Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

If Sen. Clinton is Exhausted at 11 pm, What Happens at 3 am?

By now you may have heard how Bill Clinton dredged up his wife's Bosnia debacle -- which began with this interview with Sinbad the comedian -- at a campaign stop in Indiana Thursday night.

Defending Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-N.Y.) embellishment of danger in Tuzla during her 1996 trip, the former president said: "This is a big deal to her. Some of you may have seen that she took a terrible beating in the press for a few days because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. Did you all see all that?"

Our question is: If Sen. Clinton gets exhausted at 11 o'clock at night, how's she going to answer that 3 a.m. phone call? We're just askin...

By Mary Ann Akers  |  April 11, 2008; 1:55 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Democrats Repudiate McCain Surrogate's 'Tiger Woods' Comment
Next: Clinton Aides Pumped For a Colbert Bump


Good question!

Bill Clinton's explanation reminds me of when Tommy Thompson (then a Republican presidential candidate) said during a debate that companies could fire employees for being gay... and then said he had misunderstood the question because he was tired.

Posted by: dl004d | April 11, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

I thought Bill had more street smarts than this. Why would he resurrect an unflattering but dead story about his wife in order to kill it again, when his argument doesn't even address the fact that she said it more than once? Now it's in the news cycle again, only this time the focus will be on their repeated lies about an otherwise innocuous story. Her campaign has been one of the most incompetent in recent memory.

Posted by: Tim B | April 11, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I wonder has Bill Clinton every heard of let sleeping dogs lay.The story was on it way out, so what was his point. He the one who sound tired and sleepy to me.

Posted by: Bill | April 11, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

What bugs me the most is just how stupid Bill thinks the average voter is! Come to think of it, he may be right.

Posted by: tel | April 11, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton must think he's still giving speeches in Columbia for $800,000. What ever rubish he told them paid off well so he thinks he can run the same old trick with us. Sorry Bill we know the real story, but thanks for refreshing our memory.

Posted by: shannon | April 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "I thought Bill had more street smarts than this. Why would he resurrect an unflattering but dead story about his wife in order to kill it again, when his argument doesn't even address the fact that she said it more than once?"

I would have thought so too. Not only did she repeat the story but she said it in a prepared speech. It was dying out, and now he revives it. Sleep-deprived again??
This has been the worst run campaign that I can remember and I am OLD.

Posted by: wly34 | April 11, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Her LIES conccerning Bosnia should be kept in the front of voters minds when they listen to MORE Clinton stories.Why has the media NOT been all over Elton Johns smear of AMERICANS when he said Americans hate women and to hell with them when he did the fund raiser for Clinton AND Hillary agreed with him !!They were all over Wrights comments,because he was black maybe?Because what Elton John said was a SMEAR against ALL AMERICANS ,not just white Americans?The media IS slipping back into their biased reporting AGAIN? Wheres Hannity and O'Riellys usual SMEARING of a persons hate comments?I am confused about how the media reports such stories ,they blasted Rev.Wrights comments for weeks ,and NOTHING about Elton Johns?

Posted by: Joyce | April 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

She not only said it on St.Patrick's Day, she said it in February and January and December AND she wrote it in her autobiography 5 years ago.So she's been exhausted for 5 years? Why does Bill lie all the time? For the same reason Hillary does---because they can.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's will never be Exhausted of lies.

Posted by: Monica | April 11, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Clintonians made three big mistakes tha last time they were in The White House:

1.- When Osama Bin Laden survive to the attack with crusier misiles in his headquartes in Afganistan, after the bombing of youre embasey in Africa, this stupid action from Clinton transform Osama in the Robin Hood of the musslims.

Since this point of vew, he is in some how responsible for "September 11".

2.- When he was bussy with his affaires in the global Office, he neglect Latin america and now we have Chavez in Venezuela, Lopez Obrador in Mexico, Correa in Ecuador, etc, etc, etc.

"When little head warm, big head frozen.

3.- Mr. Clinton had worked as the starcase of Mrs Clinton, is that faire, ¿that strongs the American Dream and the beliefes of youre founder fathers?

Or simply the end justify the means.

I`m not naive, but the question is How cýnical is the american people today, where are the bounderies of democracy and its limits

Posted by: Pablo Bernach | April 11, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

The story of going to Bosnia, as written in her book and as mentioned in most of her speeches is accurate and is not in dispute.
The only dispute was over the mention of landing under sniper fire, so this is not something she has lied about for months as some of you are indicating.
The fact is that most of the story as told is true, regardless of what Sinbad has said. He was not privy to the information she recieved from Secret Service and as shown in the original newscast of the landing there had been sniper fire in the area previously. The only exageration on this story was the landing under sniper fire which was mentioned only 2 or 3 times, and then corrected.

Like any story about Hillary Clinton, the media and Obama campaign stretch it so out of shape that its hard to get back to the facts.

Hillary Clinton exagerated this story and later apologized. She has not lied to the American people over and over as Obama has and she has had this issue mentioned over and over while Obama's lies are just ignored.

I cannot remember a time in my life when the media showed such obvious bias in favor or a political candidate. Remember that the media also backed Bush. The Republican party has done alot to insure Obama the nomination because they will destroy him in the general election.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Posted by: cheryl | April 11, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Has Bill ever been linked with a drinking problem, because when I look at his pictures when he's saying these stupid things, well?
I think Hilary deserves better from such an important surrogate.

