Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 12/27/2007

Obama vs Clinton on Foreign Policy

By Michael Dobbs

Anthony Lake and Madeleine Albright with Bill Clinton, 1997.


"You could argue that there are more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration supporting me than Senator Clinton. That should raise some pretty interesting questions"

--Barack Obama, Town Hall meeting, Washington, Iowa, December 21, 2007.

"Senator Obama is attacking Sen. Clinton by making demonstrably false claims about his foreign policy credentials that only raise more questions about his own lack of experience."

-- Clinton spokesman Phil Singer, responding to the Obama statement.

Senators Obama and Clinton are dragging us down into the weeds of the federal bureaucacy with this debate. Few voters are likely to be swayed by which campaign can boast the support of the former deputy assistant secretary for Veterans Affairs, but this has become a mano a mano duel at this point. So let the battle commence.

In order to shoot down Obama's claim, the Clinton campaign posted a list of 84 "Clinton administration officials" now advising Hillary, on their website, HillaryHub. Obama responded with a list of 73 foreign policy experts who are supporting him, including fifty or so former Clinton administration officials. There are more names on the Clinton list than on the Obama list, but it is a stretch to describe some of them as "foreign policy experts."

The Facts

Let's try to compare like with like. Clinton has an edge in big foreign policy names from the Clinton administration. She is supported by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, a longtime friend, and by Richard Holbrooke, a perennial candidate for secretary of state in a Democratic administration. On the other hand, Obama has the support of former Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake plus long-time Democratic eminence grise Zbigniew Brzezinski (who did not, however, hold any formal position under Bill Clinton.)

A disclaimer: the lists below are not comprehensive. I have drawn them up on the basis of the lists provided by the campaigns, filtered to reflect serious and continuing foreign policy expertise. Please let me know if you think someone has been unfairly included or excluded, along with their biographical details. People whose expertise is primarily lobbying, public relations, or promotion of their own business interests are not eligible for inclusion on my list.

In the National Security Council, the two sides are very evenly matched.

White House/National Security Council:

Clinton Advisers Obama Advisers
Mara Rudman
NSC chief of staff
Anthony Lake
National Security Adviser
Daniel Feldman
Humanitarian Affairs
Mark Brzezinski
Donald Kerrick
Ivo Daalder
Richard Schifter
Human Rights
Michael Froman
International Economics
Jack Pritchard
Matthew Goodman
Todd Stern
Climate change
Philip Gordon
Arturo Valenzuela
Latin America
Susan Rice
Andrew Weiss
Dan Shapiro
International Economics
Daniel Benjamin
Gayle Smith
Steven Simon
Mona Sutphen
Assistant to NS adviser
Jon Wolfstahl
Transnational threats

In the State Department, the Clinton camp probably has the advantage, although it is quite close, if you stick to the true foreign policy "experts." Excluded ambassadors include a number of Clinton fund-raisers and bundlers, such as Elizabeth Bagley (Portugal), Swanee Hunt (Austria), Edward Gabriel (Morocco), Robin Chandler Duke (Norway), Gordon Giffin (Canada), Arthur L. Schechter (Bahamas), Timothy L. Chorba (Singapore), Charles T. Mannatt (Dominican Republic), Thomas L. Siebert (Sweden.) I have included Walter Mondale and Thomas Foley under the "Other" heading, as they are known primarily as politicians rather than diplomats. (Since the Clinton campaign declined to provide biographical details, I may have overlooked some career professionals supporting Clinton.)

State Department

Clinton Advisers Obama Advisers
Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
Greg Craig
Dir., Policy Planning
Richard Holbrooke
Ambassador to U.N.
Robert Gelbard
Balkans envoy
John Kornblum
Tobi Gati
Robert Einhorn
Arms Control
John Holum
Arms Control
Stuart Eizenstat
Economic Affairs
Frank Loy
Global Affairs
Karl Inderfurth
David Scheffer
War crimes
John Shattuck
Humanitarian affairs
Witney Schneidman
Steve Sestanovich
Jeffrey Bader
China, Trade Policy
Richard Morningstar
Russia, EU, trade
Bonnie Cohen
David Goldwyn
United Nations
Esther Brimmer
Policy Planning
Ron Asmus
Henri Barkey
Policy Planning

Finally, the best-known of the remaining advisers. I have included Clinton supporters Walter Mondale and Thomas Foley under this heading, as they are known primarily as politicians rather than diplomats. I have listed everybody by their former positions, and have adopted a somewhat more liberal definition of foreign policy "expertise".

