SHORT WEEK, SHARP DECLINE: Hillary Clinton’s appalling demands!

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2014

Part 3—The Washington Post, then Slate:
Paul Krugman still doesn’t get it.

In this morning’s column, Krugman traffics in facts and information. He has been writing such columns ever since 1999, when he tried, three separate times, to explain the way in which Candidate Bush was misstating his own budget plan.

Krugman doesn’t get it! Our society’s modern post-journalism doesn’t deal in information and facts. Our “journalism” deals in the swill which appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post.

The Post’s Thanksgiving morning report swallowed most of page A2. It gobbled 1414 words, eating some 32 paragraphs.

Like so much that has come before it, the report was narrative all the way down. It was prepared by Rosalind Helderman (Harvard 2001) and Philip Rucker (Yale 2006), the kinds of beasts who are now being churned, for corporate use, by those failed institutions.

In their deathless “news report,” Helderman and Rucker detailed the many vile demands of public speaker Hillary Clinton. The lengthy piece extended a remarkable series of attacks launched by the Post this summer.

Yesterday, this is the way the deathless report was pimped on the Post’s web site:
A rare glimpse into Hillary Clinton’s lucrative speeches
Rosalind S. Helderman and Philip Rucker
For a $300,000 speech at UCLA, Clinton reps made many demands about the stage and green-room.
Clinton reps made many demands about the stage and the green room! Early on, the intrepid reporters began to detail those demands.

The children relied on e-mails they had obtained through (brace yourselves!) a Freedom of Information request. Warning! Don’t be stampeded by such slippery words as “all-consuming:”
HELDERMAN AND RUCKER (11/27/14): At UCLA, efforts to book Clinton and then prepare for her visit were all-consuming, beginning almost immediately after she left her job as secretary of state on Feb. 1, 2013, until she delivered her Luskin Lecture for Thought Leadership speech on March 5, 2014.

The documents show that Clinton’s representatives at the Harry Walker Agency exerted considerable control over her appearance and managed even the smallest details—from requesting lemon wedges and water on stage to a computer, scanner, and a spread of hummus and crudité in the green room backstage.
If we’re reading that correctly, Clinton’s reps even demanded that she be given water! They demanded “a spread of hummus and crudité”—that is to say, a plate of carrot sticks.

The nation is being badly conned when “journalists” behave in these ways. But as they continued, the Ivy League tools continued to list the outrages.

Warning! Don’t be stampeded by such slippery terms as “at length” and “lengthy:”
HELDERMAN AND RUCKER (continuing directly): Top university officials discussed at length the style and color of the executive armchairs Clinton and moderator Lynn Vavreck would sit in as they carried on a question-and-answer session, as well as the kind of pillows to be situated on each chair. Clinton’s representatives requested that the chairs be outfitted with two long, rectangular pillows—and that two cushions be kept backstage in case the chair was too deep and she needed additional back support.

After a lengthy call with a Clinton representative, UCLA administrator Patricia Lippert reported to campus colleagues, “She uses a lavalier [microphone] and will both speak from the audience and walk around stage, TED talk style. We need a teleprompter and 2-3 downstage scrolling monitors [for] her to read from.”
If we’re reading that correctly, Clinton reps demanded the use of a lavalier and a teleprompter! In these modern times, this is roughly as shocking as a demand that lights be turned on in the hall.

(Warning! Did you note what the children didn’t say? They didn’t say that Clinton’s reps engaged “at length” in the discussion of those “executive armchairs.” Did readers possibly get misled by their somewhat slippery construction?)

As they plowed through their endless report, the children listed many other “special accommodations” for Clinton’s UCLA speech. Given what modern press corps children are like, it’s possible that they actually didn’t understand the request we highlight:
HELDERMAN AND RUCKER: It is commonplace for celebrity speakers to request special accommodations—and Clinton was no exception. Her representatives asked for a case of still water, room temperature, to be deposited stage right. They also asked that “a carafe of warm/hot water, coffee cup and saucer, pitcher of room temperature water, water glass, and lemon wedges” be situated both on a table on stage as well as in another room where Clinton would stand for photos with VIPs.

