THE PLANK MAY 8, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the last few days. But, seriously, is the idea any good? We asked a few friends of the magazine to weigh in. Here's Mark Schmitt, senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
There are fights within the Democratic Party that reflect deep structural and ideological rifts that, in turn, are embodied by individual candidates: Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy vs. Hubert Humphrey in 1968, George McGovern vs. everyone else in 1972, Ted Kennedy vs. Jimmy Carter in 1980. These breaches, because they went so deep, took a long time to heal, and a "unity ticket" might have helped.
But then there are fights that really have much more to do with the personal qualities and appeals of the candidates. Such a fight can seem similar to a real breach, because the candidates do divide the electorate sharply along lines of class, race, ethnic background, education, gender, and age. But that doesn't mean that the Democratic electorate is inherently divided along those lines, or divided by other issues. If the candidates disappeared, so would the divisions. These have been two strong, appealing candidates, each of them attracting votes rather than repelling them (the staggering turnouts in the Democratic primaries, often approaching or even surpassing the total votes received by John Kerry in 2004, are proof), and who happen to have a natural appeal to different demographic groups. As they split the electorate almost evenly, passions rose higher, and accusations of racial insensitivity, sexism, elitism, and pandering grew louder. Major figures in the Democratic establishment could see their careers ending, while others would emerge to replace them. All this makes for ugliness.
But in two months, I suspect that these things will all be the equivalent of political trivia questions: What did former BET President Bob Johnson accuse Barack Obama of? Which informal Obama advisor referred to Clinton as "a monster," and in what newspaper? Those of us who know the answer will be shocked to recall how deeply immersed we were in them.
And that's why the "unity ticket," while not necessarily a bad idea, is fundamentally unnecessary. The Obama-Clinton divide will heal naturally; it does not require radical surgery. Clinton should be considered as one might consider any other candidate for the vice presidency: in terms of what she brings to the ticket and to the eventual presidency.
**Experience. Certainly Obama would be helped by someone who could balance his relatively short period in national politics with either length or breadth of experience: A stronger background on foreign policy and security, some experience as a governor or in the executive branch, or just a few more years in office would be helpful. Clinton certainly has somewhat more experience: She's lived in the White House, she's served four years longer in the Senate, she's clearly mastered military matters. But there are many other candidates who have at least as much direct experience, from the successful governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, to Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, or Evan Bayh--who at 52 has 22 years in public office--or Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a West Point graduate who recently made his 11th trip to Iraq.
**Ideological contrast. One could argue that Obama's liberalism needs a contrast, in a running mate from the slightly more centrist or conservative wing of the party. In many primaries, Clinton did better with more conservative Democrats, and the fact that more of her voters seem to express an intent to vote for McCain suggests that they are more conservative. Obama is in many ways the most plain-spoken liberal to win the Democratic nomination since Walter Mondale. But while Clinton is probably inherently more cautious than Obama, her record marks her as more conservative on only one issue, and that's the one on which she is most out of step with the vast majority of Americans--the decision to go to war in Iraq. And yet, she still suffers under the reputation, developed during the 1990s, that she is some sort of quasi-socialist. That's the worst possible combination: perceived as more liberal than she actually is, while being demonstrably more conservative only on less popular points. Voters are clearly more comfortable with actual liberal policies than they are with the idea of liberalism, which is why Republicans will go after Obama's misleading rating as the "most liberal" senator rather than his actual issue position. Clinton does nothing to balance that perception, though there are several politicians who would: All of the successful governors are perceived as pragmatists, not ideologues. Bayh, Senator Jim Webb, former Senator Sam Nunn, and several others would be perceived as more moderate.
**Region or character type. The primaries created the idea--which would have seemed implausible a year ago--that Clinton is the champion of the white working class, particularly the white working class of Scotch-Irish descent in the Appalachian belt. Obama, meanwhile, has been characterized as the candidate of the McGovern coalition of the upper-Midwest and New England, of affluent college graduates and African-Americans. One could argue that the dream ticket fuses these two regional and socio-economic factions. But if they were not fighting with one another, Obama and Clinton would look a lot more alike as cultural and regional archetypes than different. Despite her legendary grandparents from Scranton, Pennsylvania, (I've got those, too--maybe I could be a working-class hero!), Clinton is really, just like Obama, a pure product of the sensible, reformist political culture of Chicago and the upper-Midwest; Terry McAuliffe's claim that you'll find her at the bar downing shots and beer is as implausible as it is an undesirable trait in a president. Several other prospects, such as Webb, Reed, or Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, would legitimately be seen as fighters for the working class, offering a much more tangible balance to Obama's cool and slightly academic distance.
