhat lacking in credibility would be coming forward. Certainly, if there's any truth to Sinclair's claims, Obama would not have been looking for an executive with a Fortune 500 company to do what Sinclair alleges.
Will Bower: ""Stolen" is a strong word, and it is one I try to avoid. I prefer to use the term "pre-wired". Again, my complaints are less with Obama than they are with the DNC."
I agree. The nomination was pre-wired to give Clinton the nomination by arranging a process in which only a candidate who could raise obscene amounts of money before the first primary could seriously compete. My biggest issue with these people isn't that their arguments are complete spin, it's that the truth is their arguments are much more accurately leveled against the person they claim to support.
Here's the truth: A lot of the Super Tuesday primaries, if done two or three months later, would have flipped from Clinton to Obama. California being an excellent example.
Does the Democratic primary system need changing? Yes. Did it somehow unfairly screw Hillary? No, and the idea that it did is laughably naive.
Frankly, switching the whole process to the Texas two-step system is probably the best plan. You get a fair vote plus the party-building/volunteer recruiting benefits of a caucus.
I simply went as an observer.
If someone known for his denial of global warming were seen at a presentation by a convicted conman claiming, without evidence, that he was Jim Hansen's gay lover, it would clearly be disingenuous of him to claim that he "simply went as an observer".
Larry Sinclair asked the press not to believe him, but to do their job and investigate the phone numbers he provided. He stated he was with Obama on Nov. 6 & 7 of 1999. He stated he received calls from Donald Young, who was later murdered. He provided the numbers on which he received those calls.
I ask people not to believe me, but to do their job and investigate my claims that you and Will Bower and Larry Sinclair are Satanic cult worshippers and mass murderers. I'm sure they've got nothing better to do than to investigate my claims, which are not outlandish as they seem.
As a Clinton supporter who has visited many blogs and watched the taking of the dem primaries by the DNC, the media and the BO campaign, I agree with your opinion in the story wholeheartedly. I also would like to mention that it is also important for McCain to maintain his own base. Them along with us disenfranchised Hillary voters will bring him the presidency.
I want to know for certain my President has not continued to use illegal and addictive substances.
What President have you ever known that of for certain? How could you know that for certain? Your logic is broken and intellectually dishonest -- if Sinclair's claims were shown true, you would know that, but if they weren't, you would be left right where you were -- uncertain. Well, not quite where you were, because Sinclair has created suspicion in certain fool's minds just by making the claim. You seem to have no clue -- or are pretending to have no clue -- of how con men work. It's ironic that your handle is diogenes -- you certainly won't find an honest man where you're looking, or in the mirror.
hem along with us disenfranchised Hillary voters will bring him the presidency.
Ya gotta love these jackasses who only consider themselves enfranchised if their candidate wins.
Man, all this is doing is feeding into the insanity. This was Larry's BIG moment to bring out the goods. He didn't do it because he didn't have anything. His "I know where that question is coming from" statement he made when asked what time he had met Obama to have sex/drugs shows the level of his paranoid schizophrenia.
Also, take into consideration this: Larry said Obama, when they first met, told Larry his name and occupation (his Youtube and blog stuff). Then Larry says, on this day, Larry's big "I will give the public the proof" day, Larry says he didn't know who Obama was when they met and didn't know who he (Obama) was until he saw Obama make his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, when Larry was across the border in Mexico. That's a big fat fucking "HUH?"
This guy is a goof ball. He is looking for a payoff AND he is milking people on the internet for thousands of dollars in the hopes that Larry really might have something. He doesn't have anything. If he had had anything worthy, he would have told it at the press conference. That WAS why he had the room rented, wasn't it? Well, wasn't it? If not, then why rent the room out and not show the goods? In SANE terms, it makes no sense to have a press conference and not have anything to say or show when Larry and his followers had been hyping this circus event for many months now, saying this would be the day of sinking Obama. The big smoking gun day. . It’s a non story. It’s nothing. Move on.
If McCain’s thug pursues this, then that will prove once and for all that McCain really is in trouble and has nothing to give the American public, but a story not even the national enquirer would touch.
Mitch and Nan went undercover to Larry's event and called the marshals from there. Plus, to have arrested Larry before the news conference would have inflamed the conspiracy theory nut jobs out there. "See? They had him arrested to silence him." Although if you read Larry's blog, you will see that his followers/financiers are claiming Larry had himself arrested because he felt his life was in danger.
