I gave John Edwards more money than I've given to any candidate in my life, and I'm glad I did. He raised critical issues about America's economic divides, and got them on the Democratic agenda. He was the first major candidate to stake out strong comprehensive platforms on global warming and health care. He hammered away on the Iraq war, even using scarce campaign resources to run ads during recent key Senate votes. He'd have made a powerful nominee-and president.
I've been going through my mourning for a while for his campaign not getting more traction, so his withdrawal announcement didn't shock me. But sad as I am about his departure, I feel good about being able to switch my support to Barack Obama, and will do all I can to help him win.
I've actually been giving small donations to both since Iowa, while hoping that the Edwards campaign would belatedly catch fire, and exploring ways the two campaigns could work together. With Edwards gone, I think Obama is the natural choice for his supporters, and that Edwards should step up and endorse him as his preferred nominee. All three major Democratic candidates have their flaws and strengths-they all have excellent global warming plans, for instance. But Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo joining money and power.
Here are a dozen reasons why I feel proud to have my energy, dollars and vote now go to Obama: 1. The Iraq war: Obviously, invading Iraq remains the most damaging single action of the Bush era. Obama spoke out against it at a public rally while Clinton was echoing Bush's talking points and voting for it. Obama's current advisors also consistently opposed the war, while Clinton's consistently supported it. It's appropriate that Clinton jumped to her feet to clap when Bush said in his recent State of the Union address that there was "no doubt" that "the surge is working." 2. Clinton's Iran vote: The Kyl-Lieberman bill gave the Bush administration so wide an opening for war that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Hillary voted for it. Obama and Edwards opposed it. 3. The youth vote: If a Party attracts new voters for their first few elections, they tend to stick for the rest of their lives. Obama is doing this on a level unseen in decades. By tearing down the candidate who inspires them, Clinton will so embitter many young voters they'll stay home. 4. Hope matters: When people join movements to realize raised hopes, our nation has a chance of changing. When they damp their hopes, as Clinton suggests, it doesn't. Like Edwards, Obama has helped people feel they can participate in a powerful transformative narrative. That's something to embrace, not mock. 5. Follow the money: All the candidates have some problematic donors-it's the system--but Hillary's the only one with money from Rupert Murdoch. Edwards and Obama refused money from lobbyists. Clinton claimed they were just citizens speaking out, and held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Obama spearheaded a public financing bill in the Illinois legislature, while Clinton had to be shamed by a full-page Common Cause ad in the Des Moines Register to join Obama and Edwards in taking that stand. 6. John McCain: If McCain is indeed the Republican nominee, than as Frank Rich brilliantly points out, he's perfectly primed to run as the war hero with independence, maturity and integrity, against the reckless, corrupt and utterly polarizing Clintons. Never mind that McCain's integrity and independence is largely a media myth (think the Charles Keating scandal and his craven embrace of Bush in 2004), but Bill and Hillary heralding their two-for-one White House return will energize and unite an otherwise ambivalent and fractured Republican base. 7. Mark Penn: Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, runs a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented villains from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster. 8. Sleazy campaigning: Hillary stayed on the ballot in Michigan after Edwards and Obama pulled their names, then audaciously said the delegates she won unopposed should count retroactively. She, Bill and their surrogates have conducted a politics of personal attack that begins to echo Karl Rove, from distorting Obama's position on Iraq and abortion choice, to dancing out surrogates to imply that the Republicans will tar him as a drug user. 9. NAFTA: Hillary can't have it both ways in stoking nostalgia for Bill. NAFTA damaged lives and communities and widened America's economic divides. Edwards spoke out powerfully against it. Clinton now claims the agreement needs to be modified, but her husband staked all his political capital in ramming it through, helping to hollow out America's economy and split the Democratic Party for the 1994 Gingrich sweep. 10. Widening the circle: Obviously Obama spurs massive enthusiasm in the young and in the African-American community. I'm also impressed at the range of people turning out to support his campaign. At a Seattle rally I attended, the volunteer state campaign chair had started as Perot activist. The founding coordinator in the state's second-largest county, a white female Iraq war vet, voted for Bush in 2000 and written in Colin Powell in 2004 before becoming outraged about Iraq "I've always leaned conservative," she said, "but Obama's announcement speech moved me to tears. The Audacity of Hope made me rethink my beliefs. He inspires me with his honesty and integrity." As well as inspiring plenty of progressive activists, Obama is engaging people who haven't come near progressive electoral politics in years. 11. The story we tell: Obama captures people with a narrative about where he wants to take America. His personal story is powerful, but he keeps the emphasis on the ordinary citizens who need to take action to make change. Clinton, in contrast, focuses largely on her personal story, her presumed strengths and travails. Except for the symbolism of having a woman president, it's a recipe that downplays the possibility of common action for change. 12. Citizen movements matter: Edwards not only ran for president, but worked to build a citizen movement capable of working for change whatever his candidacy's outcome. Obama has taken a similar approach, beginning when he first organized low-income Chicago communities and coordinated a still-legendary voter registration drive. His speeches consciously encourage his supporters to join together and constitute a force equivalent to the abolitionist, union, suffrage, and civil rights movements. Like Edwards, he's working to build a movement capable of pushing his policies through the political resistance he will face (and probably of pushing him too if he fails to lead with enough courage). In this context, Clinton's LBJ/Martin Luther King comparison, and her dismissal of the power of words to inspire people, is all too revealing. She really does believe change comes from knowing how to work the insider levers of power. Edwards and Obama know it takes more.
