Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

The Fix Talks Back: Year of the African American Candidate?

There's never enough time to answer all of the good questions I get during my live online chats, but I can always answer a few more here in the blog.

Philadelphia: As a student at Morehouse College (an all African American and all male college in Atlanta), I am particularly excited about the emergence of serious African American candidates this year (Harold Ford in TN, Deval Patrick in MA, Michael Steele and Kweisi Mfume in MD, Lynn Swann in PA, Kenneth Blackwell in OH, etc.). Is this development an anomaly, or are we witnessing the beginning a radical change in the face of American politics?

The Fix: I think the trend you point out is one of the most intriguing developments in the 2006 cycle, especially because a number of the black candidates seeking statewide office are Republicans (Steele, Swann and Blackwell). The idea of more African Americans seeking major offices is nothing new (in 2004 the open Senate seat contest featured two black candidates) but it remains to be seen whether these candidates can break through and win. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) is the only black member of the Senate and only the third elected since Reconstruction. (Massachusetts Republican Sen. Edward Brooke and Illinois Democratic Sen. Carol Moseley Braun were the others.) Doug Wilder is the only African American to be elected governor in U.S. history, having served as Virginia's chief executive from 1989 to 1993.

The coming election will be an interesting proving ground to test whether Obama's victory in 2004 threw the door wide open for black candidates or not.

Portland, Ore.: Chris: I think a pretty good case can be made that, historically, the major party nominees for president turn out not to be the persons who generate the most passion or excitement, but the ones who are the least objectionable to the largest number of people. This is especially true, I think, when a race is fairly wide open; it seems the winner is often the person who, in addition to whatever core supporters they have, shows up most often as everyone's second choice Do you think there is anything to this theory? If so and you apply this test of being the favorite second choice, whose prospects brighten and whose dim in 2008?

The Fix: Interesting theory. I have a similar operating assumption that the battle for the presidential nomination in both parties comes down to a battle of head versus heart. In the 2004 Democratic primaries, the heart of the Democratic Party was clearly with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean but the head won out in the end as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was the nominee. Four years earlier the head vote for George W. Bush beat back the heart vote (although not the hearts of many conservatives) of Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Applied to 2008, the head vote for Democrats is presumably the most viable candidate other than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- a list that should include Kerry, Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. Clinton is clearly the heart candidate even though she has run into rough patches with the Democratic base over her stance on the Iraq war among other issues. While recent history would seem to bode well for a Warner or Bayh, one needs only look back to 1992 -- the last time a Clinton was seeking an open Democratic presidential nomination. The head vote was clearly against Bill Clinton, who had battled through repeated charges of marital infidelity in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. But, Clinton better than any Democrat of recent vintage could speak to voters' hearts and won enough over to not only win the nomination but also the presidency.

Washington, D.C.: So, just how toxic are the POTUS and VPOTUS to Republicans up for reelection/election in November? First we see N.J. Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr. dodge Dick Cheney at a fundraiser. Then we see the President show up in Ohio without any Congressional hangers on. Is this something that is going to get even more noticeable as the election season heats up?

The Fix: I touched yesterday on how active both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have been of late in terms of raising dollars for House and Senate candidates.

While these candidates are more than willing to take the hundreds of thousands of dollars that an appearance by Bush or Cheney is sure to generate, they are less willing to appear at events with the two men. No one should be surprised by that dichotomy as politicians at their core are survivors and with the President's approval numbers mired in the 30s it does little good for an aspiring Republican to tie themselves too closely to him.

It remains to be seen whether taking dollars raised by Bush or Cheney will negatively impact Republican candidates. In recent history, voters have shown little interest in where a candidate's financial backing comes from -- whether it's one's own pocket or from top leaders in either party.

Read the full transcript of my Post Politics Hour appearance.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 28, 2006; 4:56 PM ET
Categories:  Fix Notes  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Campaign Reform: '527' Restrictions Could Hurt Dems
Next: Parsing the Polls: The Immigration Conundrum



You've got nerve calling anyone arrogant after 5 plus years of that arrogant, ignorant moron and his henchmen ruining this country. His arrogance has gotten us into a war we can't win or abandon, record deficits, the alienation of our allies, the uniting of our enemies and so many other foul-ups. People in glass houses......

Posted by: KAS | March 30, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is not only a buffoon - he is a disgrace. He should be rebuked. Next time don't nominate an arrogant loser and you might win an election in the next century or so.