As a Clinton supporter
And this is the biggest lie of all. No one who votes against everything that Hillary Clinton has ever stood for and championed is a "Clinton supporter".
There is more than one Larry with nothing: Larry Johnson and his "whitey" tape -- absurd tripe aimed directly at the brains of racists.
jqb -It's obvious you think no one is allowed to have any opinion other than yours. Insults replace a discussion of facts and you declare yourself sole judge and jury.
I still think of my country as one where free speech, and an exchange of information helps keep the country safe and the best talent available to it. I'm sorry you disagree.
For the record I have no connection to Will Bower, have no idea of what his specific thoughts are on Sinclair.
Mr. Bower, you seem like a reasonable man,
Good grief. This is a guy who thinks Larry Sinclair is credible, claims the nomination is "pre-wired", and says he would "probably be supporting [Obama] had he won this nomination differently" but instead plans to vote for someone whose policies are the arch opposite of both Obama's and Clinton's, and you call him "reasonable"??
jqb -It's obvious you think no one is allowed to have any opinion other than yours. Insults replace a discussion of facts and you declare yourself sole judge and jury.
If you had any rebuttal to my substantive points you would offer it instead of this ad hominem drivel.
I'm sorry you disagree.
I don't disagree, asswipe. No one is stopping you from making it evident that you are a deeply dishonest person.
jqb
Have you worked in the field of addiction?
I have. Here's the standard line for people "using:" if their lips are moving they're lying. Cocaine is quite addictive and crack cocaine is one of the toughest addictions of all.
Medical tests and certain physical issues can tell you if an individual is currently using - or even potentially when the last use occurred. We've not had a Presidential candidate before who admitted using cocaine. People operating mechanical equipment need to be tested - what's wrong with testing those who might have our national security in their hands.
Let's try it again, "diogenes":
What President have you ever known that of for certain?
[crickets]
How could you know that for certain?
[crickets]
Your logic is broken and intellectually dishonest -- if Sinclair's claims were shown true, you would know that, but if they weren't, you would be left right where you were -- uncertain.
[crickets]
Well, not quite where you were, because Sinclair has created suspicion in certain fool's minds just by making the claim.
[crickets]
You seem to have no clue -- or are pretending to have no clue -- of how con men work.
[crickets]
It's ironic that your handle is diogenes -- you certainly won't find an honest man where you're looking, or in the mirror.
[chirrrrp]
Cocaine is quite addictive and crack cocaine is one of the toughest addictions of all.
Oh, right, Barack Obama is a crack cocaine addict. Or you're a racist jackass.
jqb
Have it your way. If Obama confessed to your face you'd probably tell him he was lying. But here's something that might shatter your bubble: I'm a Hillary supporter (who I'lll bet has volunteered more time and money than you) who feels Obama is so far to the left I cannot vote for him. His supporters, such as yourself are so consistently rude and offensive it makes me think Obama says nothing because he condones your words.
Face reality - 1/2 of the Democrats, 1/2 of the Independents and all of the Republicans are not in love with your guy. In the last 4 months of the primaries, outspending Hillary by a wide margin he couldn't even get 46% of the votes in his own Party. He had to have Dean and Brazile waive their magic DNC wand so everyone could deny Hillary got the popular vote.
Reality? You wouldn't know it if it hit you over the head.
""He had to have Dean and Brazile waive their magic DNC wand so everyone could deny Hillary got the popular vote.""
[1] What does popular vote have to do with the nomination process, and
[2] How does emphasizing a popular vote argument (especially the crazy way Hillary tried to count it) as somehow determinative not entirely disenfranchise those states that hold caucuses?
If Obama confessed to your face you'd probably tell him he was lying.
As I said, you're a deeply dishonest person. You make up these counterfactuals out of mid-air, yet it is you who are insisting that Obama could "confess" something that you have no basis for believing.
who feels Obama is so far to the left I cannot vote for him
His policies are virtually identical to Clinton's. If anything, she ran to his left on health care and energy policy. This seems to be a common theme among those "Clinton supporters" who are now going against everything she believes in -- they are ignorant, stupid, dishonest -- and racist.
