The ..2012.... Political thread
-
I agree with you on the reasons. However, the fact that "swift boat" is now a verb tells us that the tactic of "ignore it and it will go away," does not work. I thought America wanted someone who fights back in a measured and effective way. The smear campaigns that the Republicans inevitably come up with are nothing more than schoolyard bullying tactics. Some will say that if you ignore a bully, he will go away. Perhaps he will in his own time. He goes away a lot quicker though if you just turn around and thump him. And it's the new kids who have figured out that fighting lies with facts is better than just sucking it up.
-
PHILLIP:
I know why it was done, and that the Republicans passed the measure, but that amendment truly takes away the power of the people. If Americans want a President for a third term, it's shouldn't be up to Congress, it should be up to the people of the United States. But if the Executive Branch is limited to term limits, then all branches of government should be affected including the Supreme Court. I think if this was ever taken to the Supreme Court, I'm positive they would declare term limits on the Executive Branch unconstitutional.
In democratic principle, I wouldn't be for term limits either. But in practise, would Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd or Ted Stevens still be there if their constituents didn't vote for the out of sheer force of habit? I think there ought to be term limits on any appointment. The fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress implies that it's still a democrat process even though the people don't directly vote on it. However, the president can change every four year and the congress can change ever two years. Judges are there until they die if they want to be even if their time and public support has clearly passed. It could end up like the British house of Lords with an unelected ruling class, out of touch with modern society, deciding on how the country is run. I know my opinion is not relevant here, this is just an observation from a fan of the democratic process.
-
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
jaipur:
ElvisBondCelebrityCosmos:
At this precise moment i am writing this post,Senator Barack Obama is the Favorite to win the General Election and to win the Presidency.Obama already leads the Polls in crucial States like New York,Michigan,North Carolina,California,etc...For the past few weeks/events/speeches Senator John McCain has been/looks very tired.When i met Senator McCain a few weeks ago he was looking much better.McCain needs help,even because NOT all of the Republican Party is supporting him 100%.Meaning of this :-Senator McCain needs urgently a strong running mate,somebody like Mitt Romney,for example.
Obama 49% versus McCain 46%.
Exactly.CNN National Poll.
Just a little history lesson from the not too far distant past ... 20 June 2008 June Polls Don't Hold Up Matthew Spence, Times Online This week's polls showing Barack Obama with small, but significant, single-digit leads among likely voters are certainly welcomed by Democrats, but recent history hasn't been kind to early frontrunners. In fact, only one of the last five June election-year polling averages has correctly predicted the popular vote winner in November - Bill Clinton in 1996. Even then, the polls missed his win-margin by more than 9 percent. As hard as it may be to believe, Michael Dukakis (left) was leading the first George Bush by an average of 8.2 percent in June of 1988. Bush went on to win the general election by 7.8 points. Mr Bush led the relatively unknown Bill Clinton by 4.9 percent In June of '92, but managed to lose in November by 5.6 percent. June 1996 polls showed the incumbent President Clinton leading by a whopping 17 points, but even Bob Dole managed to close the gap to a more respectable 8.5 percent. 2000 was different only in that George W. Bush led by 4.7 percent in June, won the election, but lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percent. And finally, John Kerry led in the June 2004 polls by an average of 0.9 percent, but lost the popular vote, and the election, to the incumbent Bush by 2.4 points. So, while Mr Obama's leads are certainly signs for Democrats to be optimistic, history points to caution. A lot can happen between June and November. http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/06/june-polls-dont.html
-
Don't confuse him Andy! No, you're absolutely right. While I'm certain that the trend favouring Obama will continue, you can't read much into the first poll after the two candidates have been decided. People are just relieved the primaries are over.
