Joan Walsh goes around the bend!


The state of the big tribal dumb: Maureen Dowd saved the best for last.

Dowd’s new column concerns same-sex marriage. Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage last year.

Hillary Clinton came out in favor last week.

That said, the modern pseudo-liberal knows only one way to reason. With that in mind, Dowd saved the best for last.

In an otherwise pedestrian column (at best), she unloaded her bomb at the end:
DOWD (3/27/13): The fusty legal discussion inside [the Court] was a vivid contrast with the lusty rally outside. There were some offensive signs directed at gays, but the vibrant crowd was overwhelmingly pro same-sex marriage. One woman summed it up nicely in a placard reading “Gays have the right to be as miserable as I make my husband.”

The only emotional moment in court was when Justice Kennedy brought up the possible “legal injury” to 40,000 children in California who live with same-sex parents. “They want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” he told Cooper. “The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?”

While Justice Alito can’t see into the future, most Americans can. If this court doesn’t reject bigotry, history will reject this court.
As she finished, Dowd dropped her bomb. As we have been telling you, this is the only language with which the modern pseudo-liberal can “reason.”

Is it “bigotry” when people oppose same-sex marriage? We’re inclined to avoid such freighted words, but presumably it is in some cases. That said, Dowd has flawlessly displayed the mental world of the modern pseudo-liberal.

This is a topic on which our team began to make up its mind last Tuesday. On that basis, we feel empowered to say that everyone else is a bigot.

Unless we liberals can drop our bombs, it isn’t clear that we know how to talk. That said, Dowd looks like a mental giant compared to Salon’s Joan Walsh.

Yesterday, Walsh penned an astonishing overwrought piece concerning the Obamas’ daughters. It must be one of the dumbest pieces we’ve ever seen in print.

If you can’t see how dumb it is, there’s no real way we could tell you. Having said that, the comments—especially those from the liberals—make Walsh seem like Einstein's much brighter sibling.

Truly, it’s painful to read those comments, which now consume eleven pages. By the way: When’s the last time Salon ran a piece—any piece at all—about the needs and interests of low-income minority children?

Can you recall any such work? If such a piece had ever appeared, would you have bothered to read it?

That piece by Walsh is amazingly dumb—but Walsh knows only one way to “reason,” as she basically states at one point in her piece. For decades, the conservative world has been stunningly dumb.

Our tribe is now catching up fast.

When the Bush daughters got trashed: As of this morning, Walsh has been forced to pen a new piece discussing the way she once trashed the Bush daughters.

Walsh wouldn’t write that piece today, she is quick to “admit.”

That said, her new piece is just as dumb as yesterday’s offering was. In all honesty, Walsh went around the bend some time ago. She’s a full-blown tribal hater. And she seems to be blinded by her hatred, unless she’s just crazily dumb.

Let’s look on the brighter side:

Presumably, Walsh has scored some nice pay-days by now. If our tribe had one ounce of sense, we’d tell her it’s time to go. She could spend her declining years writing pieces like this at Salon—pieces in which she helps us consider the problem of farting in bed.

Our side is deeply, tragically dumb. Your lizard brain won’t let you see it!


  1. Joan Walsh's piece is here:“hypocrisy”_about_the_bush_daughters/

    Tracy Clark-Flory wrote this piece:

  2. Hi! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my previous room mate!
    He always kept talking about this. I will forward this write-up to him.

    Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you
    for sharing!

    My web page: check my blog

  3. You're probably right that it's not always bigotry that is responsible for people believing that equal rights for gay people is wrong. Definitely the loudest anti-gay components are sheer bigotry. The main cause though, is the lunacy so many participate in that think they get to decide the lives of other people. I remember wondering about that before I went to elementary school, as well as another thought "just because things are like that now, does not mean it has to be that way." I have no idea how or why I would come to be thinking about things like that at such a young age, but these have been a couple of my guiding principles my whole life.

    Scalia asked "when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couple from marriage." If one believe, as I do, that rights are inherent, then the answer is simple: it was always unconstitutional. The duty and obligation of the courts is to recognize that and strike down any laws that controvert that principle.

    1. Of course it's bigotry to you because you've bought into a cultural construct that argues men and women are exactly alike, and that marriage was somehow invented by the state as codified support for relationships based upon sexual passion/affection.

      Neither the state nor religion invented the concept of marriage. That relationship came about from the biological reality of procreation and the male/ female complementarity. The significance and the power of those phenomena were channeled into alliances as a stabilizing societal force forged by blood relations and as a promise of its continuance via children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.