Posted by: bob | April 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

I personally do not want Hillary Clinton answering the phone at 3 a.m. She's over 60 and tired - this could result in nuclear obliteration.

Posted by: EAM | April 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the Hillary supporters are quick to name someone else a Judas, but are equally quick to be one themselves!

A vote for Hillary is a vote for the Clintons.
A vote for Obama is a vote for America.

Posted by: Monica | April 11, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

If she's answering 3am phone calls, how is she going to be presidenting during the actual work day?

Get a frakking secretary.

Posted by: more important | April 11, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Bill is right====I'm only 58 and already I can't remember why I voted twice for the lying S.O.S.--This guy is getting worse with age. He can't say two words with one of them being a part of a lie.His way of getting out of a lie--just supplant it with another lie.And Bonnie Clinton is just as bad as Clyde.Who is voting for these liars?

Posted by: majorteddy | April 11, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

A more relevant question would be if or when Hillary or Bill will EVER get this story straight. She mentioned this story NOT at 11pm but in the morning and on several occasions. Bills comments in full..
"You know, I got tickled the other day," he said during a rally in Indiana. "A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me. But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologised for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up."
One time late at night? You mean several times in broad daylight right?
Misstated? A misstatement is stating i went to this place to eat instead of that one, or at noon instead of 2 etc. NOT sniper fire on my way in. I would call that detail HIGHLY memorable.
Immediatly she appologized for it? She has NEVER appologized for it and her respose was hardly immediate. It too her a week to even concede that she "Misspoke" An apology has yet to be offered. The sad part about these glaring errors offered by Bill is that they seem to bolster some feelings of Dem voters that Hillary cannot be trusted, that she will say or do virtually anything to get elected. I do not share these assertions, yet i find it troubling that Hillary and Bill are both not helping to dispell those assertions. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....and not by sniper fire either.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 11, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

A blogger a few days ago pointed out that Bill didn't really want Hillary to win.

I'm beginning to agree with him.

Posted by: bissron | April 11, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

The woman has demonstrated that she is a habitual if not pathological liar. And that isn't restricted to any given time on the clock. She is the epitome of a used car salesman. How do you know she is lying? Whenever her lips move.

Posted by: tydicea | April 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

hello? What he's saying? Does he think she's losing her marbles?

Posted by: gcubitt | April 11, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "The fact is that most of the story as told is true, regardless of what Sinbad has said. He was not privy to the information she recieved from Secret Service and as shown in the original newscast of the landing there had been sniper fire in the area previously. The only exageration on this story was the landing under sniper fire which was mentioned only 2 or 3 times, and then corrected."

Apparently, you have not seen the video of the pilot of the plane saying there was no evasive action taken, there was no problem or the secret service would not have let them land. There was no sitting on their flak vest either he says. Also on the same video, the military person in charge of the landing ceremony, says there was no problem and the first thing he thought of when he saw the report was "she's lying". I'm sorry, she went there in 1996, the last sniper fire in the area was long gone.
Sorry. Look it up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Sorry cheryl, she herself said she mis-spoke while sleep-deprived, although the prepared speech was made in the middle of the morning, and when her stupid husband brought it up again today, as it was dying out, thereby throwing gasoline on a dying fire, according to him she said, I'll handle this, let it alone.

My advice to you would be to do the same.

Posted by: wly34 | April 11, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

I'm very proud of the fact that I did not vote for Bill Clinton--I would rather not vote or vote third-party than vote for such a bizarre, pathological liar. I'm on the same track with Senator Clinton. Under no circumstances will I vote for her. Issues mean much less to me than character, and when you are dealing with people such as the Clintons issues mean nothing because they hold no core beliefs. None of the above should be taken to mean that there is much chance that McCain will get my vote. "Perpetual war for perpetual peace" never seemed like an intelligent notion to me.

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Quote Bill Clinton: ""This is a big deal to her. Some of you may have seen that she took a terrible beating in the press for a few days because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. Did you all see all that?"

No, we didn't see that Bill, glad you brought it up, we missed that. Now we can really catch her "mis-speaking" again.
Talk about a dumb remark. I'm worried about the sanity of both. I always knew they would do and say just about anything to be crowned, but this just takes the cake.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

@cheryl: "The Republican party has done alot to insure Obama the nomination because they will destroy him in the general election."

The problem with basing your opinions on emotions rather than facts is that you end up being wrong a lot.

Just last month here in Texas all the Rushbots were commanded to vote in the Democratic open primary.

For Hillary.

Posted by: Tim B | April 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Cheryl is aware of the well- documented (Boston Globe) and well- circulated story that hundreds of thousands of Republicans in Texas and Ohio voted for Hillary in the March 4th primaries. As one Texas Republican put it: "It's as simple as this: I don't think McCain can beat Obama."

Incidentally, for an in-depth analysis of the styles/approaches of the two candidates(Cliton/Obama)and how they differ, I recommend the article in the current (April 17th) issue of The New York Review of Books entitled "Molehill Politics" by Elizabeth Drew; it's online. A good read.

Posted by: goodbyetoallthat | April 11, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

@cheryl--As Rush Limbaugh says: "Keep her in it, so we can win it". The dittoheads are voting for Hillary, just as he tells them.

