
That's a Pollster.com-style chart of Bill Clinton's favorability ratings since the start of calendar year 2001, just as he was preparing to leave office. The patterns are fairly easy to infer. Clinton remained popular in the waning days of his Presidency. Once he left office, his numbers essentially became a mirror image of George W. Bush's, moving into net-unfavorable territory when Bush was reasonably well-liked, and then rising as the President declined in popularity. But since his wife began to run for office, his numbers have faltered, falling from about a +20 at their peak in 2006 and early 2007 to roughly +5 now.
I think there is more risk than the insta-pundit reaction seems to be acknowledging in the news that Bill Clinton will speak just before the Vice Presidential nominee on the Wednesday night of the Democratic convention. This is a huge speech, and it means that there is going to be an awful lotta Clinton at the convention, with Hillary probably delivering the keynote on Tuesday and Bill stealing the spotlight on Wednesday.
Indeed, the only reason why Bill's speech won't upstage Obama's is because Obama is such a strong orator. It will possibly upstage his wife's, and probably upstage the vice president's. In fact, it puts Obama in even more of a pickle in making his VP choice. Does it become even more important now to have a 'change' candidate, to avoid the convention being too much of a back-to-the-future affair? Or do you need someone who won't create an awkward contrast with the Clintons? If the importance of oratory is elevated by the chore of having to speak after Bill Clinton, does that boost the prospects of the relatively stronger speakers (Joe Biden and Tim Kaine) at the expense of the relatively weaker ones (Evan Bayh and Kathleen Sebelius)? Does it help someone like Wesley Clark, who is relatively well equipped to navigate these different parameters? And how sure are we that we should be ruling out Hillary?
8.07.2008
Bubba By Numbers
by Nate Silver @ 9:25 PM...see also bubba, conventions, vice president
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

51 comments
So what happens if Obama picks Hillary? Bill introduces Hill?
"It will possibly upstage his wife's"
Maybe from Obama's perspective that's a good thing.
As far as having Pres. Clinton speak the same night as the VP, I can think of three ways you can spin that off the top of my head:
1) It raises the odds that Hillary's the VP. Bill's speech would then simply transition into the traditional introductory speech for the VP.
2) Obama intends to nominate a VP who's a lousy speaker. The hope is that Bill's speech overshadows the lackluster VP speech.
3) Obama's speech - before 75,000 adoring fans - is clearly going to be the highlight of the Dem convention. By having Bill's speech the day immediately before Obama's, it minimizes the impact of Pres. Clinton's speech, by minimizing the length of time between Clinton's and Obama's speeches.
Actually placing BIll on VP night may be a way to force the Clintons to show grace and approval towards a VP candidate they may not be very enthused about ... Follow my eyes to Kansas.
I think you have to assume that the Obama campaign will tightly script and control Bill's speech. The Obama people are nothing if not tight handlers. Bill might complain about that behind the scenes, but he'll submit to it no matter how grudgingly. And that tight control will ensure Bill doesn't give a soaring speech that overshadows the VP choice.
The biggest mistake in analysis is to think that the choice of Bill to speak before the VP nominee in any way affects Obama's choice of a running mate. It doesn't. They are too smart to let something as small as that influence who is going to be the next Vice President of the United States.
Also, aren't the networks doing only very limited convention coverage this time? They can't very well not cover the VP nominee's speech, so they may not be able to cover the former president's.
Obama's not the only one in a pickle here. So is Bill. He is there to resuscitate his image more than to help elect Obama. But the best way for him to do that is to give a '92 style inspiring Bill Clinton speech that clearly helps elect Obama. I think he'll pull it off and both his favorability ratings and Obama's will get a bump from it. But it is dangerous for everybody if he fails.
Michelle is correct that it will be Bill's job to bless the VP on behalf of "The Clintons." It will also be his job to convincingly bless the Obama candidacy. Putting him just before the VP sets him up to bless the ticket. I imagine Obama is betting that Clinton is smart enough to realize his own standing depends on him doing that well.
This is interesting. People will certainly be watching his speech.
Here is my hope:
He can effectively be the attack dog and be the one person that goes entirely after McCain. If he is the bad cop, Obama is free to completely be the good cop.
Here is my fear:
He's apparently still not over it. There is a really high likelihood that he will make the entire thing about himself and never mention Obama or McCain.
Does anyone remember the 1988 convention?
