Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:06 PM ET, 12/31/2007

Hillary and Martin Luther King Jr.

By Michael Dobbs


Marching in Selma, March 4, 2007.

"As a young girl, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear someone that we had read about, we had watched on television, we had seen with our own eyes from a distance, this phenomenon known as Dr. King. He titled the sermon he gave that night "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution."

--Hillary Clinton, March 4, 2007, on the 42nd anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma.


Following on the controversy about whether Mitt Romney "saw" his father "march" with Martin Luther King Jr., a reader asked me to clarify exactly when Hillary Clinton went to hear the civil rights leader speak, an important event in her teenage years. The New York senator has presented herself as the "no surprises" candidate whose biography has been so thoroughly picked over by reporters that there is nothing new left to be discovered. It turns out that there is disagreement on even the simplest biographical facts.


According to Clinton biographers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta (Her Way, page 20), Hillary heard Dr. King speak when she was 17, i.e. 1964-1965. Carl Bernstein, in "A Woman in Charge" (page 35), says the incident happened in the fall of 1961. Gail Sheehy, in "Hillary's Choice" (page 35), plumps for January 1963. Clinton used the January 1963 date in her Selma speech.


Guess what? They are all wrong.


The Facts

The institution that hosted King in Chicago was the Chicago Sunday Evening Club, and it is still going strong. Its archives include typewritten index cards listing all the Sunday evening speakers in Chicago's Orchestra Hall. An index card for King reproduced below shows that the civil rights leader addressed the club on seven occasions. But he is only listed as giving the "Remaining Awake through a Revolution" sermon on one occasion, on April 15, 1962.


To double check this date, I called Clinton's former youth minister, Rev. Don Jones. He told me that he arrived in Chicago in mid-1961 and left in 1963. More than four decades later, he cannot recall the precise date of the King sermon, which is understandable. But he is pretty certain that he took his youth group to hear King shortly after another lecture by a Christian theologian, Alvin Rogness, which took place in January 1962. That points to to the April 1962 date.

Jones also says that he believes he was single at the time of the lecture, as he would otherwise have taken his wife to hear King, in addition to the youth group. He was single in April 1962, but married by January 1963.

While it is impossible to be certain, the evidence points overwhelmingly to April 1962. So why did Clinton say "a cold night in January 1963" in her Selma speech? The Clinton campaign isn't saying, although I have asked them several times. The most likely explanation is that Clinton's speech writers rewrote the passage from the 1999 Gail Sheehy book, complete with the erroneous title for the sermon, without checking the facts. (The give-away clue: Both Sheehy and Clinton use the phrase "Great Revolution," which is not on the Sunday Evening Club index card.)

I should note that one of the few reporters to get this particular biographical detail right was my Washington Post colleague, Sally Jenkins, in a December 9, 2007 article describing Hillary Clinton's formative years in Chicago.

The Pinocchio Test

Nobody is suggesting that Clinton did not hear Martin Luther King speak in Chicago while she was a teenager. The precise date may seem like a minor detail, but it is a good example of how difficult it can be to nail down the facts in even the most public of lives. One Pinocchio for Clinton and her speech writers for sloppy research.

(About our rating scale.)


By Michael Dobbs  | December 31, 2007; 5:06 PM ET
Categories:  1 Pinocchio, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, History  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The 2007 Pinocchio Awards
Next: Huckabee's record on taxes

Comments

what an jerky column... She heard King speak, and you're arguing over the date of something 40 years ago?

Geez, it's 5 noses for you for creating an issue out of air.


Posted by: b. willliams | December 31, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dobbs has awarded a "Pinocchio" to Hillary because she has incorrectly referenced a date from more than 40 years ago when she was apparently in her mid-teens. The important fact would seem to be whether or not she actually attended a speech by Dr. King during this period, and Mr. Dobbs proud detective work seems to verify this. Do we really need to engage in this silliness? The television "news" media is already making this campaign dumb enough. How about working on some serious issues for your next set of awards, like who is hiding their bizarre opinions on real world issues that will have an impact on our lives. I am NOT interested in hearing about which dark and stormy night during the Kennedy Administration saw a teenage girl hear a speech by a great American. Boy is that some hard-hitting journalism.

Posted by: Jim Mitchell | December 31, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

to Jim Mitchell,

Did you read the Dobbs posting at all? He says it is a minor detail, but that it simply illustrates the difficulty of checking even the most public of people.