For the green room, Clinton’s representatives requested: “Coffee, tea, room temp sparkling and still water, diet ginger ale, crudité, hummus and sliced fruit.” They also asked for a computer, mouse and printer, as well as a scanner, which the university had to purchase for the occasion.

When university officials decided to award Clinton the UCLA Medal, Clinton’s team asked that it be presented to her in a box rather than draped around her neck. That request was sent to the university’s chancellor, Gene Block.

“Chancellor Block has agreed to accommodate Hillary Clinton’s request to have the medal presented in a box,” Assistant Provost Margaret Leal-Sotelo wrote in one e-mail.
Why did Clinton want her medal presented in a box, rather than draped around her neck?

If you can’t imagine a reason for that, you simply don’t understand the world in which we all live. Meanwhile, note the other special accommodations demanded by Clinton reps:

They wanted water on stage and in her dressing room! They wanted sliced fruit in the green room! They wanted ginger ale!

Why is the Washington Post publishing swill of this type? Not being mind-readers, we can’t precisely tell you.

But if this type of “news report” doesn’t seem familiar to you, you may not understand the world in which we all live. The Post has been publishing such reports for a great many years now.

Yesterday morning, this nonsense jumped to Slate. The report by the hapless Daniel Politi appeared beneath this screaming headline:

“A List of Hillary Clinton’s Demands to Accept $300,000 for a University Speech”

Politi has been at Slate since 2004; he may be the world’s slowest child. Obediently, he listed all the troubling demands, including the demands for water, chairs and carrot sticks.

Predictably, this touched of a wave of low-IQ comments about removing the brown M-n-M’s from the basket—exactly the reaction this whole thing was designed to create.

Let us note one basic way in which Politi went beyond the work of the other children:

In the Post, Helderman and Rucker did perform the bare essentials. At the end of paragraph 10, they fleetingly noted that Clinton’s speaking fee went to the Clinton Foundation.

In paragraph 22, they noted that the fee was “funded through a private endowment and not with tuition or public dollars.”

Politi omitted both points, as was intended by his siblings. This touched off waves of low-IQ comments at Slate about the way Clinton was enriching herself by stealing the children’s tuitions.

Can we talk?

Judged as journalism, that lengthy piece in the Washington Post is about as dumb as “modern dumb” gets. It’s stunning to think that a pair of privileged children would actually file a FOI request so they could thumb through piles of emails to bring us news about the fact that Clinton eats fruit and carrot sticks (disguised as crudité).

That said, this is very familiar work. The Post and the Times have aimed reams of such work at disapproved candidates in the past.

They’ve changed world history in the process. The liberal world has tended to remain very quiet as this happens, and in the long deadly aftermath.

Nothing is likely to change as the Post conducts its newest jihad against a disfavored (potential) candidate. In particular, Rachel won’t breathe a word about this. She writes once a month for the Washington Post. Her branding must be secured.

Clinton demanded water and chairs. The Post thought you should know that.

92 comments:

  1. In an interview, David Lee Roth commented about the "no brown M&M's" rider.

    Van Halen was touring with the world's largest, hottest, heaviest stage lighting in existence. The demands for the show were far greater than what venues were used to at the time.

    The "brown M&M" clause was added as a test to insure that the riders had actually been read. The band would know instantly if the venue had been properly prepared for the show.

    It's somewhat hilarious (and sad) that it's become a symbol for petulance rather than what it was: a clever way to insure nobody gets killed by a preventable accident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of doubt Van Halen's lighting was any more elaborate or large at the time as bands such as Pink Floyd and the Who who were filling stadiums with full laser effects.

      Delete
    2. Very important point! We all owe you thanks.

      Delete
    3. I always heard the story that it was Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones who had the M&M demand.
      Supposedly it was to check if the contract had actually been read. Studied at the London School of Economics in 1960.