Posted by: Sandy | March 29, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Kerry may be a buffoon.....

But Bush and the GOP Congress are a TOTAL UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

Russ Feingold is no buffoon. Open your eyes Sandy.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | March 29, 2006 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Kerry is still a buffoon

Posted by: Sandy | March 29, 2006 7:45 AM | Report abuse


Fitzgerald will seek new White House indictments

By Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 29, 2006, 00:39

It may seem as though it's been moving along at a snail's pace, but the second part of the federal investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is nearly complete, with attorneys and government officials who have remained close to the probe saying that a grand jury will likely return an indictment against one or two senior Bush administration officials.

These sources work or worked at the State Department, the CIA and the National Security Council. Some of these sources are attorneys close to the case. They requested anonymity because they were not permitted to speak publicly about the details of the investigation.

In lengthy interviews over the weekend and on Monday, they said that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has started to prepare the paperwork to present to the grand jury seeking an indictment against White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Although the situation remains fluid, it's possible, these sources said, that Fitzgerald may seek to indict both Rove and Hadley, charging them with perjury, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy related to their roles in the leak of Plame Wilson's identity and their effort to cover up their involvement following a Justice Department investigation.

The sources said late Monday that it may take more than a month before Fitzgerald presents the paperwork outlining the government's case against one or both of the officials and asks the grand jury to return an indictment, because he is currently juggling quite a few high-profile criminal cases and will need to carve out time to write up the indictment and prepare the evidence.

In addition to responding to discovery requests from Libby's defense team and appearing in court with his attorneys, who are trying to obtain additional evidence, such as top-secret documents, from Fitzgerald's probe, the special prosecutor is also prosecuting Lord Conrad Black, the newspaper magnate, and has recently charged numerous individuals in a child pornography ring, and is wrestling with other lawsuits in his home city of Chicago.

Details about the latest stage of the investigation began to take shape a few weeks ago when the lead FBI investigator on the leak case, John C. Eckenrode, retired from the agency and indicated to several colleagues that the investigation is about to wrap up with indictments handed up by the grand jury against Rove or Hadley or both officials, the sources said.

The Philadelphia-based Eckenrode is finished with his work on the case; however, he is expected to testify as a witness for the prosecution next year against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators regarding his role in the leak.

Hadley and Rove remain under intense scrutiny, but sources said Fitzgerald has not yet decided whether to seek charges against one or both of them.

Libby and other officials in Cheney's office used the information they obtained about Plame Wilson to undermine the credibility of her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. He had alleged that President Bush misspoke when he said, in his January 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to acquire yellow cake uranium, the key component used to build a nuclear bomb, from Niger.

The uranium claim was the silver bullet in getting Congress to support military action two months later. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and the country barely had a functional weapons program, according to a report from the Iraq Survey Group.

Wilson had traveled to Niger more than a year earlier to investigate the yellow cake claims and reported back to the CIA that intelligence reports saying Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger were false.

On Monday, though, attorneys close to the leak case confirmed that Fitzgerald had met with the grand jury half a dozen times since January and recently told the jurors that he planned to present them with the government's case against Rove or Hadley, which stems from an email Rove had sent to Hadley in July of 2003 indicating that he had a conversation about Plame Wilson with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Neither Hadley nor Rove disclosed the existence of the email when they were questioned by FBI investigators or when they testified before a grand jury, the sources said, adding that Rove testified he found out about Plame Wilson from reporters and Hadley testified that he recalled learning about Plame Wilson when her name was published in a newspaper column.

Rove testified before the grand jury four times. He did not disclose the existence of the email during his first two appearances before the grand jury, claiming he simply forgot about it because he was enmeshed in the 2004 presidential election, traveling around the country attending fundraisers and meetings, working more than 15 hours a day on the campaign, and just forgot that he spoke with Cooper three months earlier, sources familiar with his testimony said.

But Rove and Libby had been the subject of dozens of news stories about the possibility that they played a role in the leak, and had faced dozens of questions as early as August 2003 -- one month after Plame Wilson was outed- about whether they were the administration officials responsible for leaking her identity.

The story Rove and his attorney, Robert Luskin, provided to Fitzgerald in order to explain why Rove did not disclose the existence of the email is "less than satisfactory and entirely unconvincing to the special counsel," one of the attorneys close to the case said.