Personally, I find his detective work amazing. It also shows that when details that are wrong - minor or major - find their way in to several books and then become the historical record, history isn't quite what we think it is. You don't find this important? Wow. You're not much of a thinker,huh?

Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

This is a stupid waste of news space. Please do a real service for your readers and write about something that is actually important.

Posted by: Roseann | December 31, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Great column, FC. Far from "creating an issue out of air," I agree with the previous posting. The devil IS often in the details, such as the ones you've shown here. It's almost as if Hillary isn't willing to let the facts get in the way of her painting the picture she wants voters to see. What other inconvenient facts is she willing to let slide? Some that might "have an impact on our lives?"

Great little discovery.

Posted by: ViennaJim | December 31, 2007 9:42 PM | Report abuse

This is a stupid waste of new space. Please report on something that is relevant and important to your readers.

Posted by: Roseann | December 31, 2007 9:43 PM | Report abuse

This isn't news space. It's the internet, Roseann. There's lots more "space" where this comes from.

Posted by: ADF | December 31, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse

are my comments being blocked because I wrote that this is a stupid waste of news space?

Posted by: Roseann | December 31, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the duplicate postings. Should not be posting while celebrating. Happy New Year to all out there in the internet space.

Posted by: Roseann | December 31, 2007 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I teach junior high school kids. Sometimes, while answering questions during a lesson (and to make a point), I will have to recall an event or episode from earlier in my life to share with the students. Since I am 56 years old, some of the events occurred more than one-half of my lifetime ago. I probably don't "nail" the details -- what matters is the point I'm trying to make. It is NOT that the "facts get in the way" or that they are "inconvenient". The message is what counts and all of the most essential information is accurrate. Regarding Hillary, as Jim Mitchell said, "The important fact would seem to be whether or not she actually attended a speech by Dr. King during this period, and Mr. Dobbs proud detective work seems to verify this." I DO find Dobbs's detective work amazing; I DON'T think the wrong date is worth a Pinnocchio; and I think the "controversy" here is merely a "tempest in a teapot" (or, for British readers, a "storm in a teacup").

Posted by: jmiller | January 1, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

This recklessness with the facts is a pattern with the Clintons, like Hillary's claiming to have been named after Sir Edmund Hillary, and Bill remembering non-existent church burnings.

Posted by: Dennis | January 1, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

For goodness sakes, mistakes like this are so common (see Romney's claim about his Dad marching w/ King, Obama's false memory about exactly where/when he saw an article about skin bleaching, etc. etc.) the only disappointing thing is the media trying to drum something up over it.

Considering that the subject matter of this blog has so much potential, the performance of the "fact checker" is consistently disappointing.

Posted by: Seytom | January 1, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

What Dobbs shows is that, while it is important that she was impressioned as a youngster by King, the facts surrounding her seeing of him are not correct.
This begs the question of how much fact we need from our candidates. Is it okay to skirt over some of the facts, like whether or not Iraq had WMDs or not? Where do we draw the line on insisting that our public officials work from factual data?
About 8 years ago, the President of the student govt at a local high school was caught cheating on an honors world history exam. When the principal suggested that resigning might be the thing to do, the student said, "Clinton lied/cheated while in office and is still in office. Why should I resign?"
And that's why it is important for Hillary to base her words on factual data, rather than what she does often, which is to see the facts as getting in the way of a good story.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 2, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

"Please report on something that is relevant and important to your readers."

What, booze specials?

Posted by: Jim Treacher | January 2, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Dobbs asks, "While it is impossible to be certain, the evidence points overwhelmingly to April 1962. So why did Clinton say "a cold night in January 1963" in her Selma speech?"

Well, duh, it was in Chicago and it snowed in mid April 1962 in Chicago.

Posted by: From Chicago | January 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Yea, Right!

For Clinton planters facts and dates are not "relevant and important" if they don't advance their agenda.

Like Bill Clinton was saying he was against the war in Iraq "from the beginning".

I have only to say this: congenital Liars

Posted by: Dan | January 2, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't get a break. She's not my candidate, but this earns my sympathy vote. ZERO Pinocchios The error is on the scale of a typo and offers NO advantage. That said, I appreciate that Mr. Dobbs was responding to a request for a fact check.

Posted by: jhbyer | January 2, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Those here who claim to have found validation of their opinion of Hillary in her error invalidate their opinion of her while validating our opinion of them.