There are some reasons that the "unity ticket" might be an actually bad idea, notably that a vice presidential candidate needs to be able to subsume his or her own ambitions and ideas for as many as eight years. Hillary Clinton subsumed her ambitions for the first 53 years of her life; there's no reason to expect that she should do so again. But even aside from that, the unity ticket is unnecessary, not only for the party and for Obama, but for Clinton herself. As one of the handful of senators who can automatically command national attention, she will be a central figure in the new era of liberal possibility that will begin in January.
Related
Alan Wolfe: Using identity politics to move beyond identity politics.
Ed Kilgore: Obama should ask her, and she should accept.
Michael Tomasky: He can do better in both substantive and symbolic terms.
David A. Bell: Ten reasons not to pick Hillary Clinton as V.P.
33 comments
This is a very fine piece by Mark Schmitt. I have been telling people that Hillary is percieved as a leftist by the right and something of a rightist by the left. From Sebelius to Napolitano to Sam Nunn, et al, these politicians would be - all of them - better than Hillary in the ticket balancing department. I say put a Southerner on as v.p. Mark Warner comes to mind but he decided not to run for president, so he's out. How about Phil Bredesen? Evan Bayh seems to be something of a lightweight, so maybe that isn't the best choice. And Mr. Schmitt says nothing about the fact that this "dream team" would yield us a ticket with both an African - American man and a woman. Is this country ready for that (in the personae of two Northerners, as well)? I would hope so but I am not so sure.
- liberal reformer
May 8, 2008 at 6:37pm
Why get fancy? An afr-amer on top of the ticket is as much in the way of radical departures as the nation can tolerate now. Most Americans are exhausted by the whiplashing the nation's taken in the last several years. Battle fatigue has set in re Iraq and Afghanistan. Inflation's back. Credit's tightened. The schools still suck, and we've seen zero progress on health care or energy.
In this environment we need to be reassuring, not radical. Obama should select the most experienced, familiar, reassuringly competent and blandly neutral figure he can find. Biden or Dodd are the obvious choices.
When it's time to dispatch Capn Hook, no need to try to do a swashbuckling Douglas Fairbanks swing from a rope with a double twist and a behind-the-back swordthrust. Just put the dagger in, cleanly.
Keep it simple (economy, shtoopid), be patriotic and don't make any more stupid rookie mistakes. And select Biden or Dodd.
- teplukhin2you
May 8, 2008 at 6:43pm
Something about drugs (dealing?) and Samantha Power.
When this all began, I was in the "anybody but Hillary" camp. I'm still in that camp. I don't want to see any Clinton for the rest of my life. That's a personal thing.
Impersonally, I still think BHO-HRC is a bad ticket. She will bring him down, not up. This whole "party devide" thing is overblown media nonsense.
Barack is a winner, HRC is a loser. He can find another, more compatible, winner for his Veep.
- dannyc
May 8, 2008 at 6:54pm
Teplukhin2you: Well - reasoned, except on the matter of Biden or Dodd. Two northern, urban liberals is not a good idea.
- liberal reformer
May 8, 2008 at 6:55pm
Thank you, Mr. Schmitt,
At last we have a thoughtful, reasoned discussion of how and why you add someone to the ticket as VP. You explain the competitive circumstances, both within the party and without, and relate the available options to circumstances, the opportunities, and the problems to be addressed. Bravo! This sort of thinking and discussion has been in way too short supply at TNR lately.
I would add to more related concerns about Hillary as a VP candidate, related to one you mention. It is somewhat less an issue whether the VP will subsume his or her ambitions and ideas when in office as the
VP as no power (except to break ties in the Senate). The VP could be an embarrassment at worst. During the campaign, however, an embarrassment quickly becomes a nightmare, and the presidential candidate has little means to control the VP candidate. We have seen problems before with VP candidates, Lieberman and Edwards, who had difficulty being subordinate.
