4.50pm. CNN calls Texas for Clinton. Her lead is back to 51-48 with 75 per cent reporting.
4.42pm. Still 50-48 in Texas with 69 per cent reporting, but the trend on raw figures is nudging gently back to Cllinton. We also have 5 per cent of the caucuses reporting with Obama leading 56-44; no idea what to make of this.
4.12pm. Only just noticed how great the New York Times’ graphical maps are. Run your pointer over Texas and note how a lot of the big counties in the Obama-voting cities have a very low count.
4.08pm. … and her lead his now back to 50-48 with 63 per cent reporting.
4.08pm. CNN analyst says most of Clinton’s strong areas in Texas are “in”; if Obama’s early 60-40 lead in Houston holds up, it will apparently be enough to put him ahead, although he stresses that won’t definitely happen.
4.02pm. Clinton has gained another point in Texas, leading 51-48 with 58 per cent reporting.
3.27pm. Been away from my post for a bit. Clinton has claimed victory in Ohio and is currently delivering a speech making it very clear she’s not about to withdraw. Clinton leads 50-48 in Texas with 46 per cent reporting.
2.46pm. Now 51 per cent of precincts in Ohio and Clinton’s lead has in fact widened a little, to 57-41.
2.33pm. Clinton has caught up with Obama in Texas with 20 per cent of precincts reporting: now 49-all. Her lead is only narrowing slightly in Ohio, now at 56-42 with 47 per cent reporting.
2.14pm. Clinton still leads 57-41 in Ohio with 35 per cent of precincts reporting. Talk in comments suggests a 50-50 result in Cleveland, which I gather was expected to be good for Obama.
2.08pm. Interviewee on Fox Radio notes that Rhode Island exit polls were way out, pointing to a close result when it has actually been a big win for Clinton.
1.50pm. 21 per cent of precincts in Ohio now reporting and Clinton’s earlier lead is almost intact – now 59-39. Texas count has edged up to 6 per cent and Obama’s earlier lead has steadily been whittled away, now down to 51-49.
1.36pm. Clinton still leads 60-38 in Ohio with 14 per cent of precincts reporting.
1.31pm. Claude in comments points out another factor in Ohio being the extension of voting in some counties where Obama is expected to do well.
1.28pm. CNN calls Rhode Island for Clinton, her first win since Super Tuesday.
1.28pm. Al in comments notes no precincts are in from the Ohio cities of Columbus and Cleveland, the former being an Obama-friendly college town.
1.23pm. Huckabee announcing withdrawal. Clinton leads 60-38 in Ohio with 6 per cent counted, but this is presumably with Clinton-friendly areas reporting.
1.10pm. Fox reports that Mike Huckabee has confirmed he will withdraw, but says there are “conflicting reports”.
1.04pm. Obama campaign reportedly feeling upbeat about Ohio, the bad weather having diminished the turnout from older Democrats who favour Clinton. Fox gives McCain a clean sweep of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.
1.03pm. McCain by all accounts now has enough delegates to secure the nomination.
1.01pm. Via Kevin Rennie, an explanation of the Texas system from New Republic.
12.45pm. I’ve had my eye off the ball for the last 45 minutes. Obama has an early 56-44 lead in Texas, but these are big city precincts where he is expected to do well. I’m not going to pretend to be on top of the Texan primaries-plus-caucuses system: perhaps somebody who is can provide a brief explanation in comments.
11.55am. Exit polls point to a “tight race” in Rhode Island.
11.40am. CBS News reporting a very high turnout by Hispanics in Texas and low turnout of African-Americans, boding well for Clinton.
11.30am (Australian EST). Polls have just closed in Ohio, and Fox News has immediately called Ohio for John McCain but predicted a close result between Clinton and Obama. Vermont is being called for Obama and McCain.
1,628 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 33 » Show All
And as anyone who has been to Greece can testify, there are more Greeks working in Australia than in Greece, where all the work is done by Albanians.