      Delete
  2. The angry race-baiting Bob-hating Obamabot wasn't quick enough to post the first comment on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You would think after 15 years Professor Krugman would get it. Yet as Bob notes, he still doesn't. Public intellectualism is dead. Our intellectual culture lies melted in a puddle of piddle.

      Delete
  3. It is unclear to me why anyone would begrudge small comforts to a respected invited speaker. The more serious complaint in Somerby's post is that Salon left out crucial details that transform Clinton's speech from a professional income-generating activity into a donation to charity. That makes it both unfair to Clinton and propaganda, not journalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry -- Slate not Salon.

      Delete
    2. Of course Bob failed to mention that Slate's piece was a short recap in its "Slatest" section, in which they regularly give a brief idea, with a link, about what is being printed in other publications.

      Bob, of course, always fully covers every salient point in each article or broadcast he reviews for his following. Except when he doesn't. Like here.

      Delete
    3. Even so, they left out crucial information in favor of trivialities. There is no excuse for that. Somerby isn't required to make excuses for Slate. Why do you?

      Delete
    4. anon 5:01, like it or not, you are part of TDH's "following" of the nitwit category that reads every post for the sole purpose of flattering your own ego,by exhibiting your imaginary superiority over "bobfans"

      Delete
    5. AC/MA, that's why we call this variety of troll douchebags.

      It's a synonym for nitwits attempting to display imagined superiority.

      Their king, KZ, deserves his crown.

      Delete
    6. douchebag: A douchebag is a pretentious, sugar coated prick, but with emphasis on pretentious and sugar coated. It's not an adjective for an asshole, because assholes call other people douchebags, and assholes are more often than not proud of being assholes.

      Delete
    7. OK, OK. A tiara for you too 10:42!

      Delete
  4. I'm sorry to see that Bob did what he criticizes others for. Namely, omitting parts of the Clinton requests to make criticism of them sound ridiculous. I think Bob has a valid point. He didn't need to gild the lily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which of Clinton's requests do you think sounds silly?

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry if I was unclear. My intended point was that I agree with Bob's defense of Clinton's requests. However, I thought Bob unfairly paraphrased the Clinton critics to make the criticism appear more unjustified than it really is.

      Delete
    3. As near as I can tell, he only left out the paragraph about the staging of photos and the length of Youtube excerpts. The latter is pretty standard protection of intellectual property (her speech content). I can understand why she wouldn't want to stand around waiting for everyone to get organized for a photo. Why can't you, David?

      Now you complain that leaving out these two fairly complex-to-describe demands is "gilding the lily" and somehow alters the gist of either Somerby's complaint or the original article? I'm beginning to think you really are KZ.

      Delete
    4. David - can you clarify? What parts were omitted? What was the unfair paraphrase?

      Delete
    5. What requests did Somerby omit that gilded the lily? I didn't want to bother but after reading your comment I clicked over and read both the Slate and the WaPo articles. Her team asked for a different podium than the one originally proposed, she poses for a limited number of photos, though it's hard to tell what that number is from this:

      [QUOTE] Clinton posed for individual photos with 100 VIPS, or 50 couples — “We get a total of 50 clicks,” one university official explained — as well as two group photos. Lippert wrote to colleagues that Clinton’s representatives wanted the group shots “prestaged,” with participants assembled and ready to take the photographs before Clinton arrived “so the secretary isn’t waiting for these folks to get their act together.” Reiterating the request, Lippert added, “She doesn’t like to stand around waiting for people.” [END QUOTE]

      Clinton restricts the amount of video from her appearances that a particular host can post to YouTube to two minutes- I would assume that's her policy so she can say the same thing at several different venues and have it sound fresh to each audience.

      Delete
    6. (Somehow I missed Anon @ 1:29 PM"s comment, or unconsciously channeled it, which is my excuse for repeating it @ 2:09 PM.)

      Delete
    7. I thought Clinton's requests were fair. Her requests were specific and numerous. They included some minor items, such as the "style and color of the executive armchairs Clinton and moderator Lynn Vavreck would sit in as they carried on a question-and-answer session, as well as the kind of pillows to be situated on each chair."