He was supposed to give a 15 minute speech. He talked for nearly an hour. It threw everything else off track, knocked all the other speakers out of primetime and was not at all well received. But hey, he was a nobody Arkansas governor and he was given a shot at the national spotlight. He practically dared the DNC to have security physically remove him from the platform.
This is interesting. People will certainly be watching his speech.
Here is my hope:
He can effectively be the attack dog and be the one person that goes entirely after McCain. If he is the bad cop, Obama is free to completely be the good cop.
Here is my fear:
He's apparently still not over it. There is a really high likelihood that he will make the entire thing about himself and never mention Obama or McCain.
Does anyone remember the 1988 convention?
He was supposed to give a 15 minute speech. He talked for nearly an hour. It threw everything else off track, knocked all the other speakers out of primetime and was not at all well received. But hey, he was a nobody Arkansas governor and he was given a shot at the national spotlight. He practically dared the DNC to have security physically remove him from the platform.
Not to worry ...
Those nos. will shoot right back up once Obama is in the White House ...
ie. if it looks like Bill actually helped to secure it ...
I assume that this was arranged in order to assuage the apparently still bitter, frustrated Big Dog? And if so, that there is clear communication between the Obama campaign and the former President as to this being about reconciliation?
Or, to put it another way, giving him this spot is clearly part of the "healing process," nicht wahr?
What if Bill isn't told who the VP is before giving his speech?
All that's been announced is that he is speaking on that night, not that he is also introducing the VP.
clarkejeffrey , if he does that I am sorry to say that his political future will be royally fύckәd (excuse my French ...
Not to mention those of his extended family ...
BTW ... Have you seen the current impatience towards pomposity coming from the general population ? ...
No one likes a character that's full of themselves ...
Having Bill speak before the V.P. may raise viewership and make the Democratic convention a strong 3 day presentation of what the party has to offer. It builds anticipation and will drive up ratings. Generating this type of momentum and enthusiasm is crucial if the convention wants to overpower the McCain/ GOP message that will command the airwaves the following week. Maybe Bill could give a speech acting as a peacemaker and bridge between the Hillary and Obama factions, therefore restoring his rightful place as noble and wise party elder. The only problem is it seems the press is in love with the more negative elements of this storyline because controversy and outrage sells. But just like the other Obama-Hillary appearance, all that can easily be made to appear as water under the bridge if the situation is handled with the type of professionalism and political I.Q. that all three politicians are capable of. With that said the V.P. better be a strong speaker because the star power represented by the Clintons will demand there not be a let down when the future/ change team starts to spell out what it stands for in front of a national audience.
I think the best stagecraft would have been to have Bill introduce Obama on Thursday. Let Bill get his ego stroked in front of 75,000 fans, and have that moment be the symbolic passing of the torch. The effect would have been huge, I would think.
"Let Bill get his ego stroked in front of 75,000 fans"
And then right afterward have the same crowd go even MORE crazy for Obama. And of course nobody would remember a word of what Clinton said after Obama's acceptance speech.
No, giving Clinton his own day before the torch is passed to Obama makes more sense as an ego-stroker, I would think.
tomthress,
Not only that, but the fact that you will have three straight days of blockbuster appearances Hillary, Bill and then Barack.
"Let Bill get his ego stroked in front of 75,000 fans"
There's no guarantee that he could let go of the adulation. if he were to give a 15 minute speech, you'd get a 1 hour show with the potential of him doing real damage to obama whenever he goes unscripted. And let me say that bill clinton has nothing to lose in this. hillary does. bill was a highly successful president. if obama loses and everybody holds a grudge against bill, in 15 years, he'd likely still be the only 2 term president since the 60s. so, long term, he already has his place in history. obama needs to choreograph as much as possible whenever bill is speaking. hillary is a different thing. she actually has the discipline and control not to undermine obama if that's what she wants.
I'm guessing this won't be a major consideration regarding the VP pick...or at least I'm hoping this isn't the stuff that keeps Obama up at night.
I'm with gwili2k8. The idea is twofold: (1) to produce a wizbang convention that gets a lot of attention from the public on three straight days; and (2) really fires up the democratic base and gets them enthusiastic to go out and elect democrats (NOTE: NOT JUST OBAMA!).
Bill may have growing unfavorables, but he's still loved by the base, and he will stir up people to go out and win elections all over the country.
I'm also surprised that no one's picked up on Nate's theory about Hillary. I'm not necessarily advocating it, nor would I necessarily bet on it, but the little itch in the back of my brain keeps saying that Obama needs to do something big with his VP pick that's on par with the scope of his (giant) ambition for the US and the world.