1379
Pancho
This guy is the bleeding heart and the conscience of the NYTimes, and a fine human being. Not to be confused with William Kristol, son of Iriving, and bequeather of the salad bowl award to Rodent Howard.
Interesting contrast in reactions by the Spaniards to 11-M and the Americans to 11/9. The Spaniards were generally philosophical about it and weren’t going to let it interfere with their way of life. Incidentally, they put up a really nice memorial at Atocha station (lots of images on the net).
But, do the authorities know that there were ex-Carthaginian pseudo-Arabs controlling a point of entry to the country. They might have been smuggling in elephants (a la Hannibal) to use as suicide bombers!
Clinton is of course trying to damage Obama so much so that the Democrats will have no choice but to choose her. The Democrat’s Latham.
Some body made mention that Obama was similar to Rudd which would explain Howard’s personal attack on him, apart from not being a neocon.
The Democrat hierarchy may prefer Obama anyway if they believe there is no difference in their electablility in the belief that he would be easier to ‘deal’ with and, more amenable to accept external advice from other Democrats. HRC on the other hand is showing a previously hidden tendency to not care what she destroys if it conflicts with her personal desires.
Two answers to the 3am ad. One funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOxaYKHJu3k&feature=user
One serious:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ItzF78vbM&feature=user
1406
Robert Bollard
That’s classic! Real life and the advetising fantasy collide.
Bludgers all, thank you for sharing your incredible breadth of knowledge on world political history, law, psychology, statistics… I could continue the list but it’s late. As a dabbler in things political, this site has continually made me aware that there are minds “out there” so much sharper -and more obsessed- than mine. I am humbled by your intelligences. (Truly, not meant to be ironic in any way) And thanks mostly to William for keeping this site up and running. I hope you’re getting heaps of useful stuff for your studies, William.
I’m not waiting up much longer for these wretched Carthaginians to announce their election results. They’ve only got 300,000 votes to count for Baal’s sake.
But they’ve got to extract precious purple dye from shellfish at the same time and that takes time. Anyway, good night. I’m teaching 1st years’ “World History” tomorrow and need to callibrate my centuries.
Ozy 1408: “As a dabbler in things political, this site has continually made me aware that there are minds “out there” so much sharper -and more obsessed- than mine.”
It’s a disease, Ozy, but it beats the hell out of punishing your family with stuff that continues to draw the “Tell somebody who cares” 1000 mile stare. Besides ,from memory you picked the winning seat margin on Possum’s or here at our last Fed El. Mind you, things could change if there’s a by-election in McEwan.
Sun March 9: It’s that goddamn phone again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/ettahulme;_ylt=AkAPzd4KXawBvT0B13Ol0y5S_b4F
Sun. March 9: On song and on politics, Wiley is The King.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=ArRsIXn5ODvknazZLVeXw_Pd.sgF
Sat. March 8:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tedrall;_ylt=AmEVynnoAy.2YtvQTPtZAvBW_b4F
Sat March 8:
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AprNjpYOT07T9w2AlT0mz.tN_b4F
Au demain, mes amis
I assume people already have this link, but just in case…
http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/elections/2008/General%20Elections/default.asp
MayoFeral Thanks
Adam at 1315: “In 2006 Hastert got 60% of the vote. This time the Democrat, a total unknown, got 55%. That’s a 15% swing. A bad omen for the Repubs come November.”
…………And correctly suggests there would be ramifications.
Johnny Bomb-Bomb and Hastert himself(former corrupt GOP House Speaker) went into bat for the GOPper candidate.
The Kid did a telly commercial endorsement for the big swinging Dem. neophyte.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/09/obama-wins-proxy-war-vers_n_90613.html
Sure, Chicago is The Kid’s political home town, but penny for pound, it’s still a pretty substantial case for The Kid’s pulling power.
“The people of Illinois have sent an unmistakable message that they’re tired of business-as-usual in Washington,” Obama said Saturday night in a written statement.”