That's why this Edwards supporter is proud to do all I can to make Barack Obama the Democratic nominee and president.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change, and Soul of a Citizen See www.paulloeb.org. See www.paulloeb.org.
Thanks for pulling it all together. I'm amazed, tho, at the number of women over 55 I meet who have all kinds of arguments in favor of Hillary, including: 1) "this country will never vote for a Black man;" 2) "she's a woman and I'm a woman;" 3) "He's too young;" etc.
by
Amy Fried (39 articles, 108 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 2:06:10 PM
Paul, You have thought this out yet leave many issues off the article. Health Care is a big one... as much as Obama say's he's for Universal coverage, he's leaving 15 million in the dust with his plan, and it's not a path to Single Payer as Edwards is. That said, here is what I wrote to my list on my thoughts from yesterday. (I've left off Edwards speech as most hear have read it already.)
-----
Hello Everyone on my mailing list... and a few other fellow Progressive Travelers,
I know many of, if not most of you are curious as to what I think and feel regarding the choice John Edwards and his family have made today to suspend his race for the White House today.
Below is the full text of his speech given in New Orleans this morning. It is a statement of awareness and intention that reaches out to all of us, asking us to stay focused and demanding that our nation face up to its responsibilities, for those less fortunate and mistreated among us. This is what this campaign was all about.
To me, the real victim here is the nation that didn't hear this message, for the Main Stream Media (MSM) gave him only 6% of the coverage compared to the 30-40% it gave Billary and Barack... yet he brought in far more voters, almost 4 to 1 to their averages. This is telling indeed. The corporate media doesn't want you to see or think about the poor, they don't want you to support a candidate who recognizes that the corporate control of this nation feared him the most to marginalize the campaign as it did.
Now Edwards was clear not to endorse but to challenge both Obama and Clinton to prove to us all that our issues are their issues. He also did not DROP OUT OF THE RACE. He used the word SUSPEND for a reason. If he didn't do well in the Super Tuesday races, he would likely have been marginalized at the Convention, but my take is that now, with so many of us voting Absentee, that even a small number of votes will gain him delegates in Denver. If Obama and Clinton fail to garner sufficient delegates for a first ballot win, it would throw open the convention and we would have the small but ever present possibility that the wise and respectable southerner from North Carolina could be in a position to bring the party together, either as king maker or nominee... who knows, but it was a smart move indeed. Not for his own possible gain in the future, but that it keeps the focus on Progressive ideals, and that was the most brilliant part of today. For that, I respect Edwards all the more.
I will vote for John Edwards when I submit my ballot on Tuesday, as I am not afraid of Hillary or Barack becoming the nominee, I am a Progressive Democrat who will keep the Progressive flame alive and make their supporters and candidates prove to me they are worthy of my support in Denver and in the General Election. Both have a long way to go, and while I asked constantly of each group, to tell me why should I support their candidate... what "Change" will they bring, their was little proof provided. That's not good enough for me, its far to cautious and to much of a fence walk. The last time this happened, with Bill in '92, we got NAFTA, the end of Welfare support for needy families, the Telecommunications Act, massive corporate growth and a diminished and marginalized Democratic Party. DO YOU WANT THAT AGAIN? When you walk on the fence, you have little doubt you will fall off.