His supporters, such as yourself are so consistently rude and offensive it makes me think Obama says nothing because he condones your words.
So so so stupid. Obama's supporters are "consistent" only via your immensely dishonest selectivity. And Obama has said plenty, including demanding that 527's not operate on his behalf, but of course he has said nothing about me, because he doesn't know I exist.
jqb - Your tact and diplomacy is sure winning me over. I belong to a group, now 2.5 million strong who will be voting for McCain. You can disagree, you can call me names, but I still have a vote, and others who feel as I do have their votes, and come November they will be counted.
Anonymous - do you remember when Obama was ahead in the popular vote Brazile said she would object in every way possible if the delegates handed Hillary the nomination? What changed her mind?
[1] What does popular vote have to do with the nomination process, and
[2] How does emphasizing a popular vote argument (especially the crazy way Hillary tried to count it) as somehow determinative not entirely disenfranchise those states that hold caucuses?
These are not points that dishonest fact-free slimeballs like "diogenes" do or can address. Clinton ran a thoroughly dishonest campaign, discounting only those states or processes that didn't favor her, even having touted them earlier when they did favor her, and these tactics were effectively directed at the most ignorant and intellectually dishonest among the electorate, the sort of people who would not only accept these arguments but then repeat them, and pretend that they were disenfranchised and that the Obama campaign had cheated or was dishonest when that's the inverse of the truth.
jqb - I almost forgot. My basis for believing Obama could be using cocaine comes from his own admission of having used it. If you're not familiar with addiction, go read up on it before opening your mouth and making yourself look ignorant.
jqb - Your tact and diplomacy is sure winning me over.
Are you so fucking stupid that you think I'm trying to win you over? I think you actually are. But no, I am deeply disgusted and contemptuous of your kind. I have noted your numerous forms of dishonesty, to which you have no rebuttal.
Anonymous - do you remember when Obama was ahead in the popular vote Brazile said she would object in every way possible if the delegates handed Hillary the nomination? What changed her mind?
First, you didn't address either of anonymous's points -- if Donna Brazile was wrong about something, that wouldn't make you right about the same thing. Second, she said she would object to the superdelegates handing Clinton the nomination when Obama was ahead in the pledged delegate count, you fucking liar.
My basis for believing Obama could be using cocaine comes from his own admission of having used it.
He never said anything about crack cocaine, and he never said anything, or in any other way, provided any evidence that he is still using, whereas there is plenty of reason to think he isn't. You readily believe his mention of "blow" in his book while discounting every other fact about him, while stupidly blathering about people lying when their lips move. It certainly comes close to true of you, despite any lack of honesty on your part about youthful indiscretions.
jqb - 2.5 million and growing who have stated they will not vote for Obama. 2.5 million who can decide the election and you're going to be insulting us all the way to the voting booths. Really intelligent.
So this article was written about what McCain needs to do to win Clinton supporters. The answer becomes easy - Obama has supporters like you who will make sure we vote for McCain. He doesn't have to do all that much at all.
Anyone who decides who to vote for based on some random internet poster insulting them is a fucking cretin. Period.
""jqb - 2.5 million and growing who have stated they will not vote for Obama. 2.5 million who can decide the election and you're going to be insulting us all the way to the voting booths. Really intelligent.""
That's just it though. So often now the Clinton supporters have said something akin to:
You better watch what you say to us and how you treat us (suggesting that you should be sucked up to win your votes), but then go on to say how you will never, ever vote for Obama anyways, which, if true, gives no motivation whatsoever for people to watch what they say to you or otherwise suck up to you.
So this article was written about what McCain needs to do to win Clinton supporters.
Actually, moron, that's not what it's about:
McCain, however, appears to be less interested in speaking to the millions of Clinton voters who fall somewhere between the cracks, and more interested in engaging the handful of crazies who dislike Barack Obama for wholly irrational reasons.
People like you.
You better watch what you say to us and how you treat us (suggesting that you should be sucked up to win your votes), but then go on to say how you will never, ever vote for Obama anyways, which, if true, gives no motivation whatsoever for people to watch what they say to you or otherwise suck up to you.
Not being a coward, I have no motivation to suck up to these scum regardless of what they say.
jqb
l-e-t m-e s-a-y t-h-i-s s-l-o-w-l-y s-o y-o-u c-a-n u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d:
O-b-a-m-a i-s t-o-o f-a-r t-o t-h-e l-e-f-t f-o-r m-e.