While Obama is registering millions of fired up young voters, Hillary is taking charity from Rush Limbaugh. At the same time, she is busy telling us she should be the nominee regardless of the votes.

What has happened to the Democratic party? Real Democrats will vote for Obama, march against Hillary, and then tell you about it!

Posted by: gmundenat | April 11, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

This is a stray from the topic
But i have a question statement
why did Hillary keep Harold Ickes on as a senior adviser when he and others voted to punish those states?
Did he not tell her before hand what was coming down? Did she try to influence his vote?
Who else was on that committee?

She has been screaming for months count the votes it just doesnt make any sense

Posted by: Lauren | April 11, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Well, we know the ex-Philanderer-in-Chief is just getting his second wind at 11 pm.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

We might have a better chance of Hillary answering the phone that we do now with George W. Bush who I understand goes to bed early. Perhaps he has his nightime calls forwarded to Cheney.

Posted by: Chesterfield1 | April 11, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Bill is inhaling again. He somehow thinks that he is helping Hillary's campaign. But every opportunity he gets he is saying things that have no basis or damages Hillary's credibility even more. He has turned into a classic jackass.

Posted by: Joe McFinney | April 11, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Well Bill is helping a lot of people make their decisions to not vote for Hillary. Bill in one sentence agreed that Hillary is getting old, 60 year olds don't remember things well, Hillary cannot remember anything after 11pm, and the most important one to get somebody younger to answer the 3:00am phone call.

The think I can't stand the most is Bill's sarcastic voice and the way he holds his mouth half open and talks in a derogatory sense about the opponent as well as the media and the people who do not support him or Hillary. He has no respect for people or common decency. He is all about himself and how smart he is fooling the rest of America.

Posted by: JustSurfing | April 11, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Get a real job, Mary Ann. If it weren't for people like Hillary showing the way you'd still be a receptionist at the dentist office...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

You are so right Joe McFinney. It's as if he is deliberately saying things now to insure that she won't be elected.
If she is not the nominee, I give this marriage about 6 months.

They both have gone crazy. They can't open their mouths without messing up again. Pitiful.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Get a real job, Mary Ann. If it weren't for people like Hillary showing the way you'd still be a receptionist at the dentist office..."

Another under-educated, supposedly down-trodden, female supporter of Hillary heard from.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 11, 2008 11:52 PM | Report abuse


The 44th President of the United States



Posted by: . | April 12, 2008 1:54 AM | Report abuse


The 44th President of the United States



Posted by: . | April 12, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

I have an idea for the smarmy Ms Akers. Since the Post undoubtedly has the candidates' itineraries, why doesn't she spend a day shadowing Hillary Clinton from campaign stop to fundraiser to interview to campaign stop et cetera. Even without having to deal with having every word, every movement, every outfit, every statement parsed and analyzed by the entire world, Ms Akers would no doubt find the agenda exhausting. Long before 11pm, I suspect.
Then again, no, don't let a little reality interfere with your facetious musings, Ms A. People might begin to attribute a level of credibilty to your blog. You wouldn't want that...

Posted by: Patrick Huss | April 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton remarked on the dead Bosnia story for the following reasons.

1. There is nothing else happening in her campaign worth talking about. He cannot talk about the Columbian trade since he likes it and she dislikes it. He cannot talk about superdelegates because Hillary has been losing them instead of gaining them.

2. He probably gave the original idea to Hillary about her Bosnia trip sniper fire and it is irking him since it backfired. For him it is all about him and his ideas. He probably thinks that if he talked about it, he can turn a lie into a truth in peoples mind.

Posted by: Ben | April 12, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

To Patrick Huss: ponder the circumstances under which you would invent being under sniuper fire, and then consider if such a state of mind would be the best one to be president of the United States.

Posted by: Miande | April 12, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The FINAL word on this issue:

And for his part, Mr. Clinton, asked if he regretted his earlier comments, said, "I regret that there appears to be a double-standard about misstatements."

Posted by: Edward Murray | April 12, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Miande, I believe you've misunderstood my post. I said absolutely nothing about the sniper statement, did I? My post is not a defense of Hillary Clinton.
Since you asked the question, and ignoring the fact that I am not now, nor ever will be, running for office, I'll say this...if those circumstances are at all similar to ones where I accuse the Iranians of supporting the Sunnis, or claim that Pennsylvanians are bitter people then I suppose the only ones qualified to be President are the ones who sit at their desk bloviating about other peoples "mistakes". They, at least, have the benefit of editing their statements before they hit submit.
Seriously, though, if you think that the sniper statement is reason to not vote for her, then don't vote for her. I don't care. But if your expectations for a candidate include that they never act political, that they don't promote themself, that they are incapable of hyperbole, exaggeration, or just plain disingenuity, then your understanding of the Office they are running for and the demands it will place upon them appears to me to be naive.
So, in direct response Miande, I do think that state of mind would be, if not best, then at least most reasonably expected.

Posted by: Patrick Huss | April 12, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for resurrecting that story Wild Bill. Let America not forget that the old lady can match you lie for lie, and then some more. To set the record straight, she said it THREE times: at 9 AM, 6 PM and at 11 PM. Was she so tired on all three occasions that she got confused? I know it is a tough thing to ask you Bill, but be honest for once. When Hillary went on that Bosnia trip, leaving you alone at home, the only 'action' that happened took place at the White House. Right?