In Hillary's case there is an even more severe problem due to Bill and her own long presence in the national eye. It would be almost impossible to shut those two up even if they were hurting the campaign. Beyond that, one could not even be certain about Hillary's desire to win. It might be in her best interest to lose so long as she weren't held to much to account. Even ambivalence on her part might be a campaign problem.
On top of that, one should not forget that she is viewed unfavorably by 54% of the public and as untrustworthy by 58% of the public, according to the latest ABC/WsPo poll on the subject. These are huge liabilities in a campaign that Obama does not need.
Overall, it seems to me that the downsides of Hillary far outweigh the upside, even without consideration of what happens after the election. I don't think Hillary will be considered seriously by Obama although there may be some mentioning for the sake of ego-stroking of both Hillary and her supporters.
- roidubouloi
May 8, 2008 at 6:58pm
Amen tep, but someone who could pick off a key state or two should also be considered seriously
- roidubouloi
May 8, 2008 at 6:59pm
Tep, I agree with your reasoning but not your conclusion. As Roid said, I don't think a "northern urban liberal" would help much, however attractive they may be to people like you and me.
Besides, both Biden and Dodd (Sebelius and Webb too!) are over 60, and really, I think there should be some kind of rule against over-60 VP candidates. You want to give your Party a standard-bearer in case everything works out well in 8 years.
So what you need is that tricky combination of solid experience, presidential potential, and youthful vigor. At this point, I think it would help to pick a moderate, a "working class hero!" like Schmitt said, that would help pull the coalition together again.
I think Bayh's the guy. Or really, maybe even Edwards if he wants it, though I wasn't terribly impressed with his campaign both in '04 and '08.
- thetraytiger
May 8, 2008 at 8:20pm
According to the Times, the "mentioning" of Hillary has already begun. When asked, Obama said "She would be on anyone's short list, but it is premature." Exactly the sort of thing you say when "mentioning."
tiger,
Bayh has nice "stats," but I don't see that he pulls in any votes.
- roidubouloi
May 8, 2008 at 8:30pm
If tep is right and the southwestern Latino vote is crucial, why not Richardson? Lot's of experience too.
Main downside as I see it is he proved in this primary to be a shithouse campaigner, prone to running off the reservation.
- aeromonas
May 8, 2008 at 9:14pm
really simple, two words --- Jim Webb. The McCain antidote. Webb verifying Obama's patriotism is just what the doctor ordered.
- kindlight
May 8, 2008 at 9:23pm
tep, I kinda doubt Biden wants the gig. Only reason he'd take the offer is to set himself up FINALLY to get a real shot at the nomination. But that presupposes that he'd make his presidential run in 2016, at which time he'd be 74 years old. He'd retain more influence staying put in the Senate.
Really, all sitting Senators--including Clinton--should be off limits. Sure, the likelihood is that the Dems will pick up a few seats in November, when you're sitting with a majority of 1 that isn't really even there--look for Lieberman to switch parties formally after the election--and when President Obama will be vacating his seat, do you really want to put ANOTHER Democratic seat in play? Sure, New York would likely elect a Democratic replacement for VP Clinton, but there's no guarantee. This is the same state that elected Al D'Amato.
- aeromonas
May 8, 2008 at 9:26pm
I'll agree with the no-senators bit, and add "no major senatorial prospects" to keep Mark Warner off the list. But then, if you eliminate anyone over sixty, you're starting to run a little dry, aren't you?
- cspencef
May 8, 2008 at 9:52pm
Well, you don't have to eliminate ANYONE over sixty, just anyone over sixty who looks to the job as a stepping stone to the presidency. Though, this does beg the question, 'Why would anyone want the job other than as a stepping stone to the presidency?'
- aeromonas
May 8, 2008 at 10:31pm
And no, no, no, NOT Webb--for the reason outlined in my above post. This native Virginian can assure you that however much the Old Dominion may appear to be trending purple and whatever the state GOP's disarray, Webb's seat is not a lock for the Democrats. Mark Warner will scoop up John Warner's vacated seat no prob, but there's only one Mark Warner. George Allen was a tool, as Ryan Lizza ably documented in the pages of this magazine, and a lot of us (I still voted in VA back in 2000) recognized him as a tool and a phony from the getgo, but even so he defeated one Marine Corps vet--the incumbent, no less--and was only narrowly defeated by another.