Think about Clinton's choice of Gore. The theme was new, change, young hip.
We've all been assuming that Obama's message is also change, bipartisanship, new, young, hip, and he needs to reinforce that. But what if McCain's actually right about Obama's campaign. What if his campaign's underlying theme is really that he is a political rock star: i.e., Obama is the next Reagan, the kind of leader who can take on the world and make the US respected worldwide, again.
Who does he pick to match him on that theme? No one on the current list of media favorites is big enough (Biden, Bayh, Sebellius, Kaine, Clark; let's be real. I like them all as normal politicians, but they're just that, normal politicians). If he's going for global gravitas (and what else was that trip for), his choices are much narrower: Hillary, Colin Powell, Michael Bloomberg, maybe Sam Nunn.
It's just an itch in the back of my head, a crazy theory, but I keep wondering. If he is a rockstar, how can he possibly pick someone who's not a rockstar as a running mate.
I'm enjoying very much watching the Democrat establishment deal with the looming shadow if the Clintons.
I'm going to enjoy it even more in 2012 when they go groveling to them again to save their party from another defeat at the Presidential level.
Nate, I really think that the prospect that Bill is going to introduce Hillary as VP has to be looked at seriously. Creating a very powerful image of Hillary, Bill, and Obama... I can't imagine putting Bill up and then being like, ok hey Tim Kaine cmon up!
Who cares about VP, anyway? It's only been since Cheney that anyone actually cared about the VP, and that was only because of the perception that GWB was an intellectual lightweight who would need help.
VA Con...I guess for the moment the Republicans have figured out what to do with their embarrassing dynastic family. Hide them.
Too bad one of them is still president.
George W. Bush is a much bigger problem for John McCain than Bill Clinton is for Barack Obama.
I really don't think we can infer much about VP prospects from speaking order at the convention. Maybe Obama simply hasn't made up his mind yet.
One thing I still can't figure out, on a related note, is why the campaign hired Patty Solis Doyle as Chief of Staff for the VP, and why they did so so soon after the primary season. Wouldn't any self-respecting VP candidate want to have a little say on who's going to be their chief of staff?
Jim Butler:
Her real title was "Hilary associate in charge of looking important." It was a window dressing title. She will be given a new title (and job) later.
Clark Miller: "If he is a rockstar, how can he possibly pick someone who's not a rockstar as a running mate."
Well, look at Reagan. He didn't need to pick a rockstar/charismatic running mate. Instead he reached toward the more moderate wing and picked GHWB. By that logic, Obama could easily pick someone like Bayh. I think he could pick just about anyone decent (i.e., not someone goofy, like Kucinich), and be fine. Hillary comes with her own unique pluses and minuses, as many have been saying.
Of the rest, Kaine seems a little green, Nunn too grey. Sebelius, Schweitzer, Clark, Richardson, Biden -- all excellent choices. Hagel is so far right it would be a real shocker; maybe he'll end up at Defense or something.
Judas Priest -- yeah, your take on Solis Doyle makes the most sense of any I've heard.
Which stooge thinks that new registrants are not captured in polling?
If there is not LV screen, they are most certainly covered. Why are people passing on such blather.
Thirdly,
The young people are coming out to vote is the siren song of the losing presidential elections of nearly all democrats in the past.
Clinton has been the only Dem winner in the last 40 years. Carter won in the aftermath of the pseudo-scandal called watergate.
Nixon's worst scandal was expanding a huge regulatory burdon on the country including EPA. He messed up the country with wage and price controls. He would be considered a liberal democrat today.
Similarly, JFK would be considered a Republican in policy today. Reducing a mammoth tax burdon on the American by ruducing tax rates across the board. Yes, Democrat party, your favorite Dem would be a GOP.
MLK JR. would be closer to the stance of minority rights and equal protection under the law of the Republican party. There is no part of the "I have a dream speech" that would imply race-based preferences or affirmative action programs.
@Jim Butler
You are right, of course, and I had thought through the Reagan example.
Reagan picked someone with enormous experience and history in the Republican Party and former Republic Administrations' leadership, who was well known nationally, and who had run second to Reagan in the Republican primaries.
I'm not sure that the democratic party has someone right now who is Bush's equivalent (recall he was elected to Congress, served as Ambassador to China and the UN, was chairman of the Republican Party, and Director of Central Intelligence). Except of course Hillary Clinton. She is the establishment experience candidate who came in second to Obama's rockstar change campaign. She bring's the other half of the Democratic Party.