The Edwards speech was also a gauntlet challenge to both Clinton and Obama to woo 'us' with clear movement to our Progressive Agenda, and if one or both do so, and are not just doing so with flowery words, we will know it and our nation will be better for it.
No matter what happens between now and the August Democratic Convention, I will continue to hold the party and all its candidates feet to the fire of the Progressive agenda. And that means that each and every one who is joining the Obama movement or still believing in the 'hope' of Billary better be prepared to hold their candidate accountable to. For as to date, the candidates and their supporters have yet to deliver on anything more than dreams. I want specifics and substance, not corporate bull crap, smoke and mirrors.
Show me the beef.
Add to that, will you be around when they take office, and disappoint you as so many before have done to us. Don't let that happen, join PDA, become a delegate to the Democratic Party or at least join a Democratic Club, get on the inside and drive the agenda. This isn't American Idol as much as the MSM wants it to be. This is for the survival of the planet, and all the peoples who live on it. This isn't going to end when the elections are over, it will only have begun. You can't walk away and say you are finished. That is the time the leadership must be held accountable.
Trust me, I want to be pleased and surprised if both should not only prove their mettle in supporting the progressive agenda, I want be wrong in not supporting them outright... but I can not do that now, because it's not about the candidate, it's about the Progressive Agenda... Ending the war, Clean Money, Ending Poverty, Universal Health Care for all and the environmental fight dealing with Global Climate change. That is what this is about.
So don't be disappointed if you support Billary or Barack and lose in November because of a hidden but solid racist sexist bent in this nation that shows who we really are. Man I sure hope I'm wrong on this, but I don't think so. I've traveled far and wide and spoken to 'good people' about many issues, hatred and fear is well entrenched folks, it's gonna be an interesting trip. The younger generations are not the majority, those who still fear are, I hope it is time for a change, but I'm not holding my breath.
Thanks to all of you who joined with me in support of John Edwards. Thank you for putting up with my countless emails. Thank you for your concerns and compassion, Even if the MSM gave the Edwards Campaign an even shake and John had won, our fight for our nation would continue. We would need to stay vigilant to keep him in line with our thinking as much as pushing for Congressional and Senatorial politico's to come to us to do our bidding, and not the other way around.
The choice, as John Edwards has laid out today is... yours.
Sincerely,
Wayne Williams
Elected Delegate to the CA. Democratic Party - 41st AD
by
Wayne Williams (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 3:43:12 PM
I urge you to study his political backers more closely
and I do not mean the Chicago real estate person. I mean the corporations, lobbies and individuals that give him money and support. Do you know who AIPAC is? This man has committed himself to many things. Change is not one of them. Look up who his foreign policy adviser is.
These people represent war and the death of innocents.
Research reveals truth and the truth will set you free.
Voting for "appearances" will assure you of a continuation of the status quo. The most pleasant "appearing" candidate is their goal.
by
tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 3:53:19 PM
(I won't bother to call them candidates) have little-to-nothing to offer Americans facing an immoral war and a collapsing economy.
What we can do is join with like minded folks and concentrate on our shared values, making as big an impression on our local communities as we can.
If we support an unknown/untested like Obama we're bound to be embarrased by what the GOPers dig up about him in October, or the Bush-lite policies that continue to haunt us later. Better to sit on our hands than be co-opted.
by
Laudyms (0 articles, 808 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 403 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 5:41:47 PM
INdeed he has good talk and sounds progressive BUT his advisors are big business/staus quo people. U need to look below the surface!
I must admit Hilary's advisors are even worse: it's the old guard with war criminals like Madeleine ALbright ( "it was justified to kill women and children in Yugoslavia to achieve the goals" Goals that might have been acheived peacefully by waiting and adding more pressure on Milosovich but M. Albright is a Croat...)
And U can loook at the others and their ties to big business or the old crew under Bill's administration.
Chris
by
crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:35:45 AM
This article proves that "progressives" can rationalize
absolutely anything to themselves. There's no limit to what they will swallow. Just watch: in a few months, this same writer will come up with 12 nice reasons to support Hillary.
Instead of saying that Hillary's strategists are sleazier than Obama's, the argument will shift to "McCain's strategists are sleazier." Every single point can be taken over almost verbatim, just using the ol "Search-and-Replace" button to change the names, where necessary.