      There's no right to marriage anymore than there is a right to be a man or a woman. There is no adequate comparison of the male-female complementarity to be found in same-sex couples. In a symbolic way, ad well as actual way, each man is Father and each woman is Mother and the protection and succoring of that is utterly in the interest of society.

      We've been in the process of devolving marriage into a status denoted solely by emotion for a while now, even as we congratulate ourselves that we are offering more protections for women than they were previously afforded in marriage.

      This redefining of the"institution" is not going to strengthen it, and while it may normalize same-sex couplings in our culture and offer legal protections, the "right" to marry will never afford them the power and the
      significance of male-female relationship and the natural impulse to protect and to harness that from which marriage sprang.

      There's no reason why it ever would.

    2. Sorry Cecelia, as long as marriage in a legal sense involves contractual agreements, your entire posting is nothing but BS.

    3. So why Ren't gays championing laws for civil unions?

    4. When heterosexual unions begin to be called Civil Unions, then homosexual unions can be called that, as well. That's what Equal Treatment Under the Law is all about.

    5. Actually, Cecilia, I've bought into no such thing. Your argument is particularly unpersuasive since the history you state is incorrect. It's been debunked so many times that I'll not restate it here.

      But, even if your history were correct, definitions change to reflect current understanding. The understanding that is coming into place now is that gay people can have relationships just as deep and meaningful as straight people. That gay people have an inherent right to equality before the law.

      Also, your argument by assertion that gay relationships are less than straights is just stupid posturing. You have no evidence for your statement, it shows more that you are trying to hide your own bigotry/prejudice from yourself, while displaying it for all the world to see.

    6. I said something a bit more robust than that, I'm afraid.

    7. We know, CMc. Some of us just can't figure out what you're afraid of.

    8. This is dubious "history":

      "Neither the state nor religion invented the concept of marriage. That relationship came about from the biological reality of procreation and the male/ female complementarity."

      And, as I don't think it's at all accurate in terms of human history, there isn't much in the argument for me.

      Tho the argument leaves me with the conclusion that gay relationship are less valuable than straight ones because, "the power and the significance of male-female relationship and the natural impulse to protect and to harness that" apparently outweighs anything gay human beings could have or experience or offer society.

    9. Gay folks have managed "to have and to experience or offer" to society quite a lot in our history.

      Perhaps not the identical experience and offering of their parents, but a unique one, and depending on the individual, a worthy one.

      Just like everyone else.

    10. But when gay people get into a loving, committed relationship, it won't have "the power and the
      significance of male-female relationship"?

      Gay relationship have less power and less significance than straight ones. Does it not follow that gay relationship therefor have less to offer? And, therefore, are less valuable to society?

    11. They have no more or less to offer than any individual.

      What they surely don't have in unity with their partner is the sort of relationship that inherently demands the structure and succor of marriage.

      What is there about oral or anal sex that demands protection? What are it's perils for women and families, and what are it's consequences for the future?

      Gays may need the sort of status inherent in civil unions,but society is not naturally predisposed to offer anything more than that. Though they long for nothing less.

    12. I think I get lost in the marriage = procreation argument. Procreation happens in many relationships (out of wedlock, polygamy, in vitro, etc). Children are raised in many different ways and in different familial, or other, structures. Marriage and unity are not requisites for any of that to happen. Neither did marriage arise from the fact of procreation. So I don't agree with the idea that a relationship "inherently demands" anything, or that society(among the myriad, complex societies that have existed in human history) is "naturally predisposed" to anything.

      This argument just basically seems to be that straight people can make babies. And that's why their(monogamous) relationship is naturally and inherently more important than other relationships.

    13. I know that when I got married, everyone understood that the reason for our marriage was "the biological reality of procreation and the male/ female complementarity." I think that I used that sentence verbatim in my vows ;)

      It certainly didn't have anything to do with the love we had (and still have) for each other or our mutual loyalty, respect, admiration and deep friendship, nor our desire to share our lives and work together as a couple to make each others lives easier and more pleasurable.

      Christ, "defenders" of marriage like Cecilia do infinitely more to devalue and destroy the beauty and majesty of marriage than gays ever could.

    14. CMc opines "What they [gay people] surely don't have in unity with their partner is the sort of relationship that inherently demands the structure and succor of marriage."