Webb is an admirable character, and I like what he's doing in the Senate, but anyone who was paying attention will tell you that he was a terrible campaigner, uncomfortable raising money and uncomfortable on the stump and he still only barely eeked out a victory after Allen effectively imploded revealing himself to be a Frenchified, racist poseur.
- aeromonas
May 8, 2008 at 10:44pm
areomonas,
Dick Cheney would like a word with you. His men will be there in an hour to knock you unconscious, put a cloth sack over your head, stuff you in the trunk of a car and drive you four hours over dirt roads to an undisclosed location. That's where Dick will personally tell you why the office doesn't necessarily *have* to be a stepping stone to the presidency. He'll explain all this while he fondles and arranges stainless steel dental instruments, and his henchmen attach electrodes to your genitals, nipples and temples.
Good luck!
- WoodyBombay
May 8, 2008 at 11:01pm
areomonas,
Webb is a poor public speaker (though an excellent writer) and a poor fund raiser.
But these aren't really areas that Obama is going to need help in. As a symbol, Webb remains quite powerful, I think.
- clifton
May 9, 2008 at 12:47am
If you have to pick off a state, and you need someone youngish, then Mark Warner. He understands businesses and could help sell single payor to entrepreneurs, small businessmen, contractors, in short the types who listen to Limbaugh.
I'm sure we can find a liberal military man to runa dn win the Senate seat vacated by Mark W.
- teplukhin2you
May 9, 2008 at 12:56am
The only ones interested in the unity ticket anymore are the Republicans because they know a Clinton in the White House will help them unify conservatives with their anti-Clinton rhetoric and win back seats in the House and Senate. And the media people and their corporate masters who know that a Clinton in the White House will put huge amounts of money in their pockets as a result all the controversy it will generate.
Once I supported a unity ticket, but that was before I knew who Hillary Clinton really was and what she was all about, which is her own personal ambition, vaulting ambition that is quite obviously far out of proportion to her abilities as a politician and a leader. The woman has no class, no honor, and no sense of right and wrong, she's little more than the Democratic version of George W. Bush, the other side of the same coin which cloaks itself in the name Democrat and progressive, though she would be a far more dangerous president, Bush with a brain.
Clinton could have brought the party together months ago, instead she chose to weaken the Democratic Party, calculating that the damage she's done would not be enough to overcome the massive failures of the Republican Party and they're totally incompetent leadership of this country. Simply put Hillary Clinton sickens and disgusts me, and I don't want her anywhere near the seat of power because she obviously can't be trusted. I have no doubt that Hillary would try to sabotage an Obama presidency in the hopes of positioning herself for run in 2012. As far as I'm concerned Hillary Clinton is a Republican, part of the problem, not part of the solution.
A lot of folks forget what the presidency of the United States is, easy to do during the Bush regime, which has turned democracy on its head. George W. Bush doesn't work for the American people, we were simply the conduit through which he and those who control him gained power. Clinton would be little different, she lacks one of the primary qualities required by anyone seeking to become President of the United States, humility, and a genuine desire to serve the people. After what we've seen the Clinton campaign do can anyone doubt Hillary Clinton and the people she chooses to work for her see the American people as anything more than a means to an ends, and that end its power. And if she were to gain that power other than the poor saps who support her does anyone really believe that she would really put the American people ahead of herself and the Clinton brand? Obviously a lot of people still do, but I submit that they are fools who are either deluded themselves or they are so blinded by their revulsion and distaste for the prospect of an African-American becoming president that they would vote for it virtually anyone else. That's why you hear all these people saying they'll vote for McCain, we know who they really are as well.
Me, I want a president that knows his or her place, one who will represent my interests and the interests of the American people with honor, integrity and good faith, one who will not bring shame and dishonor upon this nation, a president I can be proud of for change, and somehow I know that Barack Obama won't let me down.
- AaronBBrown
May 9, 2008 at 12:58am
I think Dodd has already said he doesn't want it.