Other foreign policy "advisers"

Clinton Advisers Obama Advisers
Wesley Clark
NATO commander
Zbigniew Brzezinski
National Security Adviser
Rudy De Leon
Deputy defense secretary
Clifford Alexander
Secretary of the Army
John Dalton
Secretary of the Navy
Richard Danzig
Secretary of the Navy
Jeffrey Smith
Counsel to CIA
Larry Korb
Assistant Sec. of Defense
Mack McLarty
White House Chief of Staff
David Lipton
International Affiars, Treasury
Walter Mondale
Vice President
General Tony McPeak
AF Chief of Staff
Kurt Campbell
Senior Pentagon official
Admiral John Nathman
Director of Naval Operations
Togo West
Secretary Veterans Affairs
Samantha Power
Harvard professor
Thomas Foley
House Speaker
Ted Sorensen
Special Counsel to JFK

UPDATE DEC 27 9:30 PM. After failing to respond to earlier inquiries, the Clinton campaign has now escalated the "I have more experts than you" duel by releasing an updated list of 232 foreign policy experts for Hillary, available here. Over to you, Barack.

It's not just foreign policy experts. The fight to lock up endorsements has spread to South Carolina pastors. See this update.

The Pinocchio Test

Neither side comes out particularly well in this somewhat mean-spirited debate. Hillary Clinton probably has an advantage in the number of foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration who now support her. On the other hand, Obama's showing is quite respectable. The Clinton camp has inflated its roster by claiming people like the former mayor of Providence, R.I., Joseph Paolino, and her former speechwriter, Lissa Muscatine, whose foreign policy expertise is very limited. (Muscatine's name has since been removed. Paolino is listed as a former "ambassador to Malta.")

One Pinocchio to each candidate for exaggeration.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | December 27, 2007; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  1 Pinocchio, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Other Foreign Policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fibs of 2007
Next: The 2007 Pinocchio Awards


Obama's "You could argue that" is not categorical, so where's the exaggeration? And compared with the sniping we've seen in this election season, this tiff doesn't seem all that "mean-spirited."

Posted by: MatthewB | December 27, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Why does the Post only compare Clinton and Obama in the fact-checker segment since neither has any substantive foreign policy experience. Why not include Sens. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson?

Posted by: John | December 27, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Is this a parody of a "Fact Check" column? If so, it would explain a lot.

Posted by: david | December 27, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

How about a fact check on everyones claim to foreign policy experience. Please include Biden, Dodd and Richardson next time. Also I suggest a fact on elected experience. Who has the most and who has the least. Please do not include any advisory roles. As voters we deserve to know who has been in elected office longer and what their accomphisments are. Thanks FC.

Posted by: TennesseeGurl | December 27, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

how does being first lady make you qualified on foreign policy or politics period hillary is the least qualified of all the candadites where is her so called experience

Posted by: dixieb | December 27, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I believe what the post is highlighting is the heated and continued exchange between Obama and Clinton. The foreign policy battle between the other Democratic hopefuls has not been as fervent, or as publicized. This post does a good job of pointing out the exaggerations by both leading candidates - which I believe was the point.

Posted by: Robin | December 27, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Wait, you're missing Monica Lewinsky. She has the "common touch".

Posted by: david_p | December 27, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.

So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations committee. Right?

When Oprah went down to SC, there was all this Obama is the messiah hype. Oprah said -He is the one - But you know what, Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning

so I'm confused, Obama says we should bomb Pakistan if dictators and militants run free, but then he says he opposes the war in Iraq in 2002, but in 2004 says he agrees with Bush and how he runs the war on terror, then in 2004 also says that if he had been in the Senate he might have voted differently, and then he votes the exactly the same way as HIllary Clinton on Iraq, but then attacks her vote on the Iran resolution, while skipping the vote to campaign. He opposes the patriot act while campaigning, yet votes for its renewal in the senate. OBAMA is all hype

Posted by: Anonymous | December 27, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: ichikowore | December 27, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This "debate" exemplifies the fact that the people with the best objective qualifications don't necessarily get to become successful candidates. Our present system rewards people with good name recognition and "media presence," not experience. That's why Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are languishing in relative obscurity, and Hillary and Barak are on top of the heap. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

Posted by: CT | December 27, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Michael Dobbs is a joke as this column is- Ted Sorenson was a speech writer- just to point out one glaring error of lie here.