Posted by: jhbyer | January 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Way up top is an interesting photo of a crowd marking the anniversary of Selma's Bloody Sunday. I see Hill and Barack and wonder if any other candidates or other persons well-know are in it? Anybody know? Mr. Dobbs?

Posted by: jhbyer | January 2, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Pardon my ignorant whiteness. Next to Hill is Bill...

Posted by: jhbyer | January 2, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

What's disturbing about this post is not the attempt to track down and confirm the details, but rather the 'awarding' a 'nose' because Clinton got the date and sermon title wrong. Anyone is entitled to that kind of mistake 42 - 43?- years later.

No one, however, is entitled to simply make things up, as Mitt Romney has been doing. It's one thing to get mixed-up on what day you saw Martin Luther King with your own eyes; it's another thing entirely to start redefining "saw" to claim that you "saw" something you never saw.

Posted by: B. D. Colen | January 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

This time, it is Fact Checker who deserves the Pinocchio, for failing to follow its own standards. The main point was that Hillary Clinton did actually attend a speech by Martin Luther King. The error in the exact date was an honest mistake concerning an insignificant detail.

Posted by: trr | January 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is relating an event from 40+ years ago. She reports that 1) she went hear MLK 2) with her youth group leader and listened to a sermon by MLK 3) entitled "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution".

Is it the FC's contention that she is
a) shading the facts?
b) selectively changing the date from April 1962 to January 1963?
c) omitting something important to reader's understanding?
or
d) exaggerating?

BTW, I am glad to have the FC seal of approval that HRC is not engaging (in this instance at least) in outright Falsehood.

So tell me again how Hillary earns the Pinnochio?

And here is the Fact-Checker's Pinocchio rating scale

1. Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

2. Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

3. Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

4. Whoppers


*** Adjust score as follows ***

Subtract 1 Pinocchio if Republican candidate (2 if GOP front-runner)

Add 1 Pinocchio if Democratic candidate (2 if candidate last name is Clinton).

Posted by: ffc | January 3, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The only importance to any of this is that Hillary Clinton has once again been caught in a bold faced lie as part of an attempt to politically exploit yet another situation to promote herself and pander to a specific target audience. I can easily understand anyone forgetting the exact date after so many years. I'd be more surprised if a young girl could really remember the exact date after so much time has passed. What is telling about Ms. Clinton's lie is her phoney memory of "a cold January night" in Chicago when the event apparently accurred in April. Maybe Clinton was stretching to draw a comparison to the here and now since she was speaking on a cold January night in Iowa, but a lie is a lie and Clinton is the master of lies of all sizes.

Posted by: diksagev | January 3, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

On April 15th, 1962, the high temperature at Midway Airport in Chicago was 41 deg F and the low was 28 deg F. That is the observation. Add to that the likely wind chill, and the "trace" amounts of snow observed falling, and my opinion is that this qualifies as a "cold night."
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/dly/DLY
It is hilarious that Dobbs goes through the trouble of contacting the childhood pastor of Clinton, but doesn't bother to check the weather.

Posted by: weather_girl | January 3, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

The real Actor is Barrack Hussein Obama. He can state that he did not vote for a war in Iraq yet on August 1, 2007, he stated that we should leave Iraq and enter the borders of Afghanistan or Pakistan to fight terrorism. Talk about Calling the Kettle Black!

Posted by: jbvoter | January 5, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

What ignorance we have on parade here. Not only in the original column but the comments.

The issue should be that Hillary claims that hearing MLK, Jr was a life-changing moment. And yet even after hearing him speak (and in some accounts meeting him in person), she went on to work even more adamantly for Barry Goldwater, who was one of the few Republicans to oppose the Civil Rights Act, which was MLK's main issue at the time.

Granted she was still a young woman, but there it is.

But leave it to this "fact checker" to busy himself with nonsense when actual substantial points could be raised.

Posted by: Long Term Memory | January 11, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I could not believe that Hillary Clinton said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
This is totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to say. Black people across the nation should demands an official apology from her. She covers herself under the Democratic Party to gain African American support, and votes. However she does not represent the party ideology. I am afraid that she is just a hypocrite and an opportunist who fooled the black community in the past. She was right when she said that she found her voice in New Hampshire thereafter. She does even have a modicum of restraint for our most respectable hero - A man who gave his life for the liberty of back people. I could not believe that she said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
Not only she is going to loose the votes of the black people in South Carolina, but also she is going to loose the black votes across the nation. The last time I remember checking the official US census, Black people accounts for about 12.8% of the population

Posted by: Nixon Benoit | January 13, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