I'm not trying to argue for Hillary Clinton, per se. I'm just trying to figure out what the Obama narrative is and how it impacts a VP choice.
I talked to this at some length with Curt Ellison, who has written at length about fan culture in gospel and country western music. He agrees with me that Obama is not just rockstar but rockstar gospel preacher in the mode of Martin Luther King. It's hard to imagine that narrative including a second individual at all. In country and gospel music, duets tend to be family affairs, and don't tend to have star status individuals partnering (think also of the mega church evangelical preachers; the people who play number two are more administrative types; following that argument, one might imagine a VP playing a crucial administrative role, but it's not at all clear how it helps Obama construct a narrative).
So, either Obama downplays the VP choice, or he chooses someone who has the gravitas and charisma to play on the same stage.
I REALLY wish the Democrats would stop with all this drama. I could care less that Bill Clinton is speaking. Despite all the media hype, most people don't really care what he does. He is the past. Obama and the VP choice are about the future. Everyone knows that Bill Clinton loves to talk about Bill Clinton. I would like to see a unified convention with sane, rational Democrats who support the nominee and want to win. I'm sick of the faux Democrats trying to control the party, the fringe radical activists like Geraldine Ferarro (who lost in 49 states by the way), PUMAs, and the Clintonites who shill 24/7 without regard to the actual facts.
Democrats can focus on what Obama will bring to the table, or they can debate Bill Clinton "feelings" and "bitterness" about comments HE MADE. I don't know how someone can feel wronged if they made the disparaging comments to begin with.
Bill Clinton is, apart from Obama, the Top Dog of the party. He and Hillary will pull more media attraction than anyone else, apart from Obama. I really doubt that Hillary is going to be VP if she actually speaks on Tuesday already and then again after Bill. Would Obama really allow THAT much Clinton?
Apart from that, Bill has stated that he enjoys returning to his statesman-like role. But his ego will never allow him to honestly congratulate Obama - maybe it´s the best if he plays the pure attack dog.
Both Hillary´s and Bill´s actions tell me that it´s not going to be Hillary. Why else should Hillary be wanting some kind of recognition for her votes on the convention. Why does she speak of a "catharsis", but not Obama? Because from her point of view, she will in fact go through a lot of suffering (telling people to get behind Obama) to "cleanse" her soul (give up national ambitions and be "just" a strong voice in the senate).
Besides, all the attention that surely will be on Bill Clinton can be used to nationally introduce a VP who hasn´t yet stood in the national spotlight for all the non-policy-wonks.
Something else about introducing the VP,
Bill Clinton once said he would like to see Evan Bayh as a future president.
http://clinton6.nara.gov/2000/05/2000-05-08-remarks-at-reception-for-congressman-baron-hill.html
So that could be a nice transition from Bill to VP.
And it would be almost devilish if he would introduce Kathleen Sebelius and split the No-One-but-Hillary-votes from the Clinton-approved-VP-votes. So, Hillary can´t do it because she would betray her fiercest fans - let Bill do it.
"In conclusion . . . . "
That was Bill Clinton's biggest applause line from 1988. His speech caused a minor scandal for the reasons noted above. We should have known then that it would always be about Bill.
This whole dust up over the Clinton's this week is evidence that there is a significant factional problem within the Democrat Party. Bill is still licking his wounds in Africa and Hillary is courting her PUMAs and planning her roll call. Party Unity My Ass, indeed!
It is amazing to me that Clinton, the former Icon of his Party, could have been treated so shabbily this election year and that the Obama campaign and its supporters would be so willing to throw him under the bus along with so many others. That he is pissed and feeling dissed is entirely natural.
It would be a mistake to think that there are not many other Democrats who are feeling similarly bruised and while not yet ready to defect are not all that enthusiastic about Obama, who after all only got 50% of the votes in the primaries to 50% for Mrs. Clinton. Do not discount that Bill’s treatment and resentment over it has potentially moved the polls in NY a nudge.
Obama is about to take a week off. To me that is an amazing move. While it is undeniable that a significant segment of the population is sick of hearing about him, it is a huge mistake to leave the playing field to your enemies.
Both McCain and the Clintons can use the week to sharpen their knives (and claws) get ready for the sprint to the Conventions.
Do not think for a moment that the Clintons are ready yet to give up their quest for power.