-
Bill:
I agree with you on the reasons. However, the fact that "swift boat" is now a verb tells us that the tactic of "ignore it and it will go away," does not work. I thought America wanted someone who fights back in a measured and effective way. The smear campaigns that the Republicans inevitably come up with are nothing more than schoolyard bullying tactics. Some will say that if you ignore a bully, he will go away. Perhaps he will in his own time. He goes away a lot quicker though if you just turn around and thump him. And it's the new kids who have figured out that fighting lies with facts is better than just sucking it up.
Unfortunately, democrats have a history of fighting under the misguided notion that the opponent values the same things they do....they don't In so doing, they are simply not effective. Misreading your opponent sentences you to doom in any campaign or contest. Your comments remind me of John Hurt and Tom Wilkinson in the film "Recount". It's about the 2000 election. John Hurt plays Warren Christopher, former secy of state and Wilkinson plays James Baker another former secy of state. Christopher wrongly approaches the situation uttering (paraphrase) that the recount should be a "dignified process" while Baker characterizes it as a "street fight". Need I remind you who won?? They didn't win due to "facts".
-
Bill:
PHILLIP:
I know why it was done, and that the Republicans passed the measure, but that amendment truly takes away the power of the people. If Americans want a President for a third term, it's shouldn't be up to Congress, it should be up to the people of the United States. But if the Executive Branch is limited to term limits, then all branches of government should be affected including the Supreme Court. I think if this was ever taken to the Supreme Court, I'm positive they would declare term limits on the Executive Branch unconstitutional.
In democratic principle, I wouldn't be for term limits either. But in practise, would Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd or Ted Stevens still be there if their constituents didn't vote for the out of sheer force of habit? Ok, since I reside in Massachusetts, I must interject here....truth of the matter is, as far as Ted is concerned, the reason he is reelected is simply based on his effectiveness as a senator for the Commonwealth. Mind you, I don't always agree with him politically and many of his constituents here share this view. I think there ought to be term limits on any appointment. The fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress implies that it's still a democrat process even though the people don't directly vote on it. However, the president can change every four year and the congress can change ever two years. Judges are there until they die if they want to be even if their time and public support has clearly passed. It could end up like the British house of Lords with an unelected ruling class, out of touch with modern society, deciding on how the country is run. I know my opinion is not relevant here, this is just an observation from a fan of the democratic process.
The judiciary is interesting here....in some states judges are appointed while in other states they are elected. At the Supreme Court it strives for a consistency hence lifetime appointments. And if I may? Observations from down under and elsewhere are certainly relevant imho. :wink:
-
And Andy, you are spot on
-
jaipur:
Unfortunately, democrats have a history of fighting under the misguided notion that the opponent values the same things they do....they don't
Agreed!
jaipur:
In so doing, they are simply not effective. Misreading your opponent sentences you to doom in any campaign or contest. Your comments remind me of John Hurt and Tom Wilkinson in the film "Recount". It's about the 2000 election. John Hurt plays Warren Christopher, former secy of state and Wilkinson plays James Baker another former secy of state. Christopher wrongly approaches the situation uttering (paraphrase) that the recount should be a "dignified process" while Baker characterizes it as a "street fight". Need I remind you who won?? They didn't win due to "facts".
I saw it just last week and you've made my point for me. Kerry tried to stay dignified and above it and look what happened to him. Obama knows better which is why he's taking on the liars and beating them over the head with their own bullshit. Good for him!
-
jaipur:
And if I may? Observations from down under and elsewhere are certainly relevant imho.
Although I discuss US politics a lot, I try to keep my comments to things that are of international significance or universal principle. When it comes to term limits and the judiciary, I really am a spectator. There are valid arguments on both sides and I'm really not sure how I feel. I can give you this argument against limits: If we had them John Howard would have had to retire undefeated. He had the option to, but thought himself invincible which led to him not only losing government but his own seat in parliament - the worst humiliation a leader could suffer. And no less than he deserved. That was a fun night!
