Rob...

I'm waiting for you to post your teeth-jarring, nerve-shattering experience from today newsletter as a diary, so all of us well-wishers won't flood your inbox with messages of "Wow! We're so glad you and your friend are OKAY!"

by Sandy Sand (130 articles, 0 quicklinks, 153 diaries, 1174 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM
 

Could the Democrats actually

BE turning back into Democrats again? I surely hope so but I don't count my chickens before the eggs hatch anymore. I've felt too disappointed over the years when I do such a thing. I understand your insight and I hope and will trust you are right on.

I didn't think that the Bill Richardson thing for Obama was such a great direction as Bill has plenty of dirty laundry. However, his Hispanic base will do some good. Maybe they all read my letter to Howard Dean. I chewed the whole democrat party out and warned them of the "third party voting coming up" as a historical event in voting in the General. I sincerely WILL vote 3rd party if Hillary is the nominee. I did mentioned how she was HELPING the repubs with her jabs at Obama. One thing I know (not for certain) is Obama doesn't have all the dirty laundry that Hillary does and won't give as much ammo for the repubs and mad man Mac.

Rob, I am certainly glad you made it thru the wreck. I have been in a similar type accident, and I only know that Angels work over time, endlessly, and tenaciously. You are invaluable with your OpEd site and all the work and investigating you do. I thank MY lucky stars that you made it thru this rollover. Keep up the great work.

Give 'em hell in Pennsylvania!

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 213 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:56:36 AM
 

Clinton's Coattails

Bill Clinton never did have coattails long enough to cover his ass, as we saw in steady Republican congressional gains throughout his presidency. The 2000 election was too close to win without him and would likely have been moreso with him. Now we see that he still doesn't have the pull to help his spouse secure what started out as a sure thing, slam dunk certainty.

The tandem myths of Clinton leadership and DLC leadership are about to dissipate into the ether from which their insubstantial babble originated. It is serendipitous that this should occur at the same time that the electorate is waking up to the other myths of right wing ascendancy and the notion that they have any idea of how to govern, let alone the notion of a right to.

As we wake up, though, we don't have time to rub our eyes. The feet have to hit the floor and the work begin, because our chance will be fleeting. It is said; and I wish I could remember by whom (perhaps someone can help me out), that in a crisis it is the ready plan that prevails. If we don't have a plan, we had better get one in short order and act on it!

by John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 903 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM
 

Rob,

Allow me to express my relief to hear you came through your accident more or less whole and well. They say that anything can happen in an accident, but speaking from the expeience of my own near death experience, I am amazed at how consistent the potential last thoughts are from one person to another.

Anyway, I'm glad to have you and Stu sticking around, hopefully for a long, long time. After all, we've got stuff for you to do!

by John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 903 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:09:29 PM
 

Obama cannot appear to be progressive ?????

First, glad to hear you're OK. I didn't know you were in an accident until I read the comments in this thread.

Second, I would caution Democrats to fully understand the danger of wounded animals. The Clintons and the DLC don't think in terms of losing; they think in terms of "comeback kids" and in terms of getting even. Always remember that down today does not mean out tomorrow. Keep a wary eye on these right-wing infil-traitors.

And third, I have to take issue with this statement Rob made in his article:

"While Obama must avoid, in the election, signs of progressive or liberal tendencies, his win will be a clear rejection of the drift to the right."

Ouch !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama must avoid signs of progressive or liberal tendencies??? There are just no words to express how misguided I believe that point of view to be.

I'm inferring from this remark that the view of election campaigns is to "bait and switch." The idea is to be a wolf in sheep's clothing or a sheep in wolf's clothing but not reveal your true inner values. The idea is that you can espouse moderate, centrist values with the whole nation watching and then, once in office, you rip off your Clark Kent outfit to reveal a great big "S" on your chest.

Or perhaps the view is that Obama is merely clay to be molded and, once in office, contrary to his history and his campaign rhetoric, somehow progressives will magically be able to mold him to a form they prefer.

I couldn't disagree with this "magic transformation" theme more than I do. In my view, campaigns should have integrity. Candidates should fight for a vision that reflects their deepest values. The nation, which all too often does not pay attention, should demand a truthful presentation of what a candidate plans to do for the next four, or maybe eight, years. Instead, in a cynical "can't campaign as a progressive", we are told that the packaging and marketing should have nothing to do with the actual product inside the box. The statement, however pragmatic its intent, advocates deception for the sake of winning.

And what, exactly, is it that would be won by such tactics? Frankly, what has ever been won? Has it not seemed that our "full of lies" electoral, i.e. marketing, process has left us unsatisfied with every president for the last 45 years? Could it just be that our naive belief that "this one will be better" lacks substance?

Could it just be that "can't appear progressive" leads to "not progressive?" Could it just be that a candidate who told Americans the truth would win in a landslide and bring about the very real changes the nation requires? I ask anyone reading this to hold all candidates accountable. Think of what the most critical issues are and demand real solutions. Obama's plan on global warming is way too little way too late. Obama has called for INCREASING the size of the US military. The military budget is bankrupting the country and starving all programs for people in a bathtub. Obama has failed to address how he will restore power to the American people and strip power from the corporations that run our government.