LOL, the bots keep forgetting that Bill doesn't need a teleprompter and he doesn't need other people to write speeches for him. It doesn't matter what they write for him to recite and it doesn't matter what they put on the prompter.
The Big Dawg will give the speech the Big Dawg wants to give and he will blow away the crowd.
Bill Clinton is the most gifted statesman alive today. During the State of the Union Address, the teleprompter broke, which would leave obambi or bushie both speechless and bumbling. Nobody knew it was broken until it was over because Bill went on with the address without it, flawlessly.
ANYBODY who thinks they can control Bill Clinton is a damn fool.
Bill Clinton: "And in conclusion ..." And the 1988 Convention roared its approval that finally the guy was going to shut up.
Back to the future, indeed!
He won because of Perot. Was so poor that Republicans took over Congress. Botched a chance for universal health care. Disgraced the Office and was rightly disbarred for lying under oath.
Had we picked anybody but Clinton (Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Bob Kerry) we still would have one and the Democratic Party would have been in infinitely better shape.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
To me the VP choice is obvious. Who is the 3rd member of the Clinton trifecta? Who does Bill know and respect and will be able to introduce easily? Who is exciting and inspiring yet won't take the stage away from Obama? The one candidate who is not Hillary yet beloved enough by the dems to make the rift between Obama/Clinton a distant memory, and a choice that will dominate the media cycle for weeks. A perfect choice when ENERGY is the one issue the republicans are winning on. I assume by now you can figure out who I mean....
Maxwell-
Did the man you're thinking of have a speaking part in "Bender's Big Score"?
I am guessing you mean Al Gore.
He would be my first choice for you all.
I can see the ads now featuring his private plane, his energy sucking mansions, the fleet of limos and now the huge house boat!
Gore is now so out of step with the country it is funny.
Funny, also how $4.00/gal gas can focus the attention of the people and make them realize we can’t afford the crock of bull and pseudo-science that the far left and the enviro-wackos have been trying to peddle for years.
Oh, man! I love the free market system: it has such a way of confounding the idiocies of certain schools of thought.
An entire article devoted to the question "can Bill give a graceful speech at the convention?" and about 50 posts and it's like everybody fell off the turnip-truck just yesterday!
HELLO! Does NOBODY remember the 2004 Kerry Convention? Bill Clinton gave a speech there, remember? There were all of these concerns "he'll upstage the nominee", etc.
He gave a speech that was graceful and well received and was the highlight of the convention until Kerry spoke. In retrospect I remember his speech better than Kerry's "Reporting for Duty" acceptance speech.
Bill pointed out that the Bush tax cuts were great for people like him who had a lot of money, but not so great for working families. Etc. He hit all the points attacking Bush that anybody would want and he did fine. He was easy-going, laid back, funny, and made his points with style and dignity.
And then he got off the stage.
So, why should anything be different this time? He's bitter? He's a politician. He's mad at the delegates for not selecting Hillary? That's politics. He's dealt with worse in the past.
He knows how to write and deliver a speech. It will be well received and widely regarded as the best speech of the convention besides Obama's.
It will certainly upstage anything Hillary has to say. After this convention nobody will be asking "why didn't they pick Hillary." She's NO Obama and no Bill.
As for Obama. There's simply NO way Bill can deliver a better speech. Obama is a master like we haven't seen in American politics since Bobby Kennedy.
Not even Reagan can touch him. I almost think it's more the timing than anything else. America in 1980 was eager to hear the message Reagan delivered "Morning In America." The nation is now HUNGRY for the message Obama delivers "The Audacity of Hope."
As a liberal I ridiculed Reagan's speech in 1980. America loved it though. My reaction was partisan and out of step with what the vast majority of people felt.
Today all the wing-nuts are hating Obama. They'll come out and attack anything he says. And it won't matter.
Today THEY are partisan and out of step shrilly denouncing the change they hate and fear. Americans are eager to hear his message.
People actually WANT to have hope and no amount of McCain fear-mongering and attack ads are going to be able to stop it, any more than Carter's attacks on Reagan "dangerous extremist" made any difference in the end.
I think to Cugel's point, your assessment about who gives the better speech, Obama or Reagan, has a lot to do with how you react to the content.
That said, you have to give Obama props for being the natural speaker, given that Reagan was an actor (if a B Movie one).
Oration is a gift. The ability to use one's speaking voice like an instrument and the judgment to manipulate it happily over resonant text is as much art as it is artifice.
Clinton had a decent speaking ability, but he came across as insincere.
A liar.