      As far as I know, the Illinois Compiled Statues are mute on the succor of marriage. What they do provide is a detailed set of obligations and benefits -- what you might call a "structure" -- to married persons. There is nothing inherent in the relationship of married people that demands this structure, which varies somewhat from state to state.

      CMc asks "What is there about oral or anal sex that demands protection?" If you have to ask, then you're not doing it right.

      Too flip? OK, let me ask this: Why do you think that gay relationships hold nothing beyond oral or anal sex? Marriage equality is a legal issue that will turn on equal protection law. Why are you even thinking about gay couples having sex?

      CmC worries "What are it's [gay marriage's] perils for women and families, and what are it's consequences for the future?" I can't imagine. What haunts you? I hate to break it to you, but there are couples in traditional marriages who practice oral and anal sex.

  4. "Is it “bigotry” when people oppose same-sex marriage?"

    I guess I'm not real subtle and smart and nuanced and all, but I don't know what else it could be.

  5. I'm with "Confused" on this one.
    If it's not bigotry, what is it? And don't say religion. Just because one can use religion to justify bigotry, doesn't mean it's not bigotry.


    1. I think Bob's point is that if you're going to say that being opposed to gay marriage constitutes bigotry, you'll have to admit that until very recently Obama and Hillary were both bigots. I certainly have never heard of them being called bigots by liberals over this issue.

    2. Interesting how many comments on this blog begin with, "I think Bob's point is..." Either Bob's writing isn't clear, or his points aren't clear, but whichever the case, commenters always bravely step into the breach.

      I don't think this is very complicated. There are a good number of voters who are bigots on this issue, and there are politicians who either pander to that bigotry (whether they share it or not) or fear it costing them votes. In Obama's and Hillary's case, I suspect it's more of the latter, as I also suspect it is with a good many GOP pols.

      But those who oppose same-sex marriage --- and who make it a voting issue --- are bigots. Again, how else to describe them?

    3. Exactly. "Confused" completely missed that point. Bob isn't trying to define bigotry -- he's just, once again, pointing out how we easily condemn people on the other side, while forgiving (or ignoring) people on our side for the same beliefs or actions.

    4. My "Exactly." response was to the previous "I think Bob's point is..." post.

      As to Bob's writing, I find his writing style crystal clear and understandable. But I also think the fact that so many of his liberal readers seem confused just validates his point. So many are looking for a reason to attack someone whose not in 100% agreement with them, that they (purposefully?) ignore what Bob is actually saying.

      Do you realize he rarely (if ever) attacks liberal viewpoints -- Bob's a liberal, himself!

      Most of his criticisms involve how "liberal" pundits use ad hominem attacks (like repeatedly calling someone a bigot) and hypocritically attack conservatives for beliefs/actions that many liberals, or at least Democrats, also believe/do or very recently believed/did.

      It's very important to see this, because if you engage in debates with conservatives, you can bet your ass they're going to point out these inconsistencies, and make you look like a fool. So it's better to hear it from a friend like Bob first, and learn from it.

    5. "So many are looking for a reason to attack someone whose not in 100% agreement with them, that they (purposefully?) ignore what Bob is actually saying."

      Oh, this is rich. How much bandwidth has Somerby used up attacking not only someone who is not 100 percent in agreement with him, but also attacking those he might agree with but do not express themselves in the 100 percent Somerby politically correct manner.

      And you ever care to count how many of his targets are women? While still says what a misogynist Keith Olbermann was?

      "Confused" is absolutely correct. If it isn't bigotry to deny an entire class of human beings their full rights as citizens, what is it?

    6. "Confused" asks the cut-and-dry question "how else to describe them?". A mere paragraph prior he argues that there is some nuanced distinction. You can't have it both ways.

      A week ago Hillary Clinton was a bigot, this week she's not?

    7. "Oh, this is rich." ... " If it isn't bigotry to deny an entire class of human beings their full rights as citizens, what is it?"

      It's incredible, absolutely incredible, how someone can miss the point so badly.

      And nice touch with the misogynist crap.

    8. No, what's absolutely incredible is the lecture on the polite way to call out bigotry by not calling it bigotry for fear that others may think you are calling them bigots.

      Once again, the Marquis de Somerby rules that apply to one side, and one side only.

  6. Nothing could be dumber than not getting the difference between someone of any political party actively opposing gay marriage with statements like "a marriage is between a man and a woman," and someone who tries to avoid the issue as much as possible, only answers questions about it when asked, and takes the most tepid position possible. The net result may be the same at the time, except for the critical difference that the latter remains open-minded and will be the first to change when public opinion changes.