I also don't see why Mark Warner's decision not to run for pres should disqualify him. Running as vp - jumping in halfway and having a much smaller role is not the grueling horror [and what a g. h. it turned out to be!] that he opted out of when he decided not to do it. This is different, and not nearly as much of a life-suck. You can do this and still have a family life, yes?
- psantillana
May 9, 2008 at 1:31am
Obama should probably pick someone like Jim Webb to get a regional balance to the ticket as well as having a military man on there who does not support continued occupation of Iraq.
Hillary should go away and never be heard from again after yesterday's comments. No, the wounds she opened up yesterday will never heal. If a Clinton is ever on another national Democratic Party ticket then the Party should burn in hell.
- matthawk
May 9, 2008 at 4:04am
Except that Mark Warner's reasons for not running had nothing to do with his family life. He looked at Clinton's fund raising totals and name recognition and said, "I got nothing for that." Why kill yourself trying to become president when you're 85% sure you'll lose? Especially when you have a juicy Senate seat waiting with your name on it? I suspect when Mark Warner announced he'd not be running for prez, he already had a pretty solid tip that John Warner would be vacating his seat.
- aeromonas
May 9, 2008 at 8:45am
I still think that it comes down to particular states, and it is not useful for Obama to bolster support in states he is likely to win or in states he is likely to lose. The best use of his VP pick is to flip a state with a good chunk of Electoral College votes. And the places to look are those states where it looks as though Hillary would beat McCain and Obama is struggling. Those are the places that are not indisposed to the Democratic party but have doubts about Obama. He should pick a VP who will nail one of those.
I mentioned PA up above somewhere (or maybe on a related thread). In looking at the data (not very good data) on the electoralvote.com site, it seems as though the two biggest states that may fit the bill are Ohio and Florida. PA is more of a defensive play, holding onto a state that Obama simply cannot afford to lose. Florida might be a bit more of a reach, but either Florida or Ohio will do. Florida has 27 votes, Ohio 20, not enough of a difference to matter. If Obama can flip either one to the Democratic column, McCain is virtually certain to lose.
As a bonus, it would be nice to have someone who gives a boost with either a demographic group outside of the target state or, in the alternative, has some military/nat'l security cred. Is there anyone who fits the bill -- powerful in OH, FL or, if Obama needs to play defense, PA? In the ratings game, you lose points for being a senator and definitely are off the list if a senator from a state where a Republican governor can appoint the replacement or where the seat is likely to end up in Republican hands.
That's how I think this is done. The more general notions about demographics or policy credibility (of which I have at times partaken) are really beside the point. There are lots of cabinet slots for capable people to help govern. The first, second, and third reasons for a VP pick are to nail the election. I think all of us succumb to ticket-balancing ideas that may have made more sense in an earlier electoral environment before the parties became as polarized as they are today.
- roidubouloi
May 9, 2008 at 9:02am
The idea of a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton "unity ticket" has been floated quite a bit the
- Anonymous
May 9, 2008 at 9:41am
I think it's a bad idea because nobody will be able to control Bill Clinton. As a former president, he would be able undercut Obama very easily (e.g. by publicly "correcting" OHB- saying "as a former president, I know that is a bad idea"). I think the tempation to do so (especially since HRC can run in 2012 if OHB loses) would be overwhelming.
- Andrya0
May 9, 2008 at 9:48am
I've been thinking of Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, since she endorsed Obama. She brings the things Hillary might (woman, older than Obama, more elected experience) without the baggage. Plus she has executive experience, a democratic Governor or a very red state. She could help in CO, MI, MN, and IA as well as other states in the area.
- bmalin
May 9, 2008 at 9:56am
OH, FL, PA. Keep saying those words. OH, FL, PA. Obama does not need any help in CO, MI, MN or IA
- roidubouloi
May 9, 2008 at 10:36am
Roid, as I see it the problem with your otherwise cogent analysis is I'm not sure that VP candidates are capable of flipping swing states one way or the other.
Here's a list of VP candidates back to 1960 (as far back as Wikipedia has electoral maps), the states they're from and whether their ticket one or lost that state.