Posted by: alzach | April 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

She takes another shot of whisky and yells at Bill to answer the phone........LOL.

Posted by: James | April 13, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the type of person that is never exhausted. She will be ready to go at 3 am. This article is ludicrous. Anyway, who cares about Bosnia lets talk about Obama and why he feels he has to demean the blue-collars workers of Pennsylvania when he is talking to a bunch of rich people.

Posted by: Mani, NJ | April 14, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

clintons learned along time ago to set the stage for the media, they rather the news be about bosnia than their $. and we are not playing horseshoes ( the closest don't win ) follow the rules.

Posted by: jack | April 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

With his latest gaff of embellishing his wife's lies about Bosnia, you have to wonder what in the heck is driving Bill Clinton to make such huge mistakes. The "slickest" politician in the business is absolutely amateurish in his comments over the past couple of months. Trying to portray Obama as another Jesse Jackson, black, candidate, backfired big time and hurt Hillary with black voters. When one understands that no ex-president in history has ever "worked" the position like Bill Clinton has, no ex-president has made the many millions of dollars selling his influence like Bill Clinton has, and the fact that he consumes almost as much taxpayer funded support as both other living ex-presidents put together, and uses that support to make his millions, leaves you to wonder why he would not be satisfied with the status quo. He travels all over the world as a V.I.P., rarely even sees Hillary, and is treated like a king everywhere he goes. So, why does he belittle himself in these poor political performances for his wife's nomination battle. He acts like he really cares and is trying to defend and help her, but in reality, is hurting her campaign. To me, if he really cared about Hillary, he would spend some time with her, and, during the rare times that he's in Washington D.C., would stay at their D.C. home instead of in a hotel. I don't believe he cares about her. I don't believe he's as amateurish as he's acting. And, I don't believe that he really wants her to be President. So then, what is it? The only conclusion I can come up with that makes any sense when all factors are considered is that this whole thing is the culmination of the ultimate political deal. It's long been said and reported in many books that their marriage is a politically convenient one. Since Hillary ran the "war rooms" dealing with "bimbo eruptions" and Bill's sexual assault problems. And, since she endured the embarrassment of Monica Lewinsky and more, and, since she stood by him and fought for him through it all, I believe his efforts on her behalf these days is nothing more than a debt he owes. However, he is not a man who would pay such a debt out of gratefulness, duty, or honor. Knowing her, I believe she laid the law down and basically said that if he didn't use every resource he had to get her the Presidency, that she would not only divorce him, but that she would ruin him publicly with the truth of all the scandals of all the years back to and including Arkansas. There would be no more V.I.P. worldwide treatment for him, and no more millions. I'm really coming to the belief that this is the deal and that's why his efforts appear to be so heartfelt, but are in reality, very damaging to her. We'll probably never know for sure, unless she believes that Bill sabotaged her and pulls the trigger on this. It's curious to say the least.

Posted by: FuzzyWuzzy1 | April 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

She'll probably do what she did during her eight years in the White House: elbow Bill in the back so he'll get up to answer the phone.

If they're still sleeping in the same bed, that is.

Posted by: srp_in_pgh | April 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: Anonymous | April 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Bill made a lot of money talking anout columbia free trade he says he is all for it Hillery is to she just doesent want you to know about it that is why she lies while Bill rakes in the money shame on the both of you you will never get my vote.

Posted by: Denise | April 14, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The answer to your question is so simple that I am surprised you even think that it is a puzzler!
Simply, when Hillary is exhausted at 11pm, she goes to sleep. When the phone rings at 3am, she has had a nice few hours of sleep to refresh her and her brilliant mind!

Posted by: afed27 | April 14, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Hillary, Bill and Chelsea are all running on fumes. If they could connect with one another they might get something straight. Bill promised he would help her fulfill her dream to be president of the UNITED STATES, however, that was then, this is now. Get some REST baby, I need some too. I can make enought money to take care of you.

Posted by: Gates | April 14, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The "vast right wing conspiracy" invented by Hillary Clinton may keep her in the race via Rushobots. I do hope she appreciates the efforts of those she denounced to save Bill's skin. For without the conspiracy how could she have achieved those votes? So far I haven't heard even a "thank you".

Posted by: Dale Netherton | April 14, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: DANE | April 14, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

This is, like much else in this campaign, much ado about little. There are so many better reasons not to vote for Mrs Clinton, merely beginning with Iraq and Presidential powers assumed and advanced to the point of lawlessness by Mr Bush's regime...largely with Mrs Clinton's acquiescence. Maybe if Mr Obama had been in the Senate then, he would have been cowed or tricked into authorizing the Iraq invasion, like Clinton, like most of the rest of Congress...we'll never know. The fact is he is the only leading candidate who did NOT do so, and so the only one who can even claim that he wouldn't have...the only one whose candidacy is founded on oppositon, clear, unequivocal and without excuses, to what Mr Bush has done.