      I think WaPo's complaint was the large number of requests and the relative pettiness of some of them. I have no problem with these requests. She's free to ask for anything she wants to, and the counter-party is free to refuse.

      In his post, Bob sarcastically writes, "Clinton demanded water and chairs. The Post thought you should know that." This quote hides the what the Post's real complaint was. It makes the Post's complaint appear completely ridiculous.

      Delete
    8. I don't see how any of the requests were petty. Wapo tries hard to make them seem that way, but they seem pretty rational to me. Most restate what would be normal when hosting a speaker, but what is the harm in making sure needs are anticipated (instead of scrambling if something is overlooked)?

      What was the Post's real complaint that you think is so important?

      Delete
    9. How's about $300,000 for a speech?

      Delete
    10. Anon 7:29. I agree with you that Clinton's requests were fair. I disagree with the Post. But, I think Bob's paraphrase made the Post's complaints look sillier than they really were.

      It's a scurvy trick, too often used in political debates. Re-state your opponent's position, but over-simplify it so as to turn a reasonable statement into an unreasonable one.

      Here's an example. Sen Inhofe has disputed catastrophic global warming. But, some on the other side say that his position is to dispute global warming. That would be silly, since there's no doubt that the world has warmed.

      However, whether future warming will be catastrophic is still unclear, so Inhofe's actual position isn't unreasonable (although he might be wrong.).

      Delete
    11. I think he did them a favor by leaving out the populism complaint.

      Delete
    12. It's true that Inhofe's actual position isn't unreasonable. It's batshit crazy. He's said that climate change is the second biggest hoax perpetrated on Americans. The biggest, of course, is separation of church and state. By the way, Inhofe would be surprised at your defense of him. He's on record as saying the world is cooling.

      Delete
  5. The deconstruction of Helderman and Rucker's 6th paragraph was beautiful.
    Top university officials discussed at length the style and color of the executive armchairs Clinton and moderator Lynn Vavreck would sit in as they carried on a question-and-answer session, as well as the kind of pillows to be situated on each chair. Clinton’s representatives requested that the chairs be outfitted with two long, rectangular pillows — and that two cushions be kept backstage in case the chair was too deep and she needed additional back support.

    You haters out there are put to shame with shit like that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are short (and many women are), you will already know that many chairs are designed for taller people. That means the inches from back to seat edge are greater than needed for a smaller person. It means you have no back support at all or must lean back in a way that will look odd to the audience and will put stress on the lower back. Why should Clinton not say something about this. That she mentions it suggests she has encountered this problem previously and wishes to prevent it. That makes it real, not a specious demand.

      Delete
    2. Agree. The haters, if Clinton fans, are happy to see that sort of deconstruction here, possibly the only source that exists for such a level of acuteness of criticism, but they go off the deep end when Bob applies the same skill to their idiotic race/gender/sexual orientation games.

      Delete
    3. Extra cushions for back support are normal for media interviews of which I've done thousands. They help the interviewee keep their back strait which is important for many reasons.

      Delete
    4. We suggest there is a huge difference between the quality of work here, and the quality of work that goes in to, say, attacking Charles Blow for quoting the WSJ, or Salon for having an area devoted to entertainment, or Rachel Maddow for using the word "fight" in a way Bob does not like, or the expressions and gesticulations of Ms. Maddow herself. These, and many other bits of ridiculousness, are what at least we "haters" at RAFE hate. When Bob does good work, we are always happy to enjoy it and point it out. This was good, constructive analysis. We would like to see more of it. We have learned the hard way, however, not to hope for such things.

      Delete
  6. Why does the public apparently think it can or should judge people based on what will make them comfortable during a speaking engagement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The public has rarely, if ever, been proven wrong about what it apparently thinks in judgement matters of this type.

      Delete
  7. We applaud a useful, thought-provoking post, which actually goes towards fulfilling the stated mission of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to know why it took so long (since July)
      for the jihadists at the Post to deploy a new Exploding Media Device near the Clinton Royals?