O-b-a-m-a i-s t-o-o f-a-r t-o t-h-e l-e-f-t f-o-r m-e.
Then so is Clinton, moron. As this article says,
News flash: these people are not swing voters. Will Bower founded a group named Party Unity My Ass. He is not going to vote for Barack Obama. Paul Abeles is probably a racist. She is not going to vote for Barack Obama. Harriet Christian's vote is in the bag, Senator McCain. You do not need to win her over.
So what can McCain do to speak to the overwhelming majority of former Clinton supporters who are not batshit crazy?
That is, people unlike you and "diogenes".
P.S. If John McCain, the 8th most "conservative" (i.e., reactionary) Senator and consistently in the bottom 10 of the Senate, is not too far to the right of you than you are a fascist or an ignorant fool. The man has a 0 rating on reproductive rights and on the environment, he's at least as hawkish than Bush (the surge was his idea), and his views on the economy are as regressive (regardless of what he said in 2000).
The "Obama is to far to the left argument" is one that is often thrown out there, but never proven. It is merely quoted because someone else said so.
Neither Clinton nor Obama is among the top ten most liberal Senators. And Biden is more liberal than both.
http://voteview.com/sen110.htm
jqb - You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'm a former elected member of the Dem Party. Have you ever gone door to door getting petition signatures to put candidates on the ballot? Have you ever made hundreds of calls a day to get out the vote? Have you ever organized fundraising events? Have you ever sponsored events for the Party? I'm exactly who the DNC wants back in the fold. My last email to them began "When you lose people like me . . ."
The press doesn't say it - the Party doesn't say it, but Hillary is not far enough to the left for the DNC leadership. McCain is not far enough to the right for his Party either. Centrists tend to vote to the closest centrist there is - in this case McCain for me. I might have stayed with the Party line if my concerns about Obama had been addressed.
I suggest you go participate some more, spend hundreds upon hundreds of hours volunteering your brilliance and expertise and then come back and we can really talk.
The "Obama is to far to the left argument" is one that is often thrown out there, but never proven. It is merely quoted because someone else said so.
Like virtually every reason these cretins give for opposing him.
Neither Clinton nor Obama is among the top ten most liberal Senators.
Neither was Kerry, but like Obama he was labeled that way by Roll Call -- an anomaly of their election season absences. The propagandists will seize on anything they can use, and the intellectually dishonest bozos for whom confirmation bias is their primary operating mode lap it up.
Over at askville that idiot Bower is claiming that McCain is "centrist" because he was Kerry's first pick for VP -- a factually inaccurate assertion that, even if true, would not make the argument.
I'm a former elected member of the Dem Party.
That hardly changes the fact that you're a blithering idiot, asswipe.
Anonymous
My research and information shows Obama had interest from his earliest childhood in areas of Socialism, Marxism and Communism. His associations with radical thinkers in recent years are too troubling to me to ignore. I'd like to hear from Obama's mouth a lot of convincing language that he's not tied philosophically to extremist thinking. I'd also like to have real assurance he's not an addict.
"When you lose people like me . . ."
Oh, and a pompous asswipe with an inflated sense of his own importance -- which is nil, since he has declared his intentions. The Party has brought in a lot of new people, people who aren't DINOs, people who aren't so stupid as to vote against their own interests out of spite or as an attempt at blackmail, people who aren't so stupid as to think that McCain is some sort of centrist.
Wow. This guy Will Bowers is a sad little weiner dog, isn't he? He runs around and around in a tiny little circle, barking "look at me look at me look at me!" Poor Hillary. No wonder she lost if this is a measure of her support. What a ridiculous little fellow. Talk about short-dick syndrome. Well, that's my two cents worth.
I invite Will to read Barack Obama's two books and then to tell us the man shouldn't be president. He should do this after reading John McCain's book about being a war hero. I've read them all, and listened to the speeches. How else are you supposed to judge a political figure? Maybe, his record. I live in Illinois and Senator Obama has been an inspiration to me for a long time now. I'm fifty eight, by the by. I remember Chicago 1968. I'm sure Will B. doesn't.
jqb
You can't hear a word of mine over your own shouting. Live in your cocoon. Rail against the moon. Or better still, try running for elected office yourself - see if you're so smart everybody flocks to vote for you
My research and information shows Obama had interest from his earliest childhood in areas of Socialism, Marxism and Communism.