    I do not know a single person of my "tribe" who would fail to criticize someone of our "tribe" who actively attacks gays or aggressively opposes their wishes. It has nothing to do with "tribes," except that it matters which tribe is in political control. Sometimes in the real world you have to hold your nose to support candidates for office with whom you disagree on any number of issues. It's a lot more about principles than it is about "tribes."

  7. "...she is quick to admit." [linked].

    This links to "Farting in Love", apparently a treasured topic for Somerby, since he links to it twice.

    Oops! Our side IS deeply, tragically dumb.

    1. Soon to be followed with "I think that Bob's point in linking to 'Farting in Love' twice is ....[fill in the blank]."

    2. Yes, Anonymous, once again we've clearly misunderstood Bob's subtle and nuanced thinking, and are unable to comprehend such crisp, clear, and felicitous prose. And now we await --- once again --- a commenter to clarify for us not only what Bob's point is, but to instruct us, as Bob does often, on how PRECISELY AND WITHOUT DEVIATION to consider issues as Bob does.

    3. Look, I read the blog through lens of what I think Bob's larger project is. And, sometimes for me, it seems like people are missing what is obvious about his argument. But, fine, I've already bought into his set of basic assumptions about the media and public discourse. Maybe that's why I find him valuable.

      I appreciate his focus on media criticism with an eye towards helping progressives consider how their viewpoints are advanced in the media. And, for me, he's good at that.

      But I'm honestly curious, what do you think his project is? And what do you get out of reading him? What does he do well for you?

    4. As far as this long-time reader can tell, "his project is" demonstrating how the op-ed page of the New York Times and the entire MSNBC network are bringing down Western Civilization as we know it. And how dumb those young whippersnappers on both actually are, by cracky!

      It used to be how quickly political spin gets broadcast and put into print by a lazy press corps who refuses to budge from a favored narrative.

  8. Bigotry is a club that liberals use to bash conservatives. E.g., consider Harry Reid's criticism of Justice Thomas in 2004

    When asked to comment on Thomas as a possible replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Reid told NBC's "Meet the Press": "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.

    "I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice."

    When pressed, Reid admitted that he had never read any of Thomas's opinions. Furthermore, even people who disagree with with Thomas's politics praise the exceptional clarity of his writing. E.g., see

    It seems obvious that Reid's baseless charge came from Thomas's race. But, Reid isn't tarred as a racist, because bigotry is a club that liberals use to bash conservatives.

  9. If denying the full rights and benefits to a certain class of people because they belong to that certain class . . . if that isn't bigotry, then what is it?

    And if it is bigotry, then let's call it bigotry instead of trying to be nice and non-offensive.

    Now there may be certain anti-marriage-equality people who may not recognize that as bigotry. But there were once many white parents who did not see, until it was pointed out to them, the bigotry in sending their children to shiny, new all-white schools with the latest of everything while children of color were shipped off to far inferior schools with hand-me-down books.

  10. "If denying the full rights and benefits to a certain class of people because they belong to that certain class . . . if that isn't bigotry, then what is it?"

    When one thinks of a bigot, one thinks of George Wallace or Father Coughlin or the fictional character Archie Bunker. By defining bigotry to include people who don't hate "the other" but who merely have traditional or, to put it less charitably, backward-looking views on a certain issue you dilute the meaning of the word.

    Like Somerby, I have trouble putting Obama, Hillary, Rob Portman in the same category as Archie Bunker. Doing so blurs some real distinctions that need to be made.

  11. It takes industrial strength Bad Daily Howler to have you defending Mo Dowd, but we can't refuse to acknowledge the situation. Look, here's the thing, certain Court decisions are now viewed, generally speaking- I'm not talking about CeceliaMc here, we're talking about halfway decent human beings- as infamous. Separate but Equal, you know the drill. All Dowd is suggesting is that a ruling against Gay marriage will be viewed in the light. Opinion yes, but an outlandish one?

    It's actually the least of the Court's problems these days: Given the truths that have emerged since the appointment of Clarence Thomas, the outrage of said's tenure on the Court will be viewed as what it is: one of the ugliest last gasps of Jim Crow. A sickening bit of high tech Uncle Tomism that could never have happened without the silent approval of men like Bob Somersby, who would do almost anything rather than make a white person feel uncomfortable about the racial history of the U.S.