Expect to hear a lot more of this grass roots (teh liddle payple) Vs The Beltway Establishment theme as preps are made for Mr. Obama Goes To Washington.
To talk of a 15% swing, even if literally true, is overstate things. Nearly all members of Congress have a significant personal following. That’s no less true for the former Speaker.
Nonetheless, this was a district that split Bush 55% Kerry 44% in 2004. So it was a significant win for the Democrats.
Aftr reading over last night’s posts, this, from Adam, struck me as not passing the smell test:
“If Laura Bush was one-third as smart as Hillary Clinton, then she would indeed be better qualified to be President than Obama”
Note, that’s 33% as smart as Hillary Clinton, but a few posts later:
“Anybody who believes in reactionary unscientific bunkum like “IQ” is not worth arguing with. (Sorry, pseudo-science is a pet hate of mine.)”
…ah, go figure, as they say.
Don’t tell me that Adam was ‘having a lend’ of us, really?
1414
Enemy Combatant
Perhaps we shouldn’t draw too much oxygen from one small contest EC, especially when local factors may have had much more bearing. One of the blog entries I read last night, had a local saying that the Republican candidate was unelectable for being so rightwing and an ill-tempered sod that the Democrat candidate came across as actually human in comparison. Apparently a lot of people don’t like Mr Oberweis (from memory) even if he does make the best icecream for miles around.
Experience? How Hillary apparently solved a centuries old conflict by hosting a tea party (without actually making the tea), and other lies.
Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton’s ’silly’ Irish peace claims
Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.
“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”
Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
There’s a piece in the NYT today about McCain’s reticence to hand over his medical records. Get’s to the same point, but not as funny as, the below:
‘Unfortunately, McCain faces an uphill battle. He looks one hundred years older than both Clinton and Obama, and that god-awful combover ain’t helping. We here at 23/6 believe that McCain can improve his chances by emulating the hairstyles of well-known leaders.
After all, when that White House phone rings at 3 A.M., do Americans want it answered by a guy who thinks we don’t know he’s bald?’
http://www.236.com/news/2008/03/05/mac_is_back_and_hes_brought_hi_1_4933.php
1418
MayoFeral
There’s that bloody UK press again Mayo, with it’s lack of ‘journalistic standards’! They dare to publish factual criticism of their betters! The bloody hide!
These Poms have no ‘ethics’ (read: obsequious fawning to politicians)!
1419
Pancho
Have you heard McCain speak recently? My god, he sounds like he’s straining to just to get the words out, let alone put any energy into them. I’m not sure he’d make it through a tough campaign against either Democrat, he really sounds so laboured.
Putting someone like Clinton or Obama against the tired and flat McCain is not going to be a fair fight in my opinion.
KR-
it’s fair if he loses.
Pual Sheehan in today’s SMH has a good overview article about what’s gone wrong with the great US financial machine. It’s in fairly basic terms, but it makes it clear that this is not something that hasn’t been well predicted by the likes of Warren Buffet and George Soros:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/casino-capitalism/2008/03/09/1204998280861.html
1422
Jen
Thanks Jen, I was trying to show some pity to the old guy, and you have to kick the old codger when he’s down! LOL
But seriously, he sounds dreadfully dreary and not at all on top of many issues…long pauses when he’s trying to put an idea together, and very uninspiring rhetoric that’s just old re-cycled conservative mantras.
He is not the Gipper, that’s for sure.
You’re not really going in to bat for the home of the tabloids, page 3 girl, celebrity scandal, Sun, Mirror, and the place where Rupert hit the height of his powers, and still casts an immense shadow are you KR?
Pancho #1419
Oh for the days when a POTUS could sport face furniture like Chester A. Arthur’s. Not a memorable president in many ways, but what a hairstyle!
http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=3203049&epmid=1&partner=Google
1425
Pancho
Well, if they can be bothered to print the truth about Hillary’s ‘experience’, why not? LOL
Then again, I’m not the only one enamoured of pudgy pollies from yesteryear with impressive face furniture.
http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/09/27/from-those-whacky-folks-at-the-ipa/#more-348
KR…did you just refer to the Irish as ‘Poms’???