Luskin did not return numerous calls for comment. A spokeswoman for the National Security Council said she could not comment on an ongoing investigation and has vehemently denied that Hadley was involved in the leak "because Mr. Hadley told us he wasn't involved."

In December, Luskin made a desperate attempt to keep his client out of Fitzgerald's crosshairs.

Luskin had revealed to Fitzgerald that Viveca Novak -- a reporter working for Time magazine who wrote several stories about the Plame Wilson case -- inadvertently tipped him off in early 2004 that her colleague at the magazine, Matt Cooper, would be forced to testify that Rove was his source who told him about Plame Wilson's CIA status.

Novak -- who bears no relation to syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the journalist who first published Plame Wilson's name and CIA status in a July 14, 2003, column -- met Luskin in Washington DC in 2004, and over drinks, the two discussed Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame Wilson leak.

Luskin had assured Novak that Rove learned Plame Wilson's name and CIA status after it was published in news accounts and that only then did he phone other journalists to draw their attention to it. But Novak told Luskin that everyone in the Time newsroom knew Rove was Cooper's source and that he would testify to that in an upcoming grand jury appearance, these sources said.

According to Luskin's account, after he met with Viveca Novak he contacted Rove and told him about his conversation with her. The two of them then began an exhaustive search through White House phone logs and emails for any evidence that proved that Rove had spoken with Cooper. Luskin said that during this search an email was found that Rove had sent to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately after Rove's conversation with Cooper, and it was subsequently turned over to Fitzgerald.

"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in the email to Hadley immediately following his conversation with Cooper on July 11, 2003. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

Luskin wound up becoming a witness in the case and testified about his conversation with Viveca Novak that Luskin said would prove his client didn't knowingly lie to FBI investigators when he was questioned about the leak in October 2003, just three months after Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

The email Rove sent to Hadley, which Luskin said he found, helped Rove recall his conversation with Cooper a year earlier. Rove then returned to the grand jury to clarify his previous testimonies in which he did not disclose that he spoke with journalists.

Still, Rove's account of his conversation with Cooper went nothing like he had described in his email to Hadley, according to an email Cooper sent to his editor at Time magazine following his conversation with Rove in July 2003.

"It was, KR said, [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized [Wilson's] trip," Cooper's July 11, 2003, email to his editor said. "Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division." (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The email characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger . . ."

It is unclear whether Rove was misleading Hadley about his conversation with Cooper, perhaps, because White House officials told their staff not to engage reporters in any questions posed about Wilson's Niger claims.

But Fitzgerald's investigation has turned up additional evidence over the past few months that convinced him that Luskin's eleventh-hour revelation about the chain of events that led to the discovery of the email is not credible. Fitzgerald believes that Rove changed his story once it became clear that Cooper would be compelled to testify about the source --- Rove -- who revealed Plame Wilson's CIA status to him, sources close to the case said.

If any of the people named in this story believe they have been unfairly portrayed or that what was written in this story is untrue, they will have an opportunity to respond in this space.

Posted by: CHE | March 29, 2006 7:28 AM | Report abuse


Terrorist Surveillance Act Introduced in Senate

John Osborn / | March 28 2006

A bill recently introduced in the Senate would legalize warrantless wiretapping at the President's discretion.

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) introduced the bill, popularly named the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, on March 16, 2006.

The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

According to a press release by Senator DeWine, the bill would allow the President to authorize wiretapping on international communications by American citizens suspected of being affiliated with a terrorist organization. All the President has to have is probable cause and a belief that surveillance of the individual is necessary to protect national security.

Currently, any surveillance of American citizen’s international communications would require a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

According to a Dec. 16, 2005 article in the New York Times entitled, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,” it is easier to obtain warrants this court than a normal criminal warrant. Furthermore, emergency approval for a warrant can be obtained within hours.

The Bush administration justifies their position by stating that currently the provisions aren’t quick enough to authorize wiretaps on numerous suspected terrorists.

In 2001 after 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to wiretap international communications between Americans and foreign callers.

Critics claim that this is unconstitutional and a debate endures. This bill would legalize warrantless wiretapping with safeguards.

The provisions in this bill are sweeping. The President alone can determine what American citizens are potential threats to national security. There is no authorization under this bill from Congress or a court.

The bill would allow the President to conduct surveillance for up to 45 days without a warrant, after which the President can reauthorize surveillance under one of two instances.