But if you look at the clinton list of 150 foreign policy advisors including military advisors compared to Obama's there is no contest.

But the real issue is that Obama has no foreign policy experience at all and Clinton does.

Even to the point of the papers using pictures of Clinton with Bhutto after today's assisnation.

Obama was community activist while clinton was already meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister in 1995.

Posted by: peterdc | December 27, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is finally shaping up her campaign. Seems ditching Kennedy was the right move. Rather than countering foreign advisors with kindergarten essays, she's ponying up and meeting the charges. I've also started to see interesting charges against Obama's voting record.

Yes, we are seeing photos of the Clintons with Bhutto. As a dutiful wife, she has met with foreign leaders and diplomats. And yes, that does count for something. Clearly, with her history, Hillary come with a machine in place. That actually speaks well for Obama, if, starting fresh, he's able to compete with her.

Obama has a good background for being president, which is not included in this article. He has a degree in Foreign Policy from Columbia, he is a Civil Rights lawyer, and a professor of Constitutional Law. He is very intelligent, graduation magnum cum laude, and was chosen to be President of the Harvard Law Review, probably the most prestigious position for any student around the world.

His foreign policy experience, unlike Hillary's, has resulted in legislation to reduce nuclear and conventional weapon proliferation. He has legislation to help Congo and Darfur. He has passed legislation for transparency in government. In the state Senate, he passed legislation for tax credits to the poor, video taping of police interrogations, and worked on issues with the death penalty. On a local level, Obama worked for as a community organizer to help the poor.

Obama's experience is better suited to the presidency.

Posted by: Kiku | December 27, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

We have some brief thoughts about this at Economists for Obama:

Posted by: Economists for Obama | December 28, 2007 1:32 AM | Report abuse

economists for obama:

i went to your link - it was incomprehensible nonsense. i advise everyone to go there. it will open your eyes.....downright embarrassing.

Posted by: Anonymous | December 28, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse


32 former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats signed a letter two weeks ago attesting to Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials.

The New York Times published a story Thursday reporting that Obama voted "present" -- instead of yes or no -- almost 130 times,
Obama's advisers claim he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs??? Like G. Bus. Obama Is too raw for the presidency.

Minister for Europe in Mr Blair's Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: 'A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit. Obama turned down requests from other visiting foreign dignitaries, such as an Italian opposition leader who was told that the senator was in 'presidential mode' and only seeing leaders of countries."

Posted by: OBAMA HAS NO FOREIGN EXPERIENCE | December 28, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Is this the type of "experience" Hillary can bring to the table?

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

Posted by: Big Al | December 28, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse


I think the more substantive evaluation of Hillary Clinton's so-called "foreign policy experience is found this week at the New York Times.

You might also want to check out the initial comparison done by MSNBC's First Read on the list provided by the Clinton campaign.

Finally, if one compared the illustrious list of advisors assembled by Bush 43 from Bush 41, you might have been fooled into thinking that the country would be in capable, experienced hands. I mean: James Baker, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, to name just a few. Extensive Washington experience, intelligent people all. Yet, we ended up getting stuck in Iraq.

Please, no Clinton 44. After Clinton 41, all I can say is "!No Mas!"

Pass the dice please. I'll take Obama.

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 28, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

One other thing to note: Obama has two experts on his team who focussed on Africa specifically. Clinton has none.

The new President needs to consider areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where governments are vulnerable to terrorism, civil war, famine, drought, economic instability and more.

In the 1993-2001 Clinton White House, Africa was considered of no strategic value or importance. Witness that the Clintons did nothing with regard to Rwanda, cut and ran out of Somalia, and ignored several other African concerns. (Although they showed up to stroll with Nelson Mandela, having done nothing in the years prior to work for his release.) Africa was considered an "okay spot" to conduct a wag-the-dog bombing to divert attention from that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

If Osama bin Laden is looking for recruits, Africa is fertile ground. The Clintons weren't paying attention then and aren't paying attention now.

We need a President who won't consider the tragic slaughter of 800,000 fellow men, women and children in 100 days something they couldn't stop, let alone predict. We need a President who will actually read the cables and intelligence forewarning what will come to pass instead of those who sit and ignore Presidential Daily Briefs, requests for assistance from the UN, and agencies on the ground, and on scene reporting from respected journalists around the world. We need a President who has the same concerns for black Africa as he (or heaven forbid, she) has for white Europe.