-
Bill:
jaipur:
Unfortunately, democrats have a history of fighting under the misguided notion that the opponent values the same things they do....they don't
Agreed!
jaipur:
In so doing, they are simply not effective. Misreading your opponent sentences you to doom in any campaign or contest. Your comments remind me of John Hurt and Tom Wilkinson in the film "Recount". It's about the 2000 election. John Hurt plays Warren Christopher, former secy of state and Wilkinson plays James Baker another former secy of state. Christopher wrongly approaches the situation uttering (paraphrase) that the recount should be a "dignified process" while Baker characterizes it as a "street fight". Need I remind you who won?? They didn't win due to "facts".
I saw it just last week and you've made my point for me. Kerry tried to stay dignified and above it and look what happened to him. Obama knows better which is why he's taking on the liars and beating them over the head with their own bulls**t. Good for him!
Well, I'm not convinced yet that Obama knows better.....not if he's wasting his breath on the supposed liars instead of focusing on his opponent. I've yet to hear anything yet, but it's still early. One thing I do agree with Jim Baker on....despite the ruckus in 2000, no tanks went into Washington, no riots....that's democracy. I thought the film, although depressing at times, did a good job at explaining what happened and how it happened/
-
Bill:
jaipur:
And if I may? Observations from down under and elsewhere are certainly relevant imho.
Although I discuss US politics a lot, I try to keep my comments to things that are of international significance or universal principle. When it comes to term limits and the judiciary, I really am a spectator. Well, that's okay....as you probably remember, I am a tad partial to the judiciary side. Don't get me started on the recent decisions....that's a thread for another day. There are valid arguments on both sides and I'm really not sure how I feel. I can give you this argument against limits: If we had them John Howard would have had to retire undefeated. He had the option to, but thought himself invincible which led to him not only losing government but his own seat in parliament - the worst humiliation a leader could suffer. And no less than he deserved. That was a fun night!
I thought of you fondly.
-
Aw shucks!
jaipur:
One thing I do agree with Jim Baker on....despite the ruckus in 2000, no tanks went into Washington, no riots....that's democracy.
Some others might call it a very British coup. Democracy is reflecting the will of the people. I agree though that it was a good flick.
-
Bill:
Aw shucks!
jaipur:
One thing I do agree with Jim Baker on....despite the ruckus in 2000, no tanks went into Washington, no riots....that's democracy.
Some others might call it a very British coup. Democracy is reflecting the will of the people. I agree though that it was a good flick.
Well, it was civilized in any event Did it surprise you to learn Baker was once a democrat
-
I've got a vague feeling I already knew but I can't remember where from. It does fit in with what we know about the Bush family favouring personal loyalty above all else, even when there are higher duties.
-
Interesting letter to President Obama from the worlds top bond fund manager..and he seems to like the Beatles http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSNYG00114420080630?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112 Peace
-
A not-so-public man: the private character of John McCain Jun. 29, 2008 Abraham Katsman , THE JERUSALEM POST It's pretty amazing when you think about it. War hero John McCain has been in the public eye almost his entire adult life. He's run numerous campaigns, served in Congress for 25 years, and is in his second run for the presidency. Yet, there is so much of his life that reveals an absolutely sterling character, but remains largely unknown to the public. And in spite of the tremendous political advantages that publicity could confer, McCain instinctively keeps that information private. Although as a presidential candidate he may be forced to overcome this reticence, he honorably shies away from using his personal heroics for political gain. How aware is the public that McCain has raised seven children? Or that he adopted his two oldest sons as small boys (children from his wife's prior marriage)? Or that he has raised a Bangladeshi girl with severe health problems adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage? Or that his own sons have served in the military, including in Iraq? It's widely known that McCain, a Navy pilot, was shot down, captured and tortured by the North Vietnamese for 5 and a half years - an episode worth a forthcoming column all its own. But few are aware that he refused early release until all the POWs captured before him were freed, and that he refused special treatment offered once it was discovered that he was the "crown