Referring to the Telegraph and Brit media generally I think FG. Which, KR, I concede has its highpoints which are envious (GU, Ind), but also a deservedly low reputation as a whole in my opinion.
The Clintons are further pushing this offer to Obama as their running mate through surrogates. It would seem that they too have now done the maths, and are getting desparate.
Pancho- There is a good reason why Macca is reluctant to release his medical records. In 1993 and 2000 he has had THREE malignant melanomas removed from his face and arm. He also had a lymph node dissection. If this was negative for melanoma (which I believe was the case) he has about a 90% survival (but depends on how thick the melanoma was). If it was positive, he would probably be dead by now, but not necessarily.
Either way, melanoma is a highly unpredictable cancer and could well recur during his presidency. It all depends on how thick the melanoma’s were. The last thing he wants is doctors speculating on the odds of him getting a late recurrence after looking at the Breslow thickness of his melanomas.
this says it all-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3510778.ece
Just did a bit of searching about Macca’s melanoma. It was 2.2mm thick which gives him a 75% survival chance. Given that his neck dissection was negative and that he has clearly survived 8 years after the surgery, he would be 95% likely to be cured. This assumes nothing has happened in the meanwhile that I am unaware of. I think Billary’s tax return is more relevant myself. It does raise an interesting question about how much the public is entitled to know about its politicians.:P
Will Obama hold his nerve?
There is some speculation on here that ‘the Kid will be made an offer he can’t refuse’.
I’m guessing the current VP spot is that offer. But why would Obama take it? I know he is ahead in the polls, in the popular vote, in the number of states and pledged delegates. But I don’t think that’s the primary reason he will refuse.
Obama has set out on a mission to change the way politics is done. He is now being asked to join the system he wants to change. That’s the main reason he will refuse. To do otherwise would make him a fraud.
That’s why he’ll hold his nerve.
Pancho
but I was responding to a comment along the lines of ‘would you do this in real life” and explaining that yes, I would (the example was people swearing in pubs).
Before I leave this topic (and apologies for banging on about it, but I’m genuinely interested in people’s responses) I am a bit perplexed by the idea that being anonymous means you can behave in a way you wouldn’t if you put your name to statements.
Sorry, but I always thought insults under the cloud of anonymity (anonymous letters, for example) were generally accepted as a cowardly form of attack.
Circumstances force some of us to be anonymous, others chose to be, but I don’t see that that’s any justification for bad behaviour.
I’ve found PROOF on the internet that Hillary is NOT an Alien Monster!! If she really was an alien monster, why would she need to adopt an alien. Couldn’t she just have an alien baby. Although, perhaps Bill is human and humans can’t mate successfully with her kind of alien. That might explain Monica…
Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Monster
http://smashedfrog.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clinton-adopts-alien-baby.html
Come on Dio! You’re a medical person, so you know that when a human comes into contact with an alien, the alien plants evil alien spores directly into the central nervous system of the human effectively ‘alienifying’ them.
Hence, by adopting an alien baby, Hillary has, herself, become an alien monster.
It’s logical
Morning all.
I love public holidays in which only SA partakes in – the rest of the country and world keeps ticking, but we spend the day half asleep. Beautiful. Would be slightly nicer if we weren’t experiencing our seventh or so day of 35+ degree heat (with another week of it to go) but that’s life.
My favourite quote of the morning, and one which actually presented a point I hadn’t considered: younger people
Source
The chap writing it is biased – I think this is his fourth or fifth anti Clinton piece in the last month – but still worth a read.
Ferny, I tend to agree with you about the VP spot, not only for the reasons you suggest but because he pretty definitively ruled it out yesterday (’I'm running for president’.) The only offer he ‘can’t refuse’ is one where he is on the top, and Clinton on the bottom. If Clinton submits in such a fashion, and he rejects it, it will look unbelievably bad. Of course, many inside the Democratic Party will forever loathe her for screwing everyone over when she had no authority to do so (and blame her if he loses) but if he wins then she has a VP platform to run off later on.