      Delete
    2. Your applause is of no concern. You remain a tedious wantwit troll.

      Delete
  8. Having now read the WaPo article, it seems like Somerby would have pasted this passage from the WaPo article where the intent of the byliners' exercise is made explicit:

    [QUOTE] Her UCLA fee, like those at other universities, went to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the family’s nonprofit group.

    But critics have argued that the carefully staged events and high speaking fees could complicate Clinton’s ability to run a populist campaign built around the economic struggles of the middle class.

    Versions of Clinton’s standard speaking contracts have surfaced publicly this year — including her luxury travel requirements — but the contracts do not contain the extensive detail seen in the UCLA communications.
    [END QUOTE]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks as if our high end media may be working to preemptively discredit if not prevent ANY "populist campaign built around the economic struggles of the middle class." They have neither the desire nor skill set to cover such concerns.

      Delete
    2. Their upset because Hillary Clinton cannot run a campaign on behalf of the middle class if she herself gives a speech at a public university and donates the fee to charity? What am I missing? Are the chair cushions silk or something?

      Delete
    3. The important thing: GOP pols can be rich. It merits no accusation of hypocrisy and will be ignored by the press. Dems however cannot command high fees (even for charity), not can they be wealthy.

      Because you see, they are supposed to be for the poors.

      How can they be for the poors, sipping on those still waters, eating those crudite? Hypocrites!

      wash. rinse. repeat.

      Delete
  9. "Warning! Don’t be stampeded by such slippery terms as “at length” and “lengthy:”

    Thanks for the warning Bob! I will also apply it to the slippery term "waves" you used to describe "waves of low-IQ comments at Slate about the way Clinton was enriching herself by stealing the children’s tuitions."

    Based on my count there were four comments with the word tuition out of 176, none of which used a term related to theft or children. All were immediately refuted by a Hillary devotee named "Pippy."

    Warning! Did you note what the old geezer didn’t say? That there were waves of comments objecting to the high prices of such speeches given to corporate sources. Where do those fees go, Mr. Somerby, Harvard (Way-Long-Time-Ago)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that starting @ 7:30 and continuing through @ 7:36 a wave of low IQ comments crashed on the craggy shore of Bob Somerby's blog.

      Delete
    2. Not sure it ended at 7:36.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps not. Hide tide washed the wave back ashore today a couple of hours earlier.

      Delete
  10. Thanks so much BOB. That Daniel Politi. Hapless, indeed. What a low IQ "journalist" he is. "Politi has been at Slate since 2004; he may be the world’s slowest child."

    So how come we don't get to find out how young he is? Or which college "churned out" this "beast."? In fact, if he has been so hapless and the world's slowest child for a decade, how come his name and work has never been mentioned in TDH before?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inquiring schizophrenics want to know!

      Delete
    2. Children! Quit behaving like the beastly tools churned out of Harvard and Yale. It makes you dour.

      Delete
  11. What most of you don't know is that the editors, although they dictated the outlines of this story, decided the Helderman-Rucker description of Hillary pounding on the negotiating table and wailing that she would take her marbles and go home if every single one of her non-negotiable demands were not met might be seen as going too far. The credibility of the Post is at stake, you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We remember liberals getting excited about the prospect of a Wapo in the hands of Jeff Bezos. We were skeptical. We begin to suspect we were not skeptical enough.

      Delete
    2. The Times and the Post have changed world history.
      Bob, on the other hand has been unable to get even another blogger to follow suit on this post.

      Delete
    3. Bob has spent the past 17 years aggressively alienating everyone he possibly could. Possibly, he told himself he was doing this because he, unlike everyone else, is deeply committed to truth and honesty, while they are all store-bought hacks. We, on the other hand, think some people are just wired to be perversely contrarian, and strongly suspect Bob is one of those people. It has its advantages sometimes, but establishing useful alliances is not one of those advantages.

      Delete
    4. Bob has not alienated those for whom honest, professional reporting is more important than tribal advantage.