prince" (the son of the admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet) because he wouldn't provide the enemy with any propaganda victories. Even fewer seem to know that those years were a fraction of a 22-year Navy career. Although broken and battered, after his release from Vietnamese captivity he went right back to the Navy, where he continued to serve for an additional eight years. Both Israel and America honor military service, knowing all too well the sacrifice of those who step up, stand guard, and put their lives on the line to protect their fellow citizens from the ever-present threat of harm. Readers in Israel, where military and national service is intertwined with society perhaps more than in any other free country, especially appreciate the McCain family's tradition of military service and the intergenerational transmission of values that comes with it. link to the complete article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1214492529435
-
MCCAIN: PUMP THIS! by Ann Coulter July 2, 2008 Well, I guess we're all pretty relieved we didn't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back in 2002. What a disaster that would have been. The vote on ANWR was almost entirely along partisan lines, with all Republicans, except a handful of "moderates," voting for drilling, and all Democrats, except a handful of sane Democrats like Zell Miller, voting against drilling. John McCain opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because he polled soccer moms and found out they were against drilling. They thought it sounded too much like going to the dentist. McCain wanted to ensure that he remained beloved by the two pillars of his base: "centrists" and New York Times reporters. Even Sen. Chuck Hagel voted for drilling in ANWR. But John McCain, "our" candidate, voted against it. I guess we're beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of "centrists." These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They're the ones who check the "not sure/no opinion" box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism. You can't blame them: They're not being paid to know something about national issues. Those people we call "senators" and "representatives." But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah ... Drill! Drill! Drill! Consequently, McCain recently switched his position to go along with the centrists. See, that's the downside of having chosen all your political positions by polling centrists: The moment they acquire any knowledge, they'll realize you're an idiot. It's always the same argument. Year after year, the "moderate Republicans" so respected at The New York Times harangue us to dump the Christians, the conservatives, the Swift Boat Veterans, the "right-wing extremists," the gun-and-God clingers and the fanatical pro-lifers from our party so we can repel every American who voted for Ronald Reagan in order to win the votes of people like Christine Todd Whitman. Yes, by all means let's clear out all that deadwood and pave the way for a 49-state landslide! (For the Democrats.) McCain followed the Times' strategy to a T. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." He called the Swift Boat Veterans "dishonest and dishonorable." He has denounced every Christian minister who tries to endorse him. Over the years, McCain has ostentatiously attacked every issue of importance to conservatives and embraced every crackpot liberal idea, including the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming." Two weeks ago, McCain skipped the capitol prayer breakfast in California, instead appearing with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an environmental event in nearby Santa Barbara. Schwarzenegger's absence marked the first time a governor skipped what has come to be known as "the governor's prayer breakfast." I guess in the world of moderate Republicans an environmental event qualifies as a religious observance. The keynote speaker at the breakfast, Hollywood producer Mark Joseph, quoted a recent cover article in Christianity Today by professors Daniel Taylor and Mark McCloskey that said: "In premodern times, the courage of a leader often had to be physical. In the last 500 years it is more often moral. Moral courage is the ability to do what's right even when it is deeply unpopular, even dangerous. Courage is only found where there is the genuine possibility of loss -- loss of friends, reputation, status, power, possessions or, at the extremes, freedom or life." No wonder McCain and Schwarzenegger skipped it. Moderate Republicans like McCain have taken to heart liberals' admonition that Ronald Reagan's appeal had absolutely nothing to do with his conservative philosophy. Don't be like him! You'll lose the soccer moms! Liberals assure us that Reagan won landslide elections because Americans were mesmerized by his sunny disposition and corny jokes. If that's true, why isn't Al Roker