    As to the Walsh... I think I read about half of both those pieces which, if not overwrought, were certainly overlong. But when Bob is playing the house for Rubes, two things happen: A) no argument, only name calling. And for those who might notice this and take issue B) More name calling, Lizard Brain.

    But is it really the stupidity that bothers Bob here, or could it be, just maybe, he is embarrassed by what conservatives did to Obama's kids? Could it be that Paster Bob does not have a good liberal equivalent to throw out to prove we are all sinners in the eyes of Bo- I mean God? Otherwise, wouldn't he bring up up maybe what Walsh was on about in the first place? Ya think?

    1. I take it for granted here that you generally are speaking of halfway decent people rather than fully decent ones like me.

  12. Here's my takeaways from TDH. I'd love someone to explain how this isn't valid or worthwhile criticism to consider.

    1)Via anon@2:18

    "if you're going to say that being opposed to gay marriage constitutes bigotry, you'll have to admit that until very recently Obama and Hillary were both bigots"

    2)"...we feel empowered to say that everyone else is a bigot. Unless we liberals can drop our bombs, it isn’t clear that we know how to talk."

    3)If we can't make a strong case for marriage equality without calling everyone else a bigot, maybe we aren't so good with reason and logic. And maybe that's why we keep losing on other progressive issues.

    1. Allow me.

      So what "progressive issues" do "we keep losing on"? Especially this one, which only began to be one when it was framed, appropriately, as a civil rights issue?

      And good lordy, no matter how much nonsense Somerby fills heads with, nobody is calling anybody, except Rev. Phelps and his Klan, a "bigot".

      That is much different than calling the denying of a class of citizens full civil rights what it is -- bigotry. And America is finally waking up to that.

      Good grief, it wasn't that long ago that anti-gay-marriage initiatives were passing in states by 70 and 80 percent. Now we have voters passing marriage equality initiatives. That's "losing"?

      Finally, "Obama and Hillary were both bigots." Right. One of Somerby's favorite lines.

      For a long time, they tried to tiptoe through a political minefield with the muddled "civil union" compromise. -- until they realized that "separate but equal" is the same logic that the U.S. Supreme Court used to keep Jim Crow alive.

      But please tell me when Obama and Hillary ever used this issue as the wedge that Dubya did.

    2. "We keep losing" = Bob and his acolytes are frozen in 1988, 2004 and, of course, [cue horror-flick trailer music] Campaign 2000.

      We (is it ok when *I* say "we"? Or is it only tribal when Bob isn't the one saying it?) are actually winning elections, on issues, on demographics, and more. The tide is turning our way. We've won majorities in 5 of 6 presidential elections, and I see more victories coming.

      Magically, we've done this without particularly heeding Bob's advice, though it's sometimes useful and welcome. We're also winning by acknowledging the persistence of racism (without overdoing it) and by treating gay rights as a civil rights issue.

      I'd like to see more progress on income inequality, though that's always a tough one when a certain percentage of the electorate persists in voting against their economic interests, despite relentless attempts to persuade them to do otherwise. But we'll keep plugging away....

  13. They are either hypocrites, bigots, or pander to them. And yes, that includes Hillary and Obama. The only way I buy the notion that it is about religion and traditional marriage is if the person saying that advocates legally banning divorce, gluttony, greed, and fornication all of which are also banned by the Bible. No person does that as far as I know.

  14. Marriage equality? If the state got it's nose out of marriage except for social safety issues there'd be no need for equality. Speaking as a single person, I'm feeling kind of put-upon by the federal's interest in giving advantages to people who are "married". There's no reason to prime the pipeline of cannon fodder anymore. Any pimply-faced nineteen year old in a darkened room in Las Vegas can wage war half a world away. There is no longer a very big state interest in marriage.

  15. Again, your logical flaw is defining the sin by the worst sinners, and declaring everyone else as innocent as lambs because their bigotry didn't sink to that level.

    I submit that everyone who voted for an anti-gay marriage amendment to any state constitution is guilty of bigotry. They sought to codify into law the denial of full civil rights to an entire class of citizens.

    Just because they weren't bigoted enough to picket the funeral of a soldier with "God Hates Fags" signs doesn't mean they didn't commit an act of bigotry.

    And just because later, they learned more and changed their minds doesn't mean they didn't commit an act of bigotry earlier.

  16. This stuff is getting crazy. Did any major LGBTQ organizations or movement figures call Obama or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton bigots for not supporting same sex marriage for all those years? I can't recall any. Why then call people who oppose same sex, but don't hate gay people bigots? Why the double standard?