      Delete
    5. We would hate to see the world where your description could accurately be applied to yourself. The one we live in is bad enough.

      Delete
  12. http://mainlinemedianews.com/content/articles/2013/09/11/main_line_times/news/doc522fe853257ef2132010801.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  13. As a professional meeting planner, these so-called "demands" are not a big deal. We in the business appreciate a client letting us know their needs. The event runs smoothly because of communication like this. My God, she wants a lavalier microphone, as do most of my clients when talking and moving around on a stage. Monitors with the speech on it are no big deal. But, of course, this is Hillary Clinton, so these need to be reported in the media as outrageous demands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very rough rule of thumb.

      Whenever anybody feels compelled to start an anonymous Internet forum post with, "As a professional (whatever) . . ." you can be assured that the rest of what follows will be bullshit.

      Delete
    2. Anyone can play any role in cyberspace. But do you really think someone would pretend to be a professional meeting planner? Or make false claims about something so mundane?

      Delete
    3. I assume that whatever anyone says is to be evaluated on the same basis, whether they claim expertise, remain anonymous, or adopt a moniker. For example, I believe KZ is really schizophrenic and David is really a conservative.

      Delete
    4. Of what value are conversations devoid of personal experience?

      Delete
  14. I am glad this endless deathless 1,414, word chapter by children in the Post was answered by a mortal, crisp 1,330 word response by a mature Bob Somerby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just wish a little space had been saved for the follow up article on the Reginald Matson story.

      Delete
  15. The Chuck Todd interview over at Salon is timely.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reading this, my mind is flooded with memories of ancient, but similar, journalistic transgressions.

    Many years ago I read a story detailing the fussbudget demands of comedian/songwriter/quasi-intellectual Steve Allen, et ux., in connection with one of his countless celebrity appearances. The article zeroed in on a litany of his petty demands, including but by no means limited to fresh flowers daily and fresh squeezed orange juice, presented with the clear intention of potraying the windy jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none as, in contrast to his good-humoried TV persona, a snooty, menial-abusing prima donna of the sort which triggered the French and Russian revolutions.

    Because of a recent negative experience with Mr. Allen, I consumed the article with joy and relish, recognizing it immediately as a prime example of the kind of crack journalism that trenchantly nails its deserving subject to the proverbial wall.

    Some time before the article I was at hotel in San Antonio, Texas, when I read that Mr. Allen would be signing copies of his latest memoir at a nearby bookstore. I rushed over and got in line among some fellow giddy fans. When my turn came, the great man (for such was my estimation of him at the time) asked me how the book was to be signed. I said, meekly, that since my name was also Steve, it would be ever so wonderful if he would simply jot "Hi-ho, Steverino!" in the end pages.

    This modest request caused Steve Allen to glower at me as if he were regarding something he should not have been found in his hotel room, such as a species of vermin or its fecal matter. After a moment's hesitation, he scribbled, dismissively, "To Steve. Hi-ho!." Then he handed the book back to me, without a word, without the slightest pleasantry.

    I now knew the true Steve Allen. My mind was changed forever. No longer would he be the protean universal genius I had childlessly convinced myself he was. No more the latter-day Leonardo. And when I read that story about his fuss-budget demands and his imperial treatment of the servile classes I rejoiced that some reporter had finally had the guts -- the guts! -- to lay out the truth about this horrible man.

    I assume the story about Hillary's carrot sticks is in just that vein of hard-hitting truth-telling journalism. If we aren't vigilant, we taxpayers could be the ones paying for all that hummus and bottled water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll gladly pay for all the hummus and bottled water. It's paying for two losing wars and a government shutdown that I object to.

      Delete
    2. Would that be the same wars that Hillary voted yes to?