president? The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com. Not being ignorant "centrists," we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he's cute. How many times do we have to run this experiment? Taking the advice of Democrats, Republicans ran "moderates" for president in 1944, 1948, 1976, 1992 and 1996. All lost. Republicans also ran a "moderate" for president in 1988, but that was unwittingly -- both to us and, fortunately, to the voters. In other words, in the language of the market, the best tip on "moderate Republicans" is: SELL! But now, apparently, we have to run the experiment again. This year, moderate Republicans have hit the jackpot. John McCain is the Platonic ideal of a "moderate Republican." To paraphrase Richard Nixon on George McGovern in 1972: Here we have a situation where moderate Republicans finally have a candidate who almost totally shares their views. Now we'll see what the country thinks. http://www.anncoulter.com/
-
HOW OBAMA SLIPPED OUT OF COUNTRY Sat Jul 19 2008 17:02:39 ET Pool Report The motorcade left Sen. Obama?s home in Chicago?s Kenwood neighborhood at 11:11 a.m. There was one Chicago Police Department patrol car, followed by two SUVs, a sedan and a press van. Riding in the press van were agent Jill, Sam, John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune and Glen Johnson of The Associated Press. The motorcade headed north on Lake Shore Drive to I-55 (Stevenson Expressway) and toward MDW. The CPD blocked traffic for our turn onto the western perimeter of the airfield, where we arrived at 11:31 a.m. Waiting on the tarmac was a Gulfstream III (G3) executive jet (tail number N366JA). We exited our respective vehicles at 11:34 a.m. The crew was waiting outside for the senator?s arrival and a few photos with him near a wing. He was wearing tan slacks and a short black jacket. After fishing around in the back of one of the SUVs for his luggage (he seemed especially to be checking his suits inside a garment bag), he was on the bird by 11:36 a.m. Also getting on the plane were eight Secret Service agents and the two reporters. The senator briefly greeted us as we walked past his seat in the forward section. Seated near him was senior spokeswoman Linda Douglass, the only staff member on the flight. After everyone found a seat on the crowded plane, the pilot announced that the flying time would be between 80 and 85 minutes. All seemed eager for him to start the engines, since the plane had been sitting under a hot sun and the cabin temperature was likely somewhere in the 90s. Sweat had begun to roll down the faces of some of the agents. ?We?re just easing you into it,? Obama told his bodyguards, referring to the heat and the desert weather they would all be traveling to in the coming days. As the plane taxied, the senator, wearing a short-sleeve black shirt, chatted with Douglass. The plane was wheels up at 11:55 a.m. Your pool asked Douglass if we could chat with the senator about his upcoming trip. She said she would check, but later told us that we would only get a brief chance to ask him a couple questions once at Reagan National Airport. Janis, our stewardess, first served the senator his lunch (chicken and rice and broccoli). Everyone else had sandwiches, wraps, chips and candy (yes, just like on the bus), although we were served on china and given green place settings and cloth napkins. As the plane peaked around 41,000 feet and 500 knots, according to the computer screen tracking our location at the front of the cabin, the senator read a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Johnson had claimed an aisle seat and reported that he first read a story about off-shore oil drilling and then one about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. By the time we were descending, at 17,000 feet, he had switched to the New York Times, spending most of his time in the Sports and Arts sections. We were wheels down at 2:17 p.m. local and parked with the engines off by 2:24 p.m. After getting off the plane, Douglass said there was time for ?one question,? adding, ?Then, we?re making him leave. He?s behind [schedule].? Your pool, with the noise of the jet?s engines in the background, quickly asked what two or three things Obama was hoping to learn on this mission. ?Well, I?m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,? he said. ?I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of, you know, what the most, ah, their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they?ve been doing.? Then, the senator was asked whether he plans to deliver some tough talk to Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about doing more to stand up the instruments of self-governance in their own nations. ?Well, you know, I?m more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking,? he said. ?And I think it is very important to recognize that I?m going over there as a U.S. senator. We have one president at a time, so it?s the president?s