The President must either obtain a warrant after compiling enough evidence to do so through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Attorney General must certify, under oath, when the President doesn’t have sufficient evidence for a warrant that continued surveillance is necessary.

This bill would allow the President to conduct warrantless wiretapping in order to obtain the necessary evidence to get a warrant. This bill would allow unheard of Executive Power in conducting surveillance on Americans.

Essentially, as long as the Attorney General accepts the decisions of the President, surveillance of Americans could go on indefinitely. These are the safeguards advocated by the sponsors of this bill.

Supporters of the bill claim that sufficient Congressional oversight would exist to ensure that the President doesn't overstep his authority, but this is not the case.

The bill will create Terrorist Surveillance Subcommittees within both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that would have sole authority to oversee this program.

These subcommittees have no authority to accept or deny requests for wiretapping, rather the President notifies these committees of what actions are taking place.

Furthermore, anyone other than journalists that leak information about this Terrorist Surveillance Program could face a fine of up to $1 million and/or up to a 15-year jail sentence. This encourages government secrecy and leaves no accountability.

It is essential that the people know the details to a program where one person has unchecked authority to conduct countless surveillance on Americans.

According to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union on March 16, this bill is unconstitutional -- violating the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens from unwarranted searches and seizures and requires judiciary authorization for surveillance. This bill would authorize unrestricted and unaccountable surveillance.

The ACLU also claims that the provisions in this bill restrict whistleblowers from disclosing any information about the program severely limits the ability of Americans to be informed about this program.

According to Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group, the mainstream media has been ineffective in communicating accurately the consequences of this bill.

In two instances, the media has misrepresented the provisions of this bill.

The first occurred on March 17 -- an article in the Washington Post stated that the President would have to convince a small group of lawmakers in both the House and Senate that it was necessary to continued surveillance beyond the 45-day period. The bill states that the President doesn’t have to convince anybody, he just has to inform the subcommittees.

Another article from the Associated Press on March 23 stated that the President must obtain Congressional approval before reauthorizing surveillance after the 45-day period. Once again, the law states otherwise -- the President has the sole authority to conduct wiretapping. The Terrorist Surveillance Subcommittees merely get informed on who is getting wiretapped.

Currently, the bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

If passed, the bill would not be permanent, rather it would sunset after five years.

If you agree or disagree with this bill, contact your Senators and/or the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and voice your opinion.

John Osborn is the community editor of the Lumberjack Newspaper out of Humboldt State University, CA. He is passionate about civil rights, justice, and accountability.

Posted by: CHE | March 29, 2006 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Kerry = a buffoon

Posted by: Sandy | March 28, 2006 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Thanks J. I actually forgot abt the whole contest thing, but that is a pretty amazing poem and amazing way to have your words immortalized. But yeah, I love the Statue of Liberty and the freedom it represents. When I see it, every time I see it, I cant help but be reminded about that. Literally, neither I, nor millions upon millions of people would even exist on this earth if it wasnt for that freedom. Thats why I laugh when ideological numnutses say things like "democrats dont care about this country" or we "dont get it." I would physically not even exist right now if it wasnt for the freedom of living in this country. You cant "get it" much more than that. I think its safe to say that, for example, contrary to Tom Delay's belief, Justices O'Connor and Bader Ginsburg "get it". But yet Tom continues to insult our intelligence. Tom, give it up, buddy. Its over.

Anyway, back to immigration, im compelled to post this, but the guy who authored that piece from the Center for Immigration Studies is (of course) going to be on CSPAN Wash Journal tomorrow morning:

08:15 AM EST
0:45 (est.) LIVE
Guest Worker Program
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Steven A. Camarota , Center for Immigration Studies

Should be verrry interesting and informative for sure. Well worth watching or streaming on the net later ( Unless, that is, that you want to continue to look like a boob running around saying things like "nasty immigrants are stealing our jobs!"

I hate to sound like a total cspan commercial but Thank God for them. Nowhere else in the world is there a media outlet like that. Props where props are due, know what im sayin?

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | March 28, 2006 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Excellent post, as usual FairAndBalanced

Those elequent words in the inscription (to the Statue of Liberty), as I'm sure you know, were written by the great American poet Emma Lazarus in a contest she won. If someone today tried to write those words in a contest, they'd be in danger of being threatened with treason, unfortunately. Thanks again for reminding all of us of that great poet and her poem that we all should keep in mind.