I could not believe that Hillary Clinton said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
This is totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to say. Black people across the nation should demand an official apology from her. She covers herself under the umbrella of Democratic Party to gain African American support, and their votes. However, she does not represent the party ideology. I am afraid that she is just a hypocrite and an opportunist who fooled the black community in the past. I am afraid that was a racist comment. She was right when she said that she found her voice in New Hampshire thereafter. She does not even have a modicum of restraint for our most respectable hero - A man who gave his life for the liberty of back people. I could not believe that she said the following: "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done."
Not only she is going to loose the votes of the black people in South Carolina, but also she is going to loose the black votes across the nation. The last time I remember checking the official US census, Black people accounts for about 12.8% of the population

Posted by: Nixon Benoit | January 13, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's statement, was probably not intentionally racist, but it did indicate the possibility of some hidden, unconscious racist sentiments. I'm countering the slip of the tongue with this song, from my forthcoming CD, Dr BLTributes:

It Only Hurts When I Cry
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008
http://www.drblt.net/music/ItOnlyDemo2.mp3

And, speaking of crying, Hillary recently learned another valuable lesson:

If at First you don't Succeed (Cry, Cry Again)
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008
http://www.drblt.net/music/CryAgainDemo2.mp3

Posted by: BLT | January 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it has been substantiated, one way or another, that Hillary actually attended the gathering where MLK spoke in April of 1962. She says she did, and perhaps she did. She probably did, but this fact checker does not prove or disprove it, it only assumes she went because her then youth leader says the group went.

Fact is, it wasn't January and it wasn't 1963. It is one thing not to recall when something occurred. It is another to "recall" the month and year of an event when it did not occur then. If you are a public figure making public statements, even about yourself, there is a duty to make sure the statement is accurate.

Does it matter? Taken alone, probably not. But enough of such false recollections (and I note here that Hillary didn't hesitate to say under oath how she couldn't recall a great number of things that happened in the 1980's in Arkansas, and in the 1990's in Washington in the White House). Can we trust someone who has such a bad memory to lead the country?

Posted by: NCLaw441 | January 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed the only source for this story other than Hillary is Don Jones, the youth minister at Hillary's church?

Now if you look at the quotes Jones made about this in the early 90's, he said she was 16 years old when they went to see King.

This is from a March, 10, 1992 style piece in the Washington Post ("Hillary Clinton, Trying to Have it All", by Lloyd Grove), and Jones is quoted directly:

"I remember that when she was 16, I took the whole youth group to Chicago to hear this famous preacher one Sunday night in Orchestra Hall. Afterward, we all went up and I introduced her to Martin Luther King Jr."

The story about Hillary going up to meet King that night is mentioned in the books by Bernstein, Gerth/Van Natta, and Sheehy, along with many other articles in newspapers, including the one by Sally Jenkins which FC cites.

So how come Hillary never mentions actually meeting King?

Find more about this here.

I'm the one who sent in the original inquiry about this to FactChecker.

Posted by: Pjsbro | January 19, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone confirm that the group actually went to hear MLK and she was there? Where are the other kids in the youth group? Surely someone is still alive who can confirm or deny. She also claimed she met him, can we somehow find out how true this is? While this one story might seem trivial, it goes to basic character. The constant story telling is just ridiculous! (babysat migrant worker's children she went to school with; named after Sir Edmund Hillary, etc.)

Posted by: Leslie Byers | January 23, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

If she heard and was so moved by the speech in 1962 OR 1963...

Why did she then campaign for Goldwater (who was against Civil Rights) in 1967?

Posted by: Kathleen | April 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

hillary's meeting king is similar to the tell of bill meeting jfk. she may have heard him, i doubt it, but saying she shook his hand is just too much! she does not know when to stop the long nose tales.

Posted by: larry:4-4-08 | April 4, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

HOW DARE YOU imply that Hillary lied about this speech. You can jump right off a cliff with the other people who claimed that she lied about the sniper fire in Bosnia. You have to look closely at the details and pay very close attention. In the Bosnia video, you can just barley see that the whole group of people where actually on a moving platform that was being rushed from the plane to the hanger by a group of ant-sniper army rangers. This kind of things happens alot in war zones and in mini malls.

Posted by: d. griffin | April 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Did Hillary shake the hand of MLK when she was 14 or is this yet ANOTHER lie?