Since when does listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading FreeRepublic count as "research"? In any case, any intelligent person, any intellectual of any standing, has shown an interest in those important subjects. But capitalizing them and turning them into boogeymen is red baiting fodder for the incredibly stupid. Socialism in particular is something of which one finds significant elements in every successful democratic society, including the U.S.
You can't hear a word of mine over your own shouting. Live in your cocoon. Rail against the moon. Or better still, try running for elected office yourself - see if you're so smart everybody flocks to vote for you.
You continue to fail to say a single thing that is even halfway intelligent. You are a clear example of what Nate called "batshit crazy". I'm done with you.
jqb - I'm done with your ignorance too. So here are my questions for Obama:
Sen Obama, why won't you provide documents to show where you were Nov 6 and 7, 1999 if you weren't with Larry Sinclair? Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama, why won't provide your cell phone records for the evening of Nov 6 if you didn't make arrangements to buy cocaine? Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama, why won't you provide your cell phone records for the Sept - Dec period so you can prove you had no knowledge of, or participation in, the murder of Donald Young? Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama, why won't you provide, and require AKP Media, David Axlerod and David Plouffe to provide, your email and campaign communication records for the period between Jan 18 - Feb 29 so you can prove you had no knowledge of, or participation in, Larry Sinclair's sham lie detector test. Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama, why won't you provide, and require AKP Media, David Axlerod and David Plouffe to provide, full financial records to show there was no payment to Whitehouse.com in the amount of $750,000.00 for handling Larry Sinclair's sham lie detector test. Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen. Obama - A great many of the American people (1/2 of the Democrats, 1/2 of the Independents and probably all of the Republicans) want to know why you're the only candidate who refuses to release your original, certified birth certificate, full medical records, or schedules during your time in office - such as when you were in the Illinois State Senate. Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama: Reporters have asked Larry Sinclair if he's willing to have all his medical records released from 1999 until today. He's responded in the affirmative. Will you do the same? Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
Sen Obama, On June 18, 2008 Larry Sinclair stood in front of a room with over 100 reporters and answered all their questions. Would you do the same? For example: you have many unsubstantiated statements on your "Fight the Smear" site, such as: "Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim . ." Could you explain sir, how this is reconciled with your being registered as a Muslim at two separate schools in Indonesia? Or writing in your book that you had lessons in the Koran at one of those schools? Or that you occasionally went to the mosque with your stepfather? Are you really the transparent candidate you say you are?
FreeRepublic troll "diogenes2008", posing as "a former elected member of the Dem Party", firmly makes my point.
jqb
One last added comment and then I'm gone
Obama's mother - by his own admission - was a Socialist.
Have a nice life
With a list of demands like that, I'm guessing he'll take the loss of "losing people like you".
Obama's mother - by his own admission - was a Socialist.
Oooh, boogeyman!
So your a fascist fuck who won't vote for someone whose parent was a socialist. So what's your point? Why do you even need the sort of additional dirt that you think Larry Sinclair might provide? The answer is that you are deeply, deeply dishonest person.
With a list of demands like that, I'm guessing he'll take the loss of "losing people like you".
No no no, he's "exactly who the DNC wants back in the fold"! More Freepers in the DNC!
""No no no, he's "exactly who the DNC wants back in the fold"! More Freepers in the DNC!""
I'm left to wonder if he demanded such a minute by minute accounting of the Clintons' time, especially back when he was an "elected official".
It's not what I set out to do, but this isn't the first occasion on which hammering jackasses with my contempt (which is genuine and heartfelt) has led to them unfolding and revealing the sort of people they truly are. "Obama's a secret Muslim!!!" -- says the "former elected member of the Dem Party". Good fucking riddance.
jqb - I was asked to return to "fetch" some of your comments to use elsewhere - aren't you proud?
Your inability to read properly is probably at the heart of your ignorance. I did not say Obama's a secret Muslim. I said he lied when he said he wasn't a practicing Muslim in his youth. If you can get your brain around it - that's two different concepts.
Now I'm off for good - do try to get some education.
jqb - I was asked to return to "fetch" some of your comments to use elsewhere - aren't you proud?