      Delete
  17. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex

    ReplyDelete
  18. ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface

    ReplyDelete
  19. nike shoes, Cheap Jordans,Cheap Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Max,Cheap Free Run Shoes,nike shoes,nike outlet,nike factory,nike store,nike factory outlet,nike outlet store,cheap nike shoes,nike sneakers, toms outlet, toms outlet,tom shoes,toms shoes outlet,tom shoes,toms wedges,cheap toms,toms.com, air jordan, air jordan,jordan shoes,cheap jordans,air jordans,jordan retro,air jordan shoes,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan retro, cheap jordans, cheap jordans,cheap jordan shoes,cheap jordan,cheap jordans for sale,jordans for cheap,jordan shoes,jordans,air jordan,jordan retro,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,air jordans,retro jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes,air jordan retro, jordan retro, jordan retro,jordan shoes,air jordan,air jordans,retro jordans,air jordan retro,jordans,jordan 11,jordan xx9,jordan 6,new jordans,cheap jordans,jordan retro 11,jordan 5,air jordan 11,jordans for sale,jordan 4,jordan 1,jordan future,jordan 3,jordan 12,michael jordan shoes,air jordan shoes, air max 90, air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 95,air max 2014,air max 2013,air max 1,nike air max,air max,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, air max 95, air max 95,nike air max 95,air max 90,nike air max 90,air max 2013,nike air max,air max,air max 2014,nike air max 2014,airmax,nike air max 2013, nike free 5.0, nike free 5.0, nike free trainer 5.0,nike free run 5.0,free running 2,nike free run,nike free,free running,nike running shoes,nike free trainer,free runs,free run 5.0, omega watches, omega watches,omega watch,replica watches,rolex watches,replica omega watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex, ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren outlet,ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren outlet,polo ralph lauren outlet online,polo ralph lauren,ralph lauren,polo ralph,polo shirts,ralphlauren.com,polo outlet,ralph lauren polo, oakley sunglass, thomas sabo

    ReplyDelete
  20. oakley sunglasses,cheap oakley,cheap oakley sunglasses,oakley sunglasses cheap,oakley outlet,oakley sunglasses outlet,oakley vault,oakleys,oakley.com,sunglasses outlet,cheap sunglasses,oakley prescription glasses,fake oakleys,oakley glasses,oakley store,fake oakley,oakley sale,cheap oakleys,discount oakley sunglasses, ray ban sunglasses, Ray Ban Sunglasses,Ray Ban Outlet,Ray Ban Sale,Cheap Ray Bans,Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses,ray ban sunglasses outlet,ray ban,rayban,ray bans,ray-ban,raybans,ray ban wayfarer,ray-ban sunglasses,raybans.com,rayban sunglasses,cheap ray ban, burberry, burberry,burberry outlet,burberry outlet online,burberry factory outlet,burberry sale,burberry handbags, chanel bags, chanel bags,chanel handbags,chanel sunglasses,chanel outlet,chanel purses,chanel handbags official site, coach outlet store, coach outlet,coach outlet store,coach outlet store online,coach outlet stores,coach factory outlet,coach factory,coach factory online,coach factory outlet online,coach outlet online, chaussures louboutin, louboutin,louboutin pas cher,christian louboutin,louboutin chaussures,louboutin soldes,chaussure louboutin,chaussures louboutin,chaussure louboutin pas cher,louboutin france, sac michael kors, michael kors,sac michael kors,michael kors sac,michael kors pas cher,sac michael kors pas cher,michael kors france, north face outlet, north face outlet,the north face,north face,the north face outlet,north face jackets,north face jackets clearance,northface, yoga pants, yoga pants,lululemon,lululemon outlet,lululemon athletica,lululemon addict,lulu lemon,lulu.com,lululemon.com, beats by dre, beats by dre,beats headphones,beats audio,beats by dr dre,beats by dre headphones,dr dre,dre beats,beats by dr,dr dre beats,dre headphones,beats by dr. dre,cheap beats, ferragamo, ferragamo,salvatore ferragamo,ferragamo shoes,ferragamo outlet,salvatore ferragamo outlet,ferragamo belts,ferragamo belt,ferragamo outlet, nike blazer, nike blazer,blazer nike,nike blazer pas cher,Chaussures Nike Blazer,Nike Blazer Femme, nike air force, swarovski crystal, swarovski

    ReplyDelete