Reagan came off rehearsed.
A fake.
Obama comes across as . . . .
Me, I'd day sanctimonious. He has the touch of the preacher and the university lecturer about him. He talks to high-minded themes and sounds judgmental about them.
To some, he inspires. Others, he offends.
Whoever has the most in his corner is should win.
So it was with Reagan, so it will be with Obama.
> Who is exciting and inspiring yet won't take the stage away from Obama?
Not even Bono himself would take the stage away from Obama. Obama's after all the biggest brand/icon in world politics.
I wonder when Gore will speak during the convention. He's certainly the far more impressive elder statesman of Clinton/Gore.
As for him and the vicepresidency, sure, he'd be the ideal candidate, but I can't see him wanting to run again for the same job. Besides, it would be a demotion considering his present status and prestige. I can't blame him for not wanting the job and think he's doing a fabulous job as a movement leader - arguably doing in that role at least as much good as he might as Veep.
If Obama actually wanted to pick Hillary as his running mate from the beginning (an unlikely scenario), his campaign has really done a brilliant bit of misdirection. Had it seemed that Obama had merely accepted Senator Clinton as his inevitable running mate the story would have been about his relative weakness in choosing a vice-president the media thought he had to choose. Today with all the talk of Tim Kaine, Joe Biden and others Hillary comes as a surprise pick that may actually reinforce Obama's claims to have strong judgment.
The thing about Gore is this:
If he didn't want the top job, why would he want to be number two?
@ Maxwell:
Aah Gore, of course. First, I thought you meant Bill Richardson, lol.
@ Mason:
Probably the best reason against VP Gore I have heard so far.
I know it's twisted and wrong, and I must be soft in the head, but I actually agreed with something Pete Kent wrote.
How people react to Obama's speeches depends a lot on how you react to the content.
If you are open to the message, then it seems inspiring and uplifting. If you hate the message and the messenger it seems wrong and hypocritical. You feel like somebody who "sees through" a magician's tricks while everybody else gapes in awe.
That's how I felt in 1980 listening to Reagan. I could hardly bring myself to believe that Americans could sit still and listen to such lying swill!
I was sure that 4 years of Reagan would utterly disillusion Americans too so that whoever the Democrats put up in 1984 would win in a landslide.
Well, THAT didn't happen.
Today the right-wing just can't believe people actually listen to Obama and are inspired to take action and support him as a result. They hate everything he has to say, it all sounds like "socialism" to them.
Well, get used to it. You're going to be hearing a LOT more of it over the next 4 years.
Actually on a more sympathetic note, I know how you feel. I felt that same way in 1980. You feel like a terrible disease is sweeping the country carrying everything before it. Everything you disagree with and hate is coming to power.
It feels like the end of an era, and it is.
I agree with others that Gore most likely does not want the job, but a big part of me will still keep hoping :)
I disagree that his wealth can be used against the ticket, dems could just counter with Mccains 9 or so mansions and make him look like a kypocrite.
And lastly as for my comment about taking the stage away from obama, the only situations I'm really referring to would be Hillary Clinton or Colin Powell (unrealistic as it is). The media seems to have some perverse fascination with making Clinton the center of every story, and well, if Powell was chosen it would be huge.
@maxwell
Well the problem is that there's nothing America hates more than a reformer politician. In other words, if a politician claims to be high-minded on some issue, the media is going to be looking as hard as it can for some way to upend that image. It's a story. On the other hand, politicians who never pretend to be anything less than rich power brokers receive much less scrutiny.
That's why an expensive haircut can help take John Edwards down but an equally ridiculously expensive pair of loafers does nothing to hurt McCain.
The best possible VP pick would be Ed Rendell of Pa. The only thing is, he wouldn't serve as VP under anyone but Hillary Clinton.
Of course, this is the NOMINATING convention, so that very well could happen regardless of what the kool-aid drinking obamabots want to believe.
Those 75,000 fans may be celbrating Hillary's nomination, not Obama's. It would seriously piss him off to plan the whole thing, set up his coronation and somebody else get the crown without him even getting to give a speech wouldn't it? LMAO
BTW, all of you obamazombies who keep dissing Bill Clinton, the greatest President of our era, really are pathetic in trying to compare your empty suit of a candidate to someone of Clinton's caliber.
Obama isn't fit to shine Bill Clinton's shoes and people on here are acting like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
There's no guarantee he'll even be the nominee when this is over, so save your "messiah worship" for someone who is at least partially worthy.
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,
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