I hope you're including this one:
"Anyone who decides who to vote for based on some random internet poster insulting them is a fucking cretin. Period."
I said he lied when he said he wasn't a practicing Muslim in his youth.
No, actually you asked a question of him. But your restatement of it as a belief and a purported fact shows you once again to be the liar and to reveal what is in your heart.
Now I'm off for good - do try to get some education.
Your performance here has been quite educational, though all too familiar: learning through repetition.
I did not say Obama's a secret Muslim.
As Bill Clinton famously said, in a quite similar regard, "it depends on what 'is' means". The difference between "Obama's a secret Muslim" and "Obama's secretly a former Muslim" doesn't make you any less of a Freeper.
The source of the Freeper's "research":
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm
"Yet the accumulated research from primary sources who knew Obama from his childhood indicate that he was a devout Muslim ..."
Yet, like the Freeper, they provide no such "primary sources", or even secondary or tertiary sources.
Relax...now that Obama is consistently (ABC, NBC, Newsweek) posting 20-some points ahead of McCain among woman shows that the bitter Clintonites are now little more than a fringe group waging a guerilla war after a treaty has already been signed.
A site that several days ago had a reputation as a viable alternative for predicting election results has become the apparently willing generator of a discussion had been largely relegated to the nether world of speculative accusations. Legitimizing this highly toxic subject by giving it credence here reminds me of Huffington Post's uncritical presentation of the work of Mayhill Fowler. And even of the soundbite wars of Sean Hannity.
I honestly do not know what thinking gave rise to the initial post if the result was not anticipated and desired..
Relax...now that Obama is consistently (ABC, NBC, Newsweek) posting 20-some points ahead of McCain among woman shows that the bitter Clintonites are now little more than a fringe group waging a guerilla war after a treaty has already been signed.
These are McCainites -- some really former supporters of Clinton and some just trolls -- and their swift-boat smears are just starting. I don't think relaxing is the best strategy, and even if it were, I'm not built that way. As I said, my contempt is genuine and heartfelt.
Legitimizing this highly toxic subject by giving it credence here
Nate didn't legitimize it or give it credence.
I honestly do not know what thinking gave rise to the initial post if the result was not anticipated and desired..
Ah, you're one of those people who thinks his own lack of imagination is evidence of some great truth. Look up argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Will Bower is a silly little BIGOT!
People are so partisans that sometimes they don't see the free advice that is being given. Some posters have berated Nate for not keeping this site independent; however, the main point of the posting was missed. John McCain needs to keep away from so called former Hillary supporters who would not have voted for Obama anyway and go after the moderate former Hillary supporters who voted for her because they looked at Obama and for some reasons found him lacking. John McCain needs to find out why these supporters (not the crazy ones) would not vote for Obama and establish a rational strategy to convert them to him.
John McCain needs to find out why these supporters (not the crazy ones) would not vote for Obama and establish a rational strategy to convert them to him.
The problem there is that you have to be crazy -- or at least very low-information -- to be someone who favored Clinton on the issues but would vote for McCain. It's tricky for McCain because he has to pretend to be a centrist while at the same time not alienating his base. Thus you see ads where he says he doesn't want to be warmonger but it's necessary to protect the country. The bit about how only a fool would romanticize war -- which applies directly to Bush and the neo-cons and many of Bush's supporters -- seems to go over most people's heads. And the low-information types remain blissfully unaware of McCain's record, which includes not only promoting ineptly executed warfare, but in resisting every attempt to provide aid or comfort to our troops. Not to mention doing every possible bad thing in regard to reproductive rights, women's economic rights, the welfare of children, etc.
the puma website is almost "endearing," like looking on little children playing. I (Obama supporter) checked it out of curiosity and now I am almost addicted to it. It's like the children's book "a visit to the bunny planet;" a few bloggers saying good night to each other; lots of cat photos. Funny, ineffective.
Ella, Ha. It would be endearing if it weren't so f'd up. Why do they use the acronym 'puma' in the first place? Is it do with Obama being a cool cat? Then, no credible organisation has 'ass' in their title. The whole thing is baloney from top to bottom. What's clear though is that they are bitter about Hillary losing and are clinging to their religion where Hillary is God and votes from flawed primaries are gospel truths and they're clinging to their anti-Obama/DNC guns. Note: one poster there has the name 'Grand Puma' -sounds like some sort of KKK-take-off to me.