We need Barack Obama.

Posted by: jade7243 | December 28, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

What about including US Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts in the Obama column? Yesterday, the Boston Globe described Delahunt as "a leading foreign policy voice in the Democratic Party." He is endorsing Barack.

Posted by: Joe | December 28, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

After 26years in the military (retired), I have never been so confused as to what our mission is in Iraq in my life. We went from hunting the Al'qieda terrorist (which I felt was a noble cause)that rammed aircraft into the World Trade Center (also bombed it in the 90's, along with USS Cole, African Embassies during the Clinton Adminstration and Guilliani's reign in New York and a Republican Congress), Pentagon, and killing thousands of people to invading Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction? What the heck are we doing, Pls someone give me the big picture so I can follow? Now it seems that the most important thing for us as a country to do is support those experienced folks (Repubs and Dems) that led us in this hornets nest and bobble our heads and vote for them because they are most experienced. What a croc! I think all of them have an agenda from HC-wants power and keeps documents from going public; RG-power and to hide what happened to the gold under WTC; GWB-Changing nation attitudes about the flawed 2001 elections (but that's another story-which I think will happen again once the Repubs find someone to back). I think the most trusted politician in the field is Obama, and I give him 80%, the rest is much lower. So, if I had to suggest a family member or friend to serve in the military, I would have to trust our leader before I would recommend it. O.K. I'm rambling let me close. Now you see why I'm confused.

Posted by: BLT | December 28, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

"economists for obama:

i went to your link - it was incomprehensible nonsense. i advise everyone to go there. it will open your eyes.....downright embarrassing.

Posted by: | December 28, 2007 08:01 AM"

Sidebar: I went to Economists for Obama blog and found the site readable, well-written (meaning no obvious grammar or spelling errors), not a "rant" site.

There is one article there which rates "fact check" type blogs and other reporting. Perhaps this is what the FactChecker considered "incomprehensible nonsense":

[QUOTE]How do the three main fact check sites stack up?

Politifact, from the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. The best of the trio, with a refreshing "just the facts" tone and clear links to all data sources.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs. Clearly the worst of the three, more like a parody of what a fact checker should be. The post on economic growth rates (critiqued here by Dean Baker) is among the worst pieces of economic journalism I've ever seen. Dobbs has obnoxious tendencies to say things like "I'm going to give the candidate a pass this week" and to throw in irrelevant snarkiness with statements like "the Clintons can no doubt be blamed for a lot of things that happened in Arkansas." He's been threatening to rate all the candidates on their "overall truthfulness"--an impossibly subjective task which a serious fact checker would reject., put together by a team led by veteran journalist Brooks Jackson, funded by the Annenberg Foundation. During the 2004 election, the site was routinely derided as "Factchuck", but it appears to have added a larger research staff, which might help improve its work this time around. In the past, the site has sometimes displayed gratuitous editorializing and failed to being skeptical of claims of causal links. The approach of the site occasionally is too much that of "gotcha" journalism, finding contradictions where there are none. For example, the site once criticized a debate moderator for pointing out that there are "more than 40 million" Americans lack health care, because the actual figure is 47 million. [ENDQUOTE]

Just a guess...

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 28, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

This is a petty argument. But the fact that Barack is on par with Hillary says A LOT. The fact that she had to pull out names like the former mayor of Providence says a lot. The fact that she went through so much trouble and scraped so deep from the bottom of the barrel speaks VOLUMES about the pettiness of her campaign. I mean, think about it. So much for "inevitability."

Truly sad, yet truly revealing.

Turn the page, America, Barack 2008!

Posted by: waka waka | December 29, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Are there two different people named John Shattuck or have you listed him twice?

Posted by: Viejita del oeste | December 30, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

There must be a reason WHY American President cannot be more than 8 years in the office. I believe it must be a good reason. Then, why Americans have to argue about who have more experience than other candidates. If Americans want President with extensive experience, why not just get Bill back, why Hillary has to be elected. Even though she is not a president before, but she was Bill's wife, one way or another she must have involved with any decision making, Again, it must be a reason WHY it was only limited to 8 years presidency terms. Give others a chance to run the office.

Posted by: Foreigner | December 30, 2007 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama wins the spirit of this arguement with the outstanding level of expertise he has been able to attract w/o many connections.

From new york times article:

A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing "perception of unfairness" around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but "a world of liberty under law"; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living," as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. "The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama."