Loyalists of the Democratic Party will swallow whatever slop they're served. When all else fails, the old reliable "The Republican would be worse" meme is invoked, and Voila! You've got your material for an article on "A Dozen Reasons Why This Obama Supporter is Backing Hillary."
I know it's almost hopeless to try to warn Dem Party Loyalists -- but try to get your minds around this thought: Both Obama and Hillary are corporatist-militarists. Neither has opposed Bush on ANY of his crimes, since they've been in Washington. If you are "inspired" by such terrible candidates, you deserve endless war, and limitless power for corporations, because that's exactly what you're voting for.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1171 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 4:17:26 PM
Abstain from voting, then sit back and scream for 4/8 more years of another republican president? -- and watch the war go on and on and on and on until this country has no more resources at all?
Pick from among all the candidates the one whom you personally find least odious, and place your vote anyway?
Or just write cranky, sulky, bitter, unconstructive letters like the above -- and do nothing else.
by
Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM
Those are Obama's words about the defense budget, "expand the armed forces". As long as he thinks in those terms, he represents no change for me. Maybe he said it to pander to people who think the USA needs to export death, maybe not. But I WILL NOT VOTE FOR MORE MIC status quo. I'd rather vote for DK as a write-in or Nader if he runs or even Cynthia Mckinney as a Green. No more Democrats without REALY being a genuine progressive. Period, Exclamation pt.
At least I won't puke on election day, or have to hold my nose, or just stay home.
I ain't drinkin' the kool aid ever again, thanks.
by
Papawhale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 4:27:49 PM
That Pakistan thing redoubled my support for Kucinich!
But Dennis is now in a fight to keep his seat in Congress, so any who love Dennis's spunk need to contribute what they can now to his congressional campaign. We need to keep the most progressive voices in congress.
I MAY pull the lever for Obama on Feb 5 in AZ, because Hill and Bill have earned our disgust, over and over. But I don't vote for Barrack with many illusions, just a shred of hope.
Until the truth about 9/11 is exposed, the charade goes on quite universally...
by
Carl Weis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 11:52:55 PM
Obama just bragged today about raising $32 million in January. Obviously, it didn't come from grass roots. Edwards was told to drop out, as more corporate money would not be coming his way. He's already been bought and paid for, so it mattered little to him.
Hillary has been bought and paid for, almost forever, so it matters little who now wins on the Democrat side. They'll still be taking their marching orders from the same puppetmasters that pulled Bush and Cheney's strings. Sorry to say it, but we're going down, folks, big time, and the working class doors are already locked.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 6:36:49 PM
Among other things Obama promises to add 100,000 troops to US military and step up US intervention in Pakistan and Afghanistan, with a focus on Waziristan. To even hint that Obama (remember here he worked AGAINST anti-war candidate Ned Lamont and FOR war hawk Joe Lieberman in their political contest) is any sort of anti-war candidate you have to have your head in the sand. Remember also that he voted FOR the mendacious war criminal Condoleeza Rice to of all things the office of Secretary of State.
Now let’s talk about Iraq.
“I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq.” - Barack Obama
Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire.
Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s call for “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” included repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency”—a goal that means continuation of the war.
Obama’s November speech to the CCGA advocates a vaguely timed Iraq “scenario” in which “U.S. forces” might remain in the occupied state for an “extended period of time.” Obama advances a “reduced but active [U.S. military] presence” that “protects logistical supply points” and “American enclaves like the Green Zone” (site of one of the largest and most heavily militarized “embassies” in history) while “sending a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in the region.” U.S. troops “remaining in Iraq” will “act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.” This is part of what Obama meant when he told a fawning David Brooks that, “the U.S. may have no choice but to slog it out in Iraq.”
As an aside I'd hold off on the praise of Obama's advisers as they are without exception a pretty despicable lot. If you want the long laundry list of who these people are I'll gladly supply it.