job to deliver those messages.? By 2:32 p.m., the motorcade was rolling. This one included two local police cars, three SUVs, a Honda Accord, a minivan equipped with lights and sirens and another local patrol car. We were off the DCA property by 2:36 p.m. Your pool was in the Honda with Douglass. It was driven by Molly Buford, who works in Obama?s senator office and also for the campaign. The mot orcade traveled I-395 to I-295 and then on to the Suitland Parkway, entering a northern entrance of Andrews Air Force Base at 2:57 p.m. We passed several military helicopters and planes before arriving at 3:01 p.m. near an aircraft that had no markings, with the exception of an American flag on the tail. This was the plane that would transport the congressional delegation to their destination. A ground crew member told us it was a Boeing C-40C. The senator greeted several military personnel waiting for him near the plane. He was carrying a laptop bag and had changed into some brown leather boots upon arrival in Washington. The senator was also greeted by Mark Lippert, foreign policy advisor in his senate office. Douglass said he was the only member of Ob ama?s staff traveling with him on the congressional delegation trip. Douglass later told your pool that Lippert had returned in the late spring from a tour of duty in Iraq as a naval reservist. By 3:03 p.m., the senator was on the aircraft, having been saluted by a member of the military on his way aboard. At 3:09 p.m., the plane?s door was closed. Four minutes later it was in motion and wheels up at 3:17 p.m., taking off to the south. Later, Douglass confirmed that Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel were on the plane before our arrival. Your pool had not seen them at Andrews. -- John McCormick, Chicago Tribune.
-
This is the article that was inside the New Yorker magazine with the infamous cover. The cover was talked about - the article inside was ignored. It covers the part of Obama's life that he doesn't talk or write about (at least not in much detail) - his Chicago life. It's worth a read Making It How Chicago shaped Obama. by: Ryan Lizza, July 21, 2008 One day in 1995, Barack Obama went to see his alderman, an influential politician named Toni Preckwinkle, on Chicago?s South Side, where politics had been upended by scandal. Mel Reynolds, a local congressman, was facing charges of sexual assault of a sixteen-year-old campaign volunteer. (He eventually resigned his seat.) The looming vacancy set off a fury of ambition and hustle; several politicians, including a state senator named Alice Palmer, an education expert of modest political skills, prepared to enter the congressional race. Palmer represented Hyde Park?Obama?s neighborhood, a racially integrated, liberal sanctuary?and, if she ran for Congress, she would need a replacement in Springfield, the state capital. Obama at the time was a thirty-three-year-old lawyer, university lecturer, and aspiring office-seeker, and the Palmer seat was what he had in mind when he visited Alderman Preckwinkle. ?Barack came to me and said, ?If Alice decides she wants to run, I want to run for her State Senate seat,? ? Preckwinkle told me. We were in her district office, above a bank on a street of check-cashing shops and vacant lots north of Hyde Park. Preckwinkle soon became an Obama loyalist, and she stuck with him in a State Senate campaign that strained or ruptured many friendships but was ultimately successful. Four years later, in 2000, she backed Obama in a doomed congressional campaign against a local icon, the former Black Panther Bobby Rush. And in 2004 Preckwinkle supported Obama during his improbable, successful run for the United States Senate. So it was startling to learn that Toni Preckwinkle had become disenchanted with Barack Obama. Preckwinkle is a tall, commanding woman with a clipped gray Afro. She has represented her slice of the South Side for seventeen years and expresses no interest in higher office. On Chicago?s City Council, she is often a dissenter against the wishes of Mayor Richard M. Daley. For anyone trying to understand Obama?s breathtakingly rapid political ascent, Preckwinkle is an indispensable witness?a close observer, friend, and confidante during a period of Obama?s life to which he rarely calls attention. Although many of Obama?s recent supporters have been surprised by signs of political opportunism, Preckwinkle wasn?t. ?I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,? she told me. ?I spent ten years of my adult life working to be alderman. I finally got elected. This is a job I love. And I?m perfectly happy with it. I?m not sure that?s the way that he approached his public life?that he was going to try for a job and stay there for one period of time. In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.? access to the complete article at the link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza
-
Barack Obama and Larry Craig TOGETHER!