Amusing that Bower suggests questions about Obama haven't been answered while himself flailing to avoid answering questions posed to him.
Er, this isn't the forum to answer...
Um, I think it best if I not say what baseless smears deserve to be explored further...
If I answered that question, I'm worried I would help Larry Sinclair...
I fell behind and may miss some questions that were posed. Let me try. Oh they were the ones that pinned me down and I can't answer? That's a coincidence...
Gosh dang it, I just got an email that they're turning off my internet service forever starting in 30 seconds! I was just how to explain how America should be punished for the conspiracy against HIllary and agh! No time!-
Thank you all for the opportunity to not answer to your thought-provoking questions...
Let me put this as diplomatically as I can: Bower is an idiot not worth exploring.
As a follow up, to re-open this thread for a moment to provide and update (and to second the statements in the post just prior to this one), as you may recall, I posted several questions to Will Bower of PUMA:
What about the DNC decision do you see as being patently unfair?
What would you have considered to be a fair decision?
How does punishing the candidate hurt the DNC, when they will still be around in 4 years even if the candidate is not?
Are the consequences of a McCain Presidency REALLY less important than making your point?
If you make your point by denying Obama the Presidency, what will that achieve, and will it be worth the cost?
Do you believe that there will not be a HUGE anti Clinton sentiment in 2012 if she attempts to seek the nomination after 4 more years of failed Bush policies as the direct result of her disgruntled supporters sabbotaging an otherwise viable candidate?
Mr. Bower said he'd "love" to answer them but he didn't think this was the right place. I said I agreed, and asked him to name a place. He didn't respond to me but did to several others. So I challenged him after he essentially said he was "outta here". He then turned it back on me to name the time and place. I thought this was kind of weird that a person who gained his notoriety as a blogger couldn't come up with a place, but I directed him to a Q&A site where I participate. I directed him in fact to a question I'd asked when Obama clinched the nomination in regards to how could any Clinton supporter now support McCain over Obama.
Well, Mr. Bower went over there and within 5 minutes he had an account established, AND had posted 10 posts (2 were duplicates). Clearly these were boilerplate positions he has taken and is not even considering any new information on (no way he could have typed that much that quickly). I typed 3 lengthy responses over the next couple hours basically shooting down his assertions. I got no response there and he never returned here. Bottom line, I think he's doing exactly what the previous poster says...spreading his word and not listening to opposing viewpoints or even sticking around long enough to defend his positions.
The response I got to my questions was along the lines of him being angry with the FIRST decisions regarding Michigan and Florida, essentially because all the states wanted to break the rules, and they had moved New Hampshire from 2nd to 4th in voting, New Hampshire requested a waiver to go back to 2nd while Michigan requested a waiver to vote in January...New Hampshire got it and Michigan didn't. And Florida was being held hostage by a Republican legislature. He felt if he didn't make a point with his protest vote, it would send the wrong message to the broken party. And he didn't think a McCain Presidency would be that bad because after all Kerry was going to pick him as his running mate in 2004, so he questioned what changed. He said he looks at things in the now, he is not looking towards 2012 or what will happen in 4 years, he wants to make the point to the DNC that they were unfair in how they set the rules.
My challenges were that if we allowed Florida a waiver we'd be letting Republicans set Democratic Party agenda, and that would set a worse precedent than doing in the end exactly what the Republicans, for who he is voting, did themselves. Also, I said that New Hampshire had earned a 2nd spot on the nominating calendar and had been there before, moving them from 4th to 2nd was a far cry from moving a state which is embroiled in political scandal to a kingmaker position they've never held and honestly have no business holding (indeed Florida and Michigan would be the LAST 2 states you'd want to put first on the calendar given all their electoral troubles). I said fair enough on the 2012 thing, but I essentially felt that the DNC was in a bad position and they made the best choice they could, and what's more, every single candidate and their campaigns agreed to this calendar going in, so why is it suddenly unfair now?
So, I still don't have answers to that. You can read his comments and mine here:
http://askville.amazon.com/Clinton-supporters-vote-McCain-Obama-nomination-hear-reasoning/DiscussionBoard.do?requestId=10021748&page=1
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,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,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ 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,
^^ 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,
Post a Comment