Posted by: MLevi | April 14, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

May I direct everyone's attention to clips of Hillary Clinton's speech at the Forum in Pitts. this morning, wherein she brings up Obama's remarks and the crowd is CLEARLY saying "NOOOOOOO" and "BOOOOO" to HER - msnbc at 11:26AM THIS DATE has just showed it after an earlier report by a reporter covering that talk, (Ron Allen, perhaps?) commented on it and the lady (don't know her name) on msnbc just let that report slip - they must have looked at the film again, and said they will show it again momentarily. KEEP GOING HILLARY - PEOPLE, IN FACT, ARE BITTER AND HURTING AND YOU AND YOUR OLD WASHINGTN CRONIES AE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. YOUR $109 mil income Doesn't even pass the smell test when contrasted to what we are all going through!

Posted by: DANE | April 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Last Friday you wrote, "Why does Bill lie all the time? For the same reason Hillary does---because they can."

Or because they can't not?

Posted by: Newddle | April 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Both Sen's have had a hard last yr- what they are doing would be considered a marathon. Both have said things they would rather not have. But I have to agree with this statemant:

This article is ludicrous. Anyway, who cares about Bosnia lets talk about Obama and why he feels he has to demean the blue-collars workers of Pennsylvania when he is talking to a bunch of rich people.

Posted by: Mani, NJ | April 14, 2008 10:20 AM

Obama has more to expain- he made small town folks sound like "RED NECKS" - it is very believable that he feels this way due to his upbringing and what he has said before and the people he has associated with- there is a disconnect there.

We will get who we deserve in the end as a nation!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: MK5112 | April 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Published: April 14, 2008

....Obama was explaining his trouble winning over small-town, working-class voters: "It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This sent me to Marx's famous statement about religion in the introduction to his "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right":

"Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."

Or, more succinctly, and in the original German in which Marx somehow always sounds better: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes."

Now, this is a point of view with a long intellectual pedigree prior to Marx, and many vocal adherents continuing into the 21st century. I don't believe the claim is true, but it's certainly worth considering, in college classrooms and beyond.

But it's one thing for a German thinker to assert that "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature." It's another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we "cling to ... religion" out of economic frustration.

And it's a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, "worship an awesome God."

What's more, he's written eloquently in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father," of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "Audacity of Hope" sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You'd think he'd do other believers the courtesy of assuming they've also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration -- as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren't we then entitled to assume Obama's opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there's what Obama calls "anti-immigrant sentiment." Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans' alleged "antipathy to people who aren't like them": During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not "like them." Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns -- as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama's presidential prospects? He's disdainful of small-town America -- one might say, of bourgeois America. He's usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it's not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service -- then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

Posted by: MK5112 | April 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

They say you can see how well a candidate would handle being president by how well they handle the campaign.....Obama is organized and well supported and Hilary has disorganized,infighting,and Bill to contend with -How do you think this will be different if she is elected....heaven help us.

Posted by: Karen | April 14, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Dear Professor Obama,

Please do not reinforce with Verbal, this time, gutter balls! We've had enough of your arrogant Armchair Psychologist assumptions about small-town folk being religious fanatics and RACISTS:

"antipathy to those who are not like them"

*You may wish to campaign once again for yoru cousin Odinga, Leader of hte Opposition in Kenya--if the president will let you back in again after your insulting him by supporting your gun-toting religious fanatic Marxist-islamist cousin,


Redneck woman

Posted by: redneck woman | April 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: pat Ill. | April 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

What if Hillary answers the phone at 3 AM and is so old and tired, she thinks she's back in Bosnia? Can a wrong number from some drunk at a bar send President Hillary running through the White House ducking from snipers???

Posted by: thuff7 | April 14, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

I have no doubt that Hillary will provide the leadership necessary to run this 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. if necessary. After all she was a mother used to getting up with her child at all hours. Let's not forget that the Clintons gave much of their lives to public service at the cost of Bill Clinton's health, unlike George W who takes a vacation every other week and phones it in....

Posted by: Righteous Indignation | April 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Proof that Obama is an elitest. He can't dance and he can't bowl.

Posted by: alice | April 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Q - How is Hillary going to answer that 3 a.m. phone call?

A - With a lie.

Q - If Hillary tells a lie and no one calls her on it, is it still a lie?

A - It depends how much press coverage she gets out of it.

Q - How you can tell when Hillary is telling a lie?

A - If her lips are moving, she's telling a lie.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary won't be answering the phone.
She is just a selfish joke!
She wants the right to answer, but she won't take the responsibility of answering!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | April 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has vivid imagination of 3am; May be she wants to be carried away by someone
gallant.To be awoken from her dreary day of
slamming Obama over her long'experience'.

Posted by: Khalid Rahim | April 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

hillary , if she told the truth even about the warning of potential danger is to be cast out for taking her teen age daughter into harms way .. or did she lie about that part of the story also?

Posted by: bob mann | April 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh, you so smart, Billy K.

Published: April 14, 2008

....Obama was explaining his trouble winning over blah, blah....

Posted by: Bruce | April 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is exhausted because she is running two campaigns. One for the president and the other for McCain's running mate. She seems to be excelling at the latter.

Posted by: Katherine Jones | April 15, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I am at a loss to pick which ultrawealthy democrat should represent me. The one that makes $109 million/year or the one that understands how regular people fret over spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

By 3:00 AM she will have had four hours sleep. Also a President keeps more regular hours than a candidate. Your question is as stupid as most of your answers.

John T. Lucas
Victoria, BC

Posted by: John T. Lucas | April 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

John Lucas is absolutely right-on.

Akers comments are dumb.