Problem is…. can anyone see her winning in eight years, when she nears her 70’s? Honestly? Is a VP platform any more powerful than the one where she is already wife to an ex president?
Morning Max @1439.
I think your quote shows the triumph of hope over politics. Of course the SDs could choose to nominate Hillary over Obama. Many of them already have – and many more will!The question is not, ‘will they?’ The question is ‘how many?’ My guess is that both Hillary and Obama will have 40%. The remaining 20% will give us the nominee. This is not just about maths, it’s about policitcs, and that’s a very unpredictable, willful animal to place your bets on.
As for a joint ticket – this would seem an appropriate moment to use the word ‘flapdoodle!’ If a Hillary/Obama ticket is highly improbable, an Obama/Hillary ticket is completely insane. Either ticket would lack cohesion and credibility. The nominee will need to find a fresh face who can balance their weaknesses.
Behold the wisdom of your average superdelegate:
Pat Waak, who chairs the Colorado Democratic Party, expressed the view of many uncommitted superdelegates who hope the remaining primaries and caucuses will produce an obvious winner. “My hope is that there’s a clear lead among pledged delegates and the popular vote before we get to the convention, so that the automatic delegates can reflect what’s happening nationally,” she said. “I’m just very hopeful that it’s not up to us.”
Now, either Ms Waak is an idiot or has been hybernating under a Colorado snowdrift for 3 months. OF COURSE IT’S UP TO THE SDs!
And we’re all at the mercy of what they decide.
For the real math propeller-heads: some great maths “number-crunching” here on the biases in Dem delegate allocations:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/03/are_the_chickens_coming_home_t.html
And some more maths on how non-representative the allocation of primary delegates are:
http://blog.vivianpaige.com/2008/03/06/superdelegates-vs-caucuses/
Interesting article on Obama’s record in the Sunday NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=login&oref=slogin
And a Washington Post survey of super-dels:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html?hpid=topnews
Also in the Washington Post:
Philadelphia Mayor’s Endorsement Suddenly Matters:
Philly’s African American Mayor explains why he’s staying with Hillary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802244.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
And a “narrowing” in North Carolina: From Obama double-digit leads down to 4 points: http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/polls/North-Carolina-March-2008.html
And you only have to check wikipedia to see Hillary does have 35 years of solid experience – on her own personal merit with several years of it long before she even met Bill, (and wikipedia misses whole chunks of it too) starting as a 13-yr-old Republican campaign worker *chuckle*. LOL she didn’t switch to a fullon political Democrat until she was a college undergraduate, under Nixon. She even worked as one of the Democrat legal team on Watergate. Very long list of personal achievements inside politics, and inside legal profession, as theoretical academic and practitioner with some highly impressive legal journal papers, she earned her doctorate with a thesis on Marxist community activism I think. Obama’s I think is an ‘honorary’ doctorate, and he spent most of his legal career as an academic. He probably taught legal theory from some of the major theoretical work that Hillary Rodham pioneered.
.
Hillary also worked her way through college, canning salmon in Alaska and waiting tables etc. She didnt even marry Bill for a long time, they just lived together for years, until they were moving to Arkansas. Being so socially conservative, she first adopted the hyphenated name, but still not good enough for those good folk, she felt forced to adopt the “Mrs”.
.
Hillary also earned more money than Bill for most of their marriage with her own career, political and business interests, she has also received several awards in her own right, for all her *pro bono* work amongst welfare and minority groups. During her First Lady years she was also US representative to UN groups such as UNICEF and UNIFEM and headed the US delegation to many UN functions in her own right.
.
There’s plenty more, but she doesn’t have to prove her record to the American people, they already know it.
.
She has always been a “polarising figure” on political party lines, but then so has Teddy Kennedy, hated and loved in an un-equal measure all his life too. Other Kennedys, such as Bobby Kennedy Jnr are endorsing Hillary.