No, of course he will not be able to do all this by himself. Of course we all need to be more active and build a movement to bring about change. But that does not absolve Obama, or any candidate, of their failure to prominently raise the most critical issues during the campaign. If candidates cannot even talk about the critical issues and what they will try to do to provide solutions, they do NOT deserve our support. To endorse a candidate who "cannot appear to be progressive" is sheer folly.

by welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM
 

Promises vs. direction

Much of what you say is true. On the other hand, we have all heard candidates promise the moon! Our nation and our government are mired in one hell of a mess. It seems to me that any new President is going to run into a mess of accumulated problems of which s/he cannot at this point understand, let alone offer a remedy. So, do you want empty promises? Or do you want a general direction that will evolve and move toward the progressive values we hold dear? Do we risk believing in the possible, embodied in a man of demonstrated intelligence and apparent integrity? Or do we get our knickers in a twist because he won't tell us what we want to hear right now about realities neither he nor we can contemplate?

by L.M. Arndt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 7:34:49 PM
 

Glad you're alright

Rob, sorry to hear about your accident and glad to hear you walked away relatively unscathed.

It is nice to hear those coming out for Obama, however, it worries me that so many are afraid he will appear "too liberal" or "progressive". Progressives have brought some the of the greatest advances to our culture and to human civilization. - Freeing the slaves - The right of women to vote - Civil rights - The New Deal - creating a bottom to our society

Creating a fair, free and just society for all - is a progressive idea - why would anyone need to shrink from that? I think it is the framing of Progressive ideas as if they are "the end" to our society that is the problem. The right wing has the bull horn and they throw the word "progressive" or "liberal" around to mean something bad.

Let's look for a minute at what the right wing has done. They have been divisive. They have been spending the US Treasury on corporate welfare and the Military Industrial Complex, deregulating industry, allowing many middle class jobs and college entry level jobs to flee the country to maximize profit. They have had very little regard for the human elements in our society and creating a stable future for all of us.

The word "Conservative" or "Far RIght" or "moral majority" should make Americans from coast to coast cringe, have a bad taste in their mouths and demand change.

I hope you are right that, "A win for Obama will represent a huge step away from the DLC, a step away from a policy of moving the Democratic party to the right." but if in fact "Obama must avoid, in the election, signs of progressive or liberal tendencies" then his win will not be a clear rejection of the drift to the right.

It will in fact be a clear sign that American still largely wants the status quo.

Why are "Progressive" and "Liberal" discussions being muted?

I am hesitant to support Obama because in my view he does not speak progressively enough. I'm told by people that he is progressive, but I'm not so sure his regard stands that test.

I get inspired when speaks, but I also felt inspired by Ronald Reagan's speeches. I wanted to wave a flag and and wear one on my lapel.

I want clarity on the issues - and I want those stands to be progressive - socially responsible - and leave our country better for all.

by August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 388 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 1:21:45 PM
 

Progressive/liberal

Hi Rob-glad to see you came through your experience fairly well. Can be quite earthshaking.

 I like your statement about Obama not appearing too liberal or progressive, but then again I am a Green and I see that stand increasing our numbers and votes greatly.  So stick to your guns and let the liberals and progressives find a better way with us. 

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 224 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:11:35 PM
 

Heh heh.....

Hey, glad you're both okay, the Democratic Party after seven years of supporting the Bush agenda, and you after your crash.

Amd certain that both of you will continue on your appointed courses without regard to minor incidents like a vehicle accident that might have been fatal or war crimes that have already killed more than seven million people.

Welsh Terrier is, as usual, spot on.

by Mark E. Smith (20 articles, 28 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 817 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 3:30:41 PM
 

Wrecks

Rob, I join others in joy of your escape from a wreck that could have left you seriously injured or worse.  It's funny that GOPers I talk with see the Democratic process as a trainwreck.  Apparently, the GOP likes a neat and tidy process even when it brings some of the worst possible candidates to the forefront (GW Bush).  From there, they comortably fall into submission for the good of the Party. 

The Clintons seem determined to win - or lose - at any cost to the Party or the future presidency.  I fear they would rather see McCain win over Obama for the self gratifying pleasure of believing they could have beat McCain if they had only had the chance.  It appears the Cintons are willing to burn that Bridge to the Future that Bill talked about back when he had the audacity of hope.

by Paul Jacobs (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 5:12:45 PM
 

What are you smoking?

"A win for Obama will represent a huge step away from the DLC, a step away from a policy of moving the Democratic party to the right."

Oh yeah? Then why are all the cronies of fascist DLC money bags Felix Rohatyn (i.e. Pelosi, Dodd, Lehey) backing Obama? Why is Wall Street drooling over him? Why have all the financier-owned media outlets been polling for the past month whether Hillary should drop out?

I'll tell you why. It is because Obama will be far easier to bend and break. PERIOD.

We are entering a period that will feature financial turmoil such has never before been seen in modern history. Bear Stearns was just a mere whif of what's to come. Obama is WITH the DLC and their drift to the right where lives unity under the banner of FASCISM.