Posted by: V.Sykes | April 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

By 3:00 AM she will have had four hours sleep. Also a President keeps more regular hours than a candidate. Your question is as stupid as most of your answers.

John T. Lucas
Victoria, BC

Read the phnone that rings at 3am is NOT answered by the President accoeding to the White House. Furthermore, the calls would not require the president to resond at that hour. All this from the powers that be.
As for media "bashing' Hillary and Obama receiving a pass LOL the whole Rev. Wright/"bitter" comments lasted for days in the press and continue to be mentioned. Regardless that both were "sound bites", out of context from what was actually said.
HRC "talks down to people most of the time. Do you really think she gives a rats a$$ about the middle class? If so, you need a reality check.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

askin??? a skin?
racist picg

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's what's going on with Bill, and the world needs to know it before they let him live in the White House
From /

We Need to Understand and Show Some Compassion

One of the savviest politicians of our generation, known for his wit, charm, and calm under extreme pressure, Bill Clinton appears out of character in the speeches and interviews televised since his bypass surgery September 6, 2004--and his mental deterioration may be accelerating. Remember, this is the president who withstood public impeachment before the entire world for his relationship with Monica Lewinski without once losing control. Now, he is easily angered by hecklers, and makes factual mistakes and racial slurs while aggressively defending his wife's campaign for presidency. Everyone sees his mental and emotional decline, yet to date, no medical professionals have spoken out about the cause or offered help.

Not a single one--not one bypass surgeon, cardiologist or psychiatrist--has stepped forward in his defense; even though all of them are trained to recognize "post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction." One of the best-kept secrets in medicine is the brain damage caused during bypass surgery. During my 40 years of medical practice I have never heard a doctor warn a patient before bypass surgery that an expected complication is memory loss. After surgery when the family complains of dad's fits of anger, I have never heard a doctor admit that personality change is a common consequence of surgery. Yet these well-recognized side effects have been reported in medical journals since 1969.1

Brain damage during bypass surgery is so common that hospital personnel refer to it as "pump head." The primary cause is emboli produced during surgery from clamping the aorta and from the "heart-lung machine." This machine pumps blood to keep the patient alive while the heart is stopped during the operation. Unfortunately, this pump also introduces toxic gases, fat globules, and bits of plastic debris into the bloodstream of the patient under anesthesia. Once they are in the bloodstream, these particles migrate to the brain where they can clog capillaries and prevent adequate amounts of blood and oxygen from flowing to the brain. Essentially, all patients experience brain emboli during surgery and for many the damage is permanent.

In 2001, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that 5-years after bypass surgery 42% of patients showed decline in mental function of approximately 20 percent or more.2 A study published this year (2008) in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery using MRI testing just after bypass surgery found brain damage in 51% of patients.3 Three years after their time on the bypass pump, significant permanent reduction in mental capacity was identified in 31% of patients. I am not talking major stroke here; but these patients can't remember names or numbers as they once did, experience sleep disturbances (including nightmares), suffer mood swings, and lose intellectual acuity. Approximately 30 percent of people suffer persistent depression and some even contemplate suicide.

Our former president needs our understanding and support. A simple explanation by his doctors of the cause of his recent aberrant behaviors should bring peace of mind to Hillary and her campaign staff. If Mr. Clinton better understood his current limitations, he and his staff could take precautionary steps to avoid embarrassments. A long-overdue explanation would help his adoring public more easily accept his mistakes and readily forgive him. It is not your fault, Mr. Clinton.

As importantly, public recognition of the harm done to Bill Clinton by the heart surgery business would help the patients who undergo bypass surgery, and their families, to better understand similar changes they have experienced. A little attention from the media could also shine some light on the lack of survival benefits from this $90,000 procedure performed nearly half-a-million times annually in the US, and the superior benefits coming from diet and lifestyle changes.

I am saddened to see our former president suffer from public humiliation, but I am disgraced that my profession has thus far failed to come forward with a long over-due explanation and an apology to the Clintons and our nation for the harm they have done and the secrets they have kept.

John McDougall, MD

1) Hill JD, Aguilar MJ, Baranco A, de Lanerolle P, Gerbode F. Neuropathological manifestations of cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1969 May;7(5):409-19.

2) Newman MF, Kirchner JL, Phillips-Bute B, Gaver V, Grocott H, Jones RH, Mark DB, Reves JG, Blumenthal JA; Longitudinal assessment of neurocognitive function after coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 8;344(6):395-402. 9Link:

3) Knipp SC, Matatko N, Wilhelm H, Schlamann M, Thielmann M, Lösch C, Diener HC, Jakob H. Cognitive outcomes three years after coronary artery bypass surgery: relation to diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Mar;85(3):872-9.