Dick Cheney, WY, W2
John Edwards, NC, L
Joe Lieberman, CT, W
Al Gore, TN, W2
Jack Kemp, NY, L
Dan Quayle, IN, W2
Lloyd Bentsen, SC, L
George HW Bush, TX, W2
Geraldine Ferraro, NJ, L
Walter Mondale, MN, W/L
Bob Dole, KS, W
Spiro Agnew, MD, L/W
Sargent Shriver, MD, L
Ed Muskie, ME, W
Hubert Humphrey, MN, W
Willilam Miller, NY, L
Lyndon Johnson, TX, W
Henry Cabot Lodge, MA, L
The pattern that emerges here is no pattern at all. Two of the elections, '72 and '84 were nationwide blowouts in which the winner took all but one state. In these, it's a virtual guarantee that one VP candidate will win his home state and another lose, so we can throw those elections out. Then another handful get tossed because the VP candidate hailed from a state that was a lock for one party or the other, e.g. Cheney in WY, Lieberman in CT, Kemp in NY, Bentsen in SC, Lodge in MA, and Johnson in TX (Remember, the South was still solid in 1960--that's until Johnson got his hands on the presidential Mont Blanc). Then get rid of the zero sum match-up, Agnew vs. Shriver, both from MD, and you're really not left with much to go on.
Probably the strongest case for a VP choice flipping a state is Muskie in Maine. Maine at that time was fairly predictably Republican, and you can imagine that the residents of that oft overlooked state were flattered enough to have their homeboy on the ticket that they voted for Humphrey. Not that Maine's support did the Democrats any good that year.
You could also make an argument that Al Gore's presence on the ticket carried Tennessee for Clinton in '92 and '96, though of the former Confederate and border states, the Dems also carried AR, MO, KY, LA, (FL-not really Southern), and in '92 they even carried GA, and it's an even bet that Bubba Clinton would've carried Elvis's native state all by himself.
I just don't see any one person who could reliably carry a state like Florida. That place is just too big and too diverse. If it had a Democratic governor, maybe it'd work--same for Ohio--but they don't. So who then? A Rendell nod would probably sew PA up for Obama, but as you seem to suggest, he's almost certainly going to take PA in November, and if somehow he's in a position to lose there, it indicates that he has bigger problems that holding PA isn't going to fix.
So, while your formulation makes sense on the face of it, it isn't actually a game that's been played very often. Even less often has it been played successfully.
- aeromonas
May 9, 2008 at 10:38am
Oooo, I like it bmalin. I like it a lot.
- aeromonas
May 9, 2008 at 10:39am
But who, roid? WHO?
- aeromonas
May 9, 2008 at 10:39am
I've been wracking my brain, roid, but I think I've got it:
Jimmy Buffet.
Not only would it lock Florida up for the ticket, it could solidify a whole campaign theme of dissolute fun in the sun. Obama's from Hawaii, right? And who doesn't like to party at the beach? Let's make this campaign Margaritaville meets Maui Wowie.
Seeing the vice presidential candidate get up at the convention and sing "Why Don't We Get Drunk (and Screw)" would permit me to die in a state of absolute fulfillment.
- aeromonas
May 9, 2008 at 11:25am
Aeromonas,
It has to be a state that is on the edge to begin with. A vp candidate is not going to flip any state that is firmly blue to red or vice versa. It has to be at the margin. That's why I suggested that FL is probably overreaching, PA is a defensive move, and OH is the one to pick off. If you don't believe that VP choices have any impact, then who cares. If you do, then even when you go for demographics, you have to think of it in terms of some state somewhere turning from marginal to blue. Otherwise it is just some choice about aesthetics.
For example, It is great to consider the Hispanic vote, but where, in particular, might it make a difference to the outcome. Conversely, it is the reason why HIllary's lunch bucket white shtick is a load of crap. Where, net net does it let her flip a state that wouldn't be for Obama? The people who do this for a living do it concretely, not in the abstract.
Rendelll seems like a sure bet for PA and might be enough to flip OH. I don't know. I cannot imagine that they are not doing opinion polling about this that you don't hear about. I sure as hell would be.
- roidubouloi
May 9, 2008 at 12:00pm
Ken Salazar: solid on nat'l security, moderate, hispanic, may help tip CO.
- teplukhin2you
May 9, 2008 at 9:15pm
Dick Morris makes a smart point in between excretions of venom: There are two kinds of people who backed
- Anonymous
May 14, 2008 at 1:31pm