Obama is entirely on board with the sacrifice that will be demanded in the coming period (thus exposing his empty platitudes for what they are). One only need consider his pro-Wall Street stand on the mortgage foreclosure crisis to cut through the crap that otherwise makes a truly wise Democrat want to lobby the Congress for a tax on constipation.

Most critically, he is owned by American fellow-travelers of those who contol the City of London, the likes of which aim to solidify their vice-grip over the political affairs of our vulnerable Republic which, apparently, is amply supplied with idiots who wouldn't know tyranny from Tiffanys. One need only start with Tony Rezko, work his way to the Chicago Board of Trade, then finish the journey in the City of London at the doorstep of one Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of the richest men in Britain.

Any so-called "progressive" who is incapable of discerning the times we are living in -- the dire need for policies reflective of the tradition of FDR (such as, say, a moratorium on home foreclosures) -- is living the kind of fantasy that will ultimately drive many a man mad. Indeed, one of the intended effects the Empire loving scum who hog the airwaves with their fascist bantering (of course, posing as patriots who are as American as apple pie) are preparing in their coming drive to ruin Obama (that is, once Hillary is out of the way ... peacefully or otherwise) is to disillusion the millions of people who are being duped by his campaign for "change." What a perfect setting this will make for the vicious austerity -- the degradation of all hope in the so-called "American dream" -- that aims to reward Wall Street for its recklessness and provide Mother England with the keys to the kingdom of tyranny she has not stopped pursuing since the very beginning. (Anyone who dismisses this view should ask themselves: if Great Britain had any regard for the United States, then where is her written constitution? Where are her "citizens." They don't exist! They're still subjects. Wretches. Precisely what we are about to become.)

So, Rob, contrary to your belief the progressive movement is taking a step forward, I submit to you that it is already DEAD.

by GoldenT (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 7:10:35 PM
 

Rob, I don't want to nag, but

whatever happened to staying out until Monday! Have your "paid sick leave" when you get a chance.

Now, to the battering of the New Democrats, who are old. Bill Clinton has a nose for where the chips lay, unlike Hillary's pollster who announced on C-Span that he is interested in mini trends. We can make things easier for the old gang Bill started by recognizing that 1994 and Gingrich put a monkey wrench in the works. By that time the economy was at full throttle and he came off of eight years with fiscal bragging rights. And I'm sure he and Hillary are smart enough to realize that 2009 will be even drearier than 1993. It's probably for that reason the Clintons should best run on their record. At least that's my way of summing up a new watchword: It's the world economy, Stupid.

But we eager beavers have to stick with what we think will be good for us individually, as a party, and as a nation. Looking back, I believe that one of Clinton's big mistakes was to let the military solidify into an organization which touches most areas and income levels of the US. By now it is so entrenched that to withdraw a lot of the boondoggle too soon would sour the livelihood of many small towns and some large areas, like the Mississippi shipyards. It's simple to understand that the problem is the same as always. Coming off an expensive war takes time to convert to more sensible ways of creating jobs and improving quality of life.

So here's my question to you heavy thinkers. How can we incorporate the Blue Dogs? Isn't it true they are so bent on military because it was one of the selling points from the traditional Southern Democrats before the Boll Weevils weezled in? They seem to feel it is the only way to get elected in Republican leaning districts. To tell the truth, I can't tell the difference between my Republican Congressman (TN 2) and the state's Blue Dogs. They muddy the waters at voting time on matters dealing with squelching that ill begotten war in Iraq. This is not just a problem in the South. It seems there are Blue Dogs in other states where the districts are more rural/small town. And that also is something epitomized by the Executive Director of the DLC, Blue Dog Harold Ford, Jr. who took the job after he lost the Senate in 06.

I personally think the Progressive part of the party is doing fine in getting new blood. But, maybe a less glamorous effort should be made to combine the Blue Dogs, the Classic Clintonistas, etc., so that Democrats can be counted on to take a vigorous stand on converting the economy to peacetime. An added attribute of a more organized party should be that the various members in the House would stick together on improving national infrastructure and adding impetus to new social and cultural modes to bring us up to the Cyber Age. I haven't said anything about the Senate. I, too, think Hillary would be an ideal Leader. She's essentially "herded cats" all her political life.

by Margaret Bassett (19 articles, 1122 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 620 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 7:53:18 PM
 

Margaret, you have a very clear view

of what's going on and anyone who thinks a Democratic victory in 2008 is going to usher in a period of liberal policies is in for a disappointment.

As for Blue Dog Democrats, any fiscally conservative member of either party has to reckon with the fact that out-of-control military spending is a prescription for fiscal disaster. Conservative thinkers agree that our infrastructure, nation-wide, is falling apart and threatening our abilty to compete in the world.

The bone to throw at Blue Dogs is rerouting the massive mlitary spending in the direction of massive infrastructure repair--using most of the prior military hardware producers to build bridges, national rail, roads, sewerage systems, etc. That keeps money already allocated (although not collected) in the U.S., provides jobs nationwide and brings a degree of value to the spending.

Those jobs cannot be offshored.

Obama's recent fiscal speech cobered a good bit