Obama is not against the Occupation of Iraq (It's NOT A WAR) he is only for rearranging the rules of occupation. Please read closely, among other things, the entirety of his speech at the CCGA. He will relocate troops and keep Special Ops in Iraq and hasn't whispered a word about the mercenaries as far as I know (I've read tons on the guy but haven't heard anything on this subject so if anyone has his platform on Blackwater et al let me know).
by
coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 6:09:03 PM
I was thinking that having Edwards in the race would keep the other two honest. It didn't. Obama and Hillary both have made deals that give them war chest in excess of 100 million each. It makes me wonder what they need me for. Edwards said he would have troops out within 10 months after he was elected. He also addressed the disparity of wealth, and the lack of universal health coverage. If Obamary think they can keep dancing around these issues and still get me in their camps they are nuts. I heard Nader saying that he is looking into trying to make another run and I can't see any reason that I shouldn't support his candidacy.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 223 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 8:30:17 PM
The guy's a liar, a spoiled brat, a crooked opportunist -- a sad, twisted, cynical parody of the once-politically-correct activist who did good things and now and forevermore wants to be in the limelight he has lost. I think he has become morbidly, massively, deranged.
If you didn't lose all respect for this shoddy man over the past several sorry elections, you weren't paying any attention at all.
Don't even THINK about Nader. Are you going to waste your opportunity to vote on such out-of-date drekk? Pathetic!
by
Jami (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM
OBAMA IS JUST ANOTHER GLOBAL PLAYER, JUST LIKE HILLARY, MC-CAIN, AND ALL THE TOP TIER CANDIDTES FROM BOTH PARTY'S, THIS ELECTION, I MEAN "CONTEST" IT JUST A GAME THE GLOBALIST ARE PLAYING ON THE AMERICAN VOTER. THE GLOBALIST ARE WEEDING OUT THE CANDIDATES THAT THEY CAN TRUST TO FORFELL THEIR AGENDA, OBAMA AS ALL TRHE CANDIDATES WILL COMPLETE THE GLOBALIST AGENDA, WHEN ELECTED AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO WE VOTE FOR, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO SINK IN. ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE EITHER CFR MEMBERS OR ARE BOUGH AND PAID FOR BY THE TC GLOBALIST. AND THE VOTING MACHINES ARE RIDGED. SO WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHERE IS THE ELECTION. THIS IS FOOLS GAME, AND IT SEAMS LIKE WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BE BRAINWASHED TO BE GOOD AT IT. THERE IS ONLY ONE PATRIOT CANDIDATE LEFT STANDING AND THATS RON PAUL, YOU CAN VOTE FOR A PATRIOT, OR GLOBALIST, THAT IT FOLKS.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 2:44:13 AM
EVERYBODY TALKS OF WHAT THIS CANDIDATE SAID AND THIS CANDIDATE SAID MAKES ME SICK. TAKE ANYTHING ANY OF THESE GLOBALIST CANDIDATES SAID TO COURT AND IN FROM OF A JUDGE, AND THE JUDGE WILL SAY I CAN'T EXCEPT HEAR SAY. YOU HAVE TO GO BY THEIR VOTING RECORD, AND MOST IS THE MONEY TRAIL. AS FOR OBAMA, JUST GOOGLE( OBAMA GLOBALIST) AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. OR ANY OTHER CANDIDATE THEIR NAME AND GLOBALIST.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 3:52:42 AM
Edwards was astrong supporter of the war, a hawk pushing for a rush to action in Congress in 02. He wrote an Oped piece in the Wash post that leaves no doubt. He had no excuse: he was on the Senate intelligence Committee and knew there was no clear evidence of WMDs, no threat to us, no nuclear program- as acknowledged later by SEnator Durbin.
The piece is reveiling:" Congress must be clear" Wash post Sept 19 02.
He says "Iraq is agrave and growing threat ...Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire middle East into chaos"
Hummm What would Obama say about that?
I'd like OBama to choose Kucinich as arunningmate; at least we'd get a clear sense of where he's going but that won't happen cause it wqould be seen as pollitical suicide. chris
by
crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:23:27 AM
THIS IS NOT A WORLD OF ILLUSIONS, WE ARE TALKING REALITY, WHY NOT TAKE THE TIME AND GOOGLE (OBAMA GLOBALIST,) AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE SITE (INDYTRUTH BLOG) CLICK THERE AND YOU WILL SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF MISTER TELL YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT TO HEAR OBAMA. SORRY FOR BEING STRAIT FORWARD, BUT LEARNING THE TRUTH WILL ONLY HELP PEOPLE MAKE A CLEAR CHOICE. AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DINNIS AND RON PAUL RUN TOGETHER, THEN WE WOULD GET A PEOPLES GOVERNMENT. BUT WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THIS WILL HAPPEN. AND IF YOU WANT TO THROW STICKS AND STONES AT ME, FINE.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 7:13:41 AM