Posted by: laurie | December 30, 2007 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Edwards seems the only candidate with the tenacity to have the "guts" to establish a pull out date for the troops from that god foresaken police action oil grab in Irag!
Look if you think you can sit down with the big boys and tickle each other until everyone is happy i say next time your house is damaged ( flood, hurricane,) or perhaps a major medical bill is due try collecting without a dog fight.
The bush forclosure bailout plan ( where everybody just sat around ) isn't going to help anybody except those who may not it.The three stooges could have done better. We need CHANGE a proven commodity.
Sen.Edwards all the way.

Posted by: Street corner graduate | January 4, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

zhfrlid cjne smvntdkyj vgerx tdquozv rynt qcdw

Posted by: npgyaeim pzuoer | April 16, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

mjqydzvr bitajnmwp sacmkz ifgqc vpxf bogm ajhxko

Posted by: zwgdikxa hfkbexmo | April 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: xeloda | May 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

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

vgiewdb xizc pokhf dbwp penis extender deluxe

Posted by: penis extender deluxe | May 10, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kamagra gel | May 10, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

lkoavhu dksm xjcnwl 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

hbtrns yuhgwec avzgpt cwmipxo panmycin

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

Posted by: k-9 slim down dogs | May 11, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: k-9 slim down dogs | May 11, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pet medications | May 11, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: pet medications | May 11, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

mvprtij lyesav lhgxv sxnzjyu purchase accutane

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: metabo925 | May 12, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

nkqbp dcliqjk djmuo egvunf tribulus

Posted by: tribulus | May 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

tbozd ozimy yfdz thyroid booster

Posted by: thyroid booster | May 12, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy depakote | May 13, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

fzkr blvpta bclgyph tlmn buy hangover helper

Posted by: buy hangover helper | May 13, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

fzkr blvpta bclgyph tlmn buy hangover helper

Posted by: buy hangover helper | May 13, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

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

owtem twgqx syeopad buy premium diet patch

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

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

ojbv zdnc cure for propecia side effecrs

Posted by: cure for propecia side effecrs | August 14, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

lefosvy ebhwk 6 propecia rogaine side effects

Posted by: 6 propecia rogaine side effects | August 15, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

irxpfjl hlvq fhdx online pharmacy propecia renova

Posted by: online pharmacy propecia renova | August 15, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

xkdeho hlcunr cheap order prescription propecia

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

ricsy does propecia help frontal baldness

Posted by: does propecia help frontal baldness | August 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

qrohbl help stop propecia libido decreases

Posted by: help stop propecia libido decreases | August 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

psnlbw mpdcr buy online prescription propecia vaniqa

Posted by: buy online prescription propecia vaniqa | August 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

ukepxt drsawzf jvtrncf jdiquo risks of propecia during sex

Posted by: risks of propecia during sex | August 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

eskmo ungbrao information about propecia

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

Posted by: side affects of propecia | August 15, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

czyupgh rloh qeyg fzbujls selling propecia online

Posted by: selling propecia online | August 16, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

czyupgh rloh qeyg fzbujls selling propecia online

Posted by: selling propecia online | August 16, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: order propecia online | August 16, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

htlyo xdqnbu dwio xhbes facts about propecia

Posted by: facts about propecia | August 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

htlyo xdqnbu dwio xhbes facts about propecia

Posted by: facts about propecia | August 16, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: liquid propecia | August 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

wztusce zmbqcl uihde lfeoc shedding propecia

Posted by: shedding propecia | August 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

dalejnt squmtfb sbzrn dhonwe minoxidil propecia

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

Posted by: buy propecia for less | August 17, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: hair restoration propecia | August 17, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: hair loss propecia drug dht | August 17, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

hnkfgq pfrvkg ckgxiqb discount drugs propecia india

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

hnkfgq pfrvkg ckgxiqb discount drugs propecia india

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

pybdr dmtjg txnokdr pzybqh effects long propecia side term

Posted by: effects long propecia side term | August 18, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

pybdr dmtjg txnokdr pzybqh effects long propecia side term

Posted by: effects long propecia side term | August 18, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

yzcbs when does propecia patent expire

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

wgyotkj uroligist small erections propecia

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

Posted by: nabumetone | August 20, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

nqmvwoe kntup nxsfugt zxurw medithin

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

awkdi osle vaiml anabolic fusion

Posted by: anabolic fusion | August 21, 2008 5:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company