Posted by: Jason | March 28, 2006 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who has any interest in this debate should read this document:

Dropping Out
Immigrant Entry and Native Exit
From the Labor Market, 2000-2005

March 2006

While the findings illuminate pros and cons on each side of the debate, one thing can be sure: that less-educated workers of both immigrant and native status have largely been ignored by both political parties.

some quotes from the Conclusion:

"The findings of this report call into the question the idea that America is desperately short of less-educated workers."

"The labor force participation has fallen significantly for both natives without a high school degree and those with only a high school degree."

From those two quotes I gather that A) all those anti-immigrant folks who say that immigrants are stealing American's jobs are uninformed and that B) the opportunity exists for less-educated Americans to get jobs exists but for reasons unknown to me they have decided not to take those jobs. And, yes, I am partisan, and yes, I think that Republicans who want to criminalize our immigrant workforce are racists, but I cant come up with a reason why less-educated Americans would NOT want to share the job pool with immigrants... OTHER than the fact that they just dont like immigrants. And I cant think of a reason why they dont like immigrants other than the fact that they are also racist. Im thinking out loud again (and there's no 'preview' button on this blog) but I think that the less-educated folks have racist tendencies b/c they are not educated. But the politicos on the Right (for example Frist and that lunatic Tancredo) have no excuse other than that they are simply racist to the core and represent other educated white folks who are also racist.

I wish there was a preview button on this site, but those are my thoughts on the debate. Once again, the GOP has shown its true colors in the face of American values.

Somewhere there exists an inscription that reads:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It used to mean something, but not in Bush's and the GOP's America.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | March 28, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse


After reading your comment I have a few questions:

* I gather that you read the Post, since you comment at this site from time to time. Do you remember the Paper's discussion of Illegal Immigration during the VA. Gubernatorial campaign? As you may recall, Jerry Kilgore tried to make illegal immigration one of his main issues and the Post discussed the topic quite a bit at that time. FYI, Kilgore also lost the election as people seemed MORE concerned with the economy, transit issues, etc. Oh well, I'm sure you can explain my answer away by cursing the "liberal media."

* Also, I'm curious who the "them" is that you're referring to in your post. Are you saying that 73% of Latinos will never finish high school or that 73% of illegal immigrants won't? Or in your mind, are those two groups interchangeable? Again, just to let you know, it turns out that all Latinos are NOT illegal immigrants after all - or gang members for that matter. Who knew...

* Finally, since anyone that isn't a fan of the Minutemen is apparently a "simpering idiot," does that mean that both President Bush and the frontrunner for the Republican Nomination in '08 are "simpering idiots?" I might agree with that assessment, but I imagine for different reasons.

Posted by: Colin | March 28, 2006 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Now that Bush has shuffled the deck chairs, is the SS Titanic (Bush regime) sinking faster and slower.

I don't think anyone noticed the icebergs (Iraq War) ... until that's fixed and we vamoose, nothing will change.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | March 28, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse


RE: CA-50 special election
Based on poll numbers, the April special election should pit Bilbray v Busby for the June run-off. Correct? Also, should Bilbray win the June run-off, what happens for the November elections? Can all of those people jump back in again or could only Busy since she is the, mainly, sole Dem in race?

Posted by: Political Junkie | March 28, 2006 1:15 PM | Report abuse


I can only applaud your "Office Space" reference at the end of the Q&A session.

Welcome back.

Posted by: Gravy | March 28, 2006 1:14 PM | Report abuse

If those minutemen could muster 500,000 people and march on Austin, or Phoenix, or LA at the same time then they would get the same press. The only problem is there are about 1000 of them. No matter what the Latino community and the MSM think the immigration debate is a second teir subject in most areas behind the war, the economy, and national security. The people who support either side just make alot of noise when they yell at the wind that is why we hear so much about it.

Posted by: Andy R | March 28, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I notice the absence of polls on America's anger of illegal immigration. Of course, the libs at the WaPo never miss an opportunity to quote anti-Bush, anti-republican polls. But any public opinion data is missing when the left-wingers write about Americans views on buy amnestt for $2,000. Instead, we get the simpering idiots writing about the hard-working illegals. Odd, all those prisoners and gang members must be white supremists for journalism sake. Minutemen guard the border and they are vigilantes. Students block a highway with Mexican flags, and the MSM is in love with these heroes. 73% of them will never finish high school, but they sure can wave a flag and make mob rule the governing principle of AMerica.

Posted by: Karen | March 28, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company