Posted by: dorothyinchina | April 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

As all democrat USA workers and you have rightly sensed Ms. Pelosi, the infamous Colombian "Free Trade Agreement" could be the only impediment to avoid our ideal and idyllic and central proletarian-workers controlled future in our country. The actual very real reason why we the Colombian and American Chavistic democrat unions oppose the FTA is not "the killings of 2.700 unionists in 20 years in Colombia" as this FTA what really affects is not the lowest and unfortunately decreasing number ever organized unions of ours, but 44 million living Colombian citizens.
As Ms Pelosi and democrat unions in America do, THE TRUTH instead is that in all honesty, we really deeply hate all three words: WE HATE FREE as it means that our next future democrat socialistic leader, alter ego of our future Gran Colombian unions unifier President Hugo Chavez will not be able to nationalize, control and direct the economy in favor of our people and against the "free" capitalistic entrepreneurs that pretend to "freely" exploit and "trade" our labor to export "agreed" goods to the Yankees. WE HATE TRADE as it corrupts the mind of our people into capitalistic consumist behaviors of American goods, and WE HATE AGREEMENT because it is the betrayal to all our goals, on behalf of our actual unconditional 110% pro American ally (puppet-server) president Uribe in "agreement" with your evil-republican president Bush.
Therefore, ANY REAL OR MADE UP EXCUSE you Ms Pelosi and USA democrat workers use to please oppose the FTA with Colombia is valid and supports greatly our ideals. Within our context, a leftist revolutionary war now 50 years old, per each 100.000 inhabitants in Colombia only 4 union workers are killed whereas 33 common civilians and 86 policemen die out of our internal revolutionary war. So, although the "2.700 unionists killed in 20 years" have never ever in the history of Colombia been so LOW like now, from 213 in 2001 before Uribe to 26 during this 100% PRO BUSH YANKEE REPUBLICAN URIBE government, and URIBE HIM SELF has made all our own victorious revolutionary terrorism-born paramilitary to demobilize, unarm and in jail, including 30 and more congressmen for the very first time in our 50 revolutionary years, this small fact can easily be media-ticaly ignored, in exactly the way American democrat workers and you Ms Pelosi are doing.
Fortunately, our Army of the People, the glorious FARC has killed and kidnapped (2.000 per year including 3 "free trader"-supporter Americans now for 6 years) and so many more hundred of thousands of civilians and "free trade" entrepreneurs and capitalistic exporters and democratic politicians. In the name of our glorious revolution we proudly count 649 kids and 6.043 adults amputated and killed just by our land mines, so that just this is well over so many more than any "killed of our union workers" in our leftist revolutionary history. So far this proportion is really very satisfactory to us. Any how, for sure our and your strength Ms Pelosi is that one union worker killing is so much more valid and noisy that 44 million "free traders" or hundreds of civilians kidnapped some now for more than ten years, you just can easily inveRt this minor truth for the purpose of disproving that evil republican unfair and forced FTA.
Actually for us workers in Colombia, like in VENEZUELA, our real goal is to diminish and eliminate all private entrepreneurial capitalistic exploitation of man by man. Its our socialistic revolutionary fight against those who "free"ly export and "trade" our labor and raw materials. Our goal is to concentrate all the economy in the hands of a good centralized social liberal democrat workers-only government parallel to that of Hugo Chavez the great democrat-workers-unions-unifier of the world. The revolution source in Venezuela is the oil that the American people suck and pays for, and in Colombia it will be the cocaine that our revolutionary Army of the People FARC protects, control and export and trade for huge revenues to arm and feed our people against any "free" what ever "trade" exporters. Yes Senator Pelosi you are SO right, we do not need any help or "trade" exports nor any "free" industry-entrepreneurs to export any other goods to any other country or market, less so we need yours, and we thank democrat party for opposing them by opposing this FTA.
Peoples approval of our actual capitalistic "democratic" president Uribe by 83% of our 83% politically wrong people is also a factual proof of the above, but don't worry. This never before seen 83% approval after 6 years in power, does not relate to us, the actual REAL FREEDOM fighters killers and kidnapers revolutionaries proud to be and do, democrat unions that oppose Bush consumistic, capitalistic and "free trade" entrepreneurial non governmental controlled FTA.
Opening you markets to our exporters exploitative "free trade" entrepreneurs can be the very worst thing you can do for our democrat ideals CHAVISTIC Unified Latin democrat Unions for centralized economy and social socialistic revolutionary justice. Please do NOT allow that evil president of yours to approve the FTA with our country and against our people and our real goals and ideals. We deeply thank you Ms Pelosi and American democrat worker-union-voters in advance for all your efforts in this regard. The less FTA you give Colombia, the bigger our revolutionary Army of the People FARC will do in agreement with our glorious Gran Colombian democrat workers-union unifier: HUGO CHAVEZ FRIAS.
PS. Admired and respected Ms. Pelosi, we also know you will please certainly succeed in eliminating all the moneys given to the "Plan Colombia" that is so badly hurting our revolutionary forces, and will please abandon as well Irak (come on, WWI and WWII "freedom American heroes" ended also cowardly during and after our glorious revolutionary victory and your humiliated defeat in Vietnam). Your continued support to our socialistic workers unions armed nationalistic anti-global revolution and independence is more than greatly appreciated by our undisputed leader of Latin America HUGO CHAVEZ, in the name of all XXI century socialistic revolution in the world.

Posted by: Neo Retroprotectionism | April 16, 2008 12:41 AM | Report abuse

What a surprise that Bill would step in and try to defend his wife. The only thing is that he has made the controversy even more stupid. His lies are worse in that it makes no sense what so ever. He should just keep his trap shut. His "wife" is doing a great job at screwing herself silly. The Queen of lies is performing brilliantly! Only a die hard fool can watch what is unfolding and not squirm at the lies.

Hillary needs to drop out and let Obama and McCain duke it out.

Posted by: Carlos | April 16, 2008 5:29 AM | Report abuse

Are Jews the reincarnation of modern day KKK?

The powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or extracting favor from his administration should he become the next President. Senator Obama has offered his assurance to Jews that he is not a foe- yet this does not seem to allay their resistance to his candidacy.

Hillary Clinton's campaign saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scenes. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [the Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman, CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer, Senator Joseph Lieberman and others to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. The above mentioned Jews continue to fan the flame of hateful passions against the Illinois Senator using demagoguery and pushing the Reverend Wright issue so that it remains in the foreground. The strategy is to convince the voters and the Democratic Super Delegates that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and simultaneously promote Hillary as the only friend of Israel. It is also reported that Democratic Jews are being counseled to vote for John McCain- should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show.

Civil Rights and black organizations have dubbed the Jewish Lobby's anti Obama campaign, "mean spirited" but so far have opted to remain tentative. Elected Democrats have also taken note and are increasingly becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics. They are appalled with her alliance to hawkish groups including John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague and worry that it provides damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some Democrats are even calling the conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. The question is- who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, a healthy concern for political reprisal has prevented any of the party leaders from offering any public criticism. The Jewish Lobby for decades has effectively manipulated the holocaust to keep politicians beholden to their agenda. Those who oppose are usually labeled anti-Israel or Bigots in order to gain their compliance. In this instance, however, they run the risk of having the tables turned against them if blacks are able to expose hypocrisy in what many view to be a Jewish lynching of Senator Obama.

Posted by: mia | April 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Some people like Bill Clinton just like to talk. Unfortunately, their brain may not be fully awake and rather than thinking, just sends the mouth whatever gets retrieved from memory. I think Bill "needs" a lot of attention. He doesn't get it anymore because he's no longer President. I don't think he's handling not being in the spotlight anymore.

I notice he still like to shake his finger at everyone while talking. I wonder if he does that when talking to Hillary.

Posted by: Dick Kahrs | April 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I am a middle age White Pennsylvanian Woman, and a die-hard supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I stock with them through their difficult years in the White House during the Monica Sex scandal.
I must say that I am very insulted by Hillary's statement calling Obama an "Elitist and out of touch". This statement and many others from Senator Clinton proved that not only is she a racist but out of reality, completely out of touch, and out to destroy the future of the Democratic Party. In my entire adult life, I have never seen a Presidential Candidate who gives the opposing party enough ammunition to not only destroy the other candidate but also destroys the party, and this is exactly what Hillary Clinton is doing to the Democratic Party. She is now making it difficult for future Female Presidential Candidates like me. I am very ashamed as a woman to see the only female candidate out there telling lies, drinking and deceiving voters just to forge a way. Is she calling those of us raised by single mothers and struggle to make it in life Elitist?

When I saw this woman who is supposedly a highly educated Lawyer, a former Board Member of Walmart, and a U.S. Senator, at a Pennsylvanian Bar Drinking beer, and downing a big shot of whisky in front of TV cameras, just makes me wonder as to how low she is willing to go to fake a life style in order to get votes. About a month ago, she lied, cried and cursed her way to win Ohio and Texas, and as suckers, we fell for it. Eight years ago we fell for such gimmick under George Bush. We gave him the benefit of the doubt, because we taught that it was cool to have a president that we can have a beer with. This is how stupid and shallow we were as voters back then. Hillary is hoping to capitalize on such sentiments (not even under Sniper fire). What a joke. Not when you and John MacCain are directly align with George Bush to destroy our country through your ill informed votes. You need to come to us the Military Families whose children continue to arrive home in body bags and explain to us as to what qualifies you to be the next President of this Nation when the only opportunity that you have to show your qualification and experience, you blew it, by not reading the War Authorization Document and straight out voted for it. All you care about is what is popular. Please come to us as Military Families, who are loosing our jobs and homes to sip some suds. I think that the 100 million dollars that you and your husbands have made from his NAFTA friends and supporters in Colombia is just not enough for you. How can the Senator claim that she in touch with the voters, when she and her husband, made more than 100 million dollars when the folks she was drinking beer with, in front of TV Cameras are out of work and many of them lost their homes? Thanks to the Good Senator who together with John MacCain voted for a senseless war that has siphoned all of our Tax-payer money out to Iraq. Thanks to the Hillary and John MacCain for voting to give tax break to the super rich including themselves while the rest of us burn in hell.

Posted by: Monica | April 16, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Please remind me. How well did Reagan do after this bedtime....?

Posted by: Anyone but McCain | April 17, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for keeping our very serious issues this country faces with those wonderful, useful and very American headlines!

What is wrong with the press? They are gossip mongers, just like the rest of the majority of this country.

It was a disrespectful headline and also lacking in political perspective to further putrify the political minds of the populace...except yours truly!


Posted by: Olga Olivia Pina | April 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I would have to agree with the person who posted the comment wondering if Bill really wanted Hillary to win. From day one it has looked as if he was trying to undermine her campaign. First, he comes off looking like a pit bull and now he is calling attention to a story that I am sure Hillary wishes she could forget. I actually liked and admired Bill (Hillary too) when he was in office and after he left the White House. His performance during Hillary's campaign has really disgusted me and my opinion of Hillary has dropped considerably. How can she claim to be able to run the country when she needs to keep her pit bull husband by her side night and day?

Posted by: Terry Dolan | April 18, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company