Posted by: kit hogan | April 5, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

It is my understanding that Sen. Clinton has never stated that she has met MLK in person. Her autobiography stated that she was taken by somebody to a music hall to listen to a speech given by MLK when she was in her mid teens. There was no bragging on her side.
On the other hand, Sen. Obama made a false claim that JFK has helped his late father to fly to U.S. from Kenya in a formal speech celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Selma march. Have Mr. Dobbs looked into this ?

Posted by: austin y | April 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

msqb rwsev xoiptz mligbdnq okvl hknjtaqi gnotyec

Posted by: ylrbjfkh jobmfule | April 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

pucyom hvqngb wyrjou znvqfedp gury pwlberoxt efoid http://www.iwdv.khfzyxmca.com

Posted by: plgh xfapv | April 16, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: online sildenafil citrate | May 10, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: online sildenafil citrate | May 10, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra gel | May 10, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra gel | May 10, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

vcqbmrp tfjvu chipnf
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4944 woman take kamagra

Posted by: woman take kamagra | May 11, 2008 1:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: bristol kamagra | May 11, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: panmycin | May 11, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: k-9 slim down dogs | May 11, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: k-9 slim down dogs | May 11, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pet medications | May 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: purchase accutane | May 12, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: acompiex | May 12, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: metabo925 | May 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: tribulus | May 12, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: thyroid booster | May 12, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy depakote | May 13, 2008 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy hangover helper | May 13, 2008 3:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy donepezil | May 13, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy premium diet patch | May 13, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy virility gum | May 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy betnovate | May 13, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

klgrotw
http://avandamet.pochta.ru avandamet

Posted by: avandamet | May 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

zuad gfjhm mahqr
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3384 cheap order prescription propecia

Posted by: cheap order prescription propecia | August 15, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

mnaseu
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3477 finasteride propecia scientific studies

Posted by: finasteride propecia scientific studies | August 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

gpzl qchu
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2864 information about propecia

Posted by: information about propecia | August 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

pajkxwi jhnzpv uhtw ctoew
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2910 selling propecia online

Posted by: selling propecia online | August 16, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

mowqnry vhrpcky kzfw pgfm
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2933 will propecia 1mg work

Posted by: will propecia 1mg work | August 16, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

owtqkln htup zhstcq fmudpyh
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2956 generic propecia cheap

Posted by: generic propecia cheap | August 16, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

owtqkln htup zhstcq fmudpyh
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2956 generic propecia cheap

Posted by: generic propecia cheap | August 16, 2008 4:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: acne propecia | August 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

ezotl vrqzpx thlqcno
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1936 liquid propecia

Posted by: liquid propecia | August 16, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

emyb panvoj zafd xpwht
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1959 keyword propecia

Posted by: keyword propecia | August 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: minoxidil propecia | August 17, 2008 2:18 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: 7proscar or propecia | August 17, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

rkdyjev wcybal xrcbtm mknwtf
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2225 6generic propecia effective

Posted by: 6generic propecia effective | August 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

klvfpha tqiz ylstmqx
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2271 generic finasteride propecia

Posted by: generic finasteride propecia | August 17, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

yncs yvmjbfs
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2294 discount drugs propecia india

Posted by: discount drugs propecia india | August 17, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

mhnwik cskux qptxur zxwj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2317 purchase propecia finasteride

Posted by: purchase propecia finasteride | August 17, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

mhnwik cskux qptxur zxwj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2317 purchase propecia finasteride

Posted by: purchase propecia finasteride | August 17, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

lvjcwq
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2340 international generic propecia

Posted by: international generic propecia | August 18, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

lvjcwq
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2340 international generic propecia

Posted by: international generic propecia | August 18, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

xjzn srmve fgxmj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2409 when does propecia patent expire

Posted by: when does propecia patent expire | August 18, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

xjzn srmve fgxmj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2409 when does propecia patent expire

Posted by: when does propecia patent expire | August 18, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

lwrjca
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2432 prevacid condylox nexium propecia

Posted by: prevacid condylox nexium propecia | August 18, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

lwrjca
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2432 prevacid condylox nexium propecia

Posted by: prevacid condylox nexium propecia | August 18, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

tgkmwjz gxsvd fesp
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2455 uroligist small erections propecia

Posted by: uroligist small erections propecia | August 18, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: nabumetone | August 20, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

vusfkon bfrzvq
http://www.xone.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1589 weight loss patch

Posted by: weight loss patch | August 21, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: medithin | August 21, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: anabolic fusion | August 21, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: anabolic fusion | August 21, 2008 5:26 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company