  17. Again, on this issue in particular, calling the sin bigotry isn't the same as calling everyone who doesn't agree with you bigots.

    And only when this issue began to be framed as a civil rights issue did American public opinion begin to be changed.

    In other words, calling the sin by its proper name is actually appealing to the BEST in people.

    And please, name me a single person who has been called a "bigot".

  18. Well, a bigot is someone who practices bigotry, so that would be everyone who is accused of bigotry in opposing same sex marriage?

    If you think people change their minds by being called bigots, you don't live in the real world.

  19. "Why then call people who oppose same sex, but don't hate gay people bigots?"

    Again, can you give me an example of this actually happening?

    And again, we are forbidden from calling the sin by its name for fear that we might offend those who disagree with us today and might agree with us tomorrow?

    Or perhaps, by calling it what it is, we might cause people to think about it a bit more deeply than talking points. Which, I believe, accounts for the sea change on this issue in such a short span of time.

  20. Anonymous, 7:05pm:

    This blog serves as a useful corrective to liberal excesses, silliness, tribal thinking, vanities, etc. I give Bob credit for that. Though to many of us --- more than Bob probably knows --- those excesses, etc, are rather obvious, and have been for decades, all the way back to Mike "Meathead" Stivic and before. We get it. It's not that complicated. Liberal sanctimony has been a just source of mockery forever, and many of us libs know that.

    The problem is, as often as Bob accuses others of name-calling, intolerance, or lizard braininess, he is guilty of same. He is a rabid name-caller; castigates whole classes of people (such as, The Professors); and oddly for a comedian, doesn't seem to convey much of a sense of humor.

    I also simply find his writing hard to read --- relentless hectoring wears one out. Though I'll skim through it on posts of interest, even as those posts get longer and longer, and the hectoring more relentless.

    I sometimes have the feeling of being yelled at by someone who agrees with me, and of always being on the verge of being "corrected" for not seeing things exactly the way the Bob does. Which is THE EXACT PROBLEM THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE WITH LIBERALS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    Also, I'm afraid to say that Bob seems to go out of his way to minimize race as an issue or reality in American life. And I say this as someone who only drops the R-word as a last resort, and can cop to my own prejudices and even racism. He conveys the sense of someone who hasn't often enough taken 5 minutes to walk in a black person's shoes, and is far too quick to shoot down charges of racism, rather than to at least soberly examine those charges on the merits.

    Lastly, I don't get the sense that Bob grasps all of the variables that contributed to Gore's defeat. He seems to begin and end with Matthews, Maureen, and Frank.

    1. "I don't get the sense that Bob grasps all of the variables that contributed to Gore's defeat."

      Nope, it was all Mathews, Maureen and Frank. He's even seem to forgotten about Kit and Cecely.

      And it certainly wasn't Ralph Nader, siphoning off more than enough votes to cost Gore both New Hampshire and Florida, either of which wins him the election.

      Certainly can't blame it on Gore's "I agree with George" performance in the second debate, the one on foreign policy that he should have mopped the floor with him.

      And of course let's not even admit that the press corps was right about one thing, as bad as it performed that election. In contrast to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who could hold crowds of thousands absolutely spellbound as if they were talking directly to each person, Gore put people to sleep.

  21. Any pimply-encountered nineteen year old in the darkened space in Las Vegas can wage conflict fifty percent a community out. There is no longer a very huge express curiosity about marriage.

    buy fifa coins

  22. osrs gold
    buy osrs gold
    old school runescape gold
    rs 2007 gold
    07 runescape gold
    runescape 2007 gold
    sell rs gold
    rs gold for sale
    cheapest runescape gold
    runescape gold for sale

    Buy OldSchool RS Gold 5%off Code"rs2hot"
    Buy Runescape Gold cheaper from Safe Store Rs2hot a professional runescape gold seller. You can buy Cheap OldSchool Runescape Gold, RS 2007 gold, RS3 Gold, OSRS Accounts and RS Items.Fast delivery,simple, and affordable.More info, please visit:

  23. feeltimes dresses often flatter all figures the very best. They'll look good in your thin friends but tone down your larger friends. One tip most professionals offer is to decorate for the largest girl. As in, look for a style of dress that flatters the largest girl first of all. Girls with trimmer figures will more than likely look great in more types of bridesmaid dresses than bigger girls.