.
The Bill Clinton administration was THE most popular presidency since WW2 — when he left office he had an approval rating of 65%, and Hillary came close second to Eleanor Roosevelt, even after all the scandals.
.
I agree with Adam, if Laura Bush did have a third of Hillary’s intelligence, or proven record, she would beat Obama as a POTUS.
.
And just to show that’s it’s not all about the maths:
But Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said that if there is no clear leader, he is prepared to exercise his judgment. “If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don’t think there’s a great deal of significance in that,” said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate.
He added: “I just believe that the determining factor for superdelegates shouldn’t be, ‘Well, 49 percent voted for Hillary and 51 percent voted for Obama, and that decides it for us.’ Sorry, but that’s not how it works.”
Rain@ 1442-
“I agree with Adam, if Laura Bush did have a third of Hillary’s intelligence, or proven record, she would beat Obama as a POTUS.”
That is an impressive post Rain, until that comment. And this is why Hillary supporters make her seem even more unappealing – to state that Laura Bush would be a better candidate /president than the phenomenally popular Obama is just plain silly.
I think a Hillary/Obama ticket is a brilliant idea… if Obama loses fair and square. That way he can sell it to his supporters – hey, we lost so we get second prize. We’ll try again in four or eight years.
Not so easy to sell when you have been screwed over by superdelegates. And I agree that an Obama/Clinton ticket is insanity… however, if Hillary knows she will lose then it could be her last hope.
A lot of it comes down to the popular vote. If Obama takes that, then I don’t think anyone believes that he won’t get the nomination. It simply won’t happen. If Clinton wins it, then we have competing claims. And you suspect the only way she will win THAT is if she gets a revote in Florida to pick up a few extra hundred thousand voters. Although it is debatable if her large victory of last time would be repeated.
So, in the interests of hearing both sides. this article details just how she can do that.
Rain… she was the portrayed VICTIM of these scandals. Everyone felt sorry for her, her husband was the most powerful man in the world and he cheated on her. Talk about getting screwed over (no pun intended. Well… maybe it was. But just barely.)
The fact Bill endured the scandal and still finished up with an approval rating in the 60’s is a testament to him and his presidency. Few dispute that. And fewer dispute the fact that Hillary handled herself brilliantly through the whole episode, and it’s because of that she left with a high approval herself. And fair enough, despite her loony ideas she did an admirable job as First Lady.
What people dispute is that she should be the next president of the United States because of that. Which in many ways is what she is suggesting, because she has the ‘experience’ Obama does not.
1445 – Max
Its mathematically improbable that Hillary can catch up on the popular vote.
Her current best case scenario is including Florida.
She would be approximately 300,000 votes behind.
However this number has not included the popular vote in Iowa, Maine, Washington and Nevada. Including these numbers would give Obama at least a 500,000 vote head start.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Michigan can’t count as Obama wasn’t on the ballot. If there was a revote in Florida and Michigan, Obama wouldn’t do worse in Florida, and Michigan would be very close. Lets say Clinton won Pennsylvania easily, she would at best catch up about 200,000 votes. Obama will likely win Mississippi, North Carolina as well.
Its matematically improbably that Hillary can catch up on pledged delegates and primary votes.
Hillary will soon work this out and go back to the ’small states’ and ’superdelegates theory’.
She will then work out that neither of these two theories are in her favour and then I’ll love to see what she comes up with next
1445
Max, if Obama ‘loses fair and square’ he won’t be offered the VP. This ’suggestion’ by the Clinton camp is a bribe to entice him to surrender his campaign.
Unfortunately, it also means surrendering his values and any hopes for change.
asanque -
a voodoo doll?
1429
Ferny Grover
Come to think of it, the paper that did Power story was actually the Scotsman! But the comment was about the general trashiness of UK tabloids. They never miss an opportunity to chuck some muck at the high and mighty.
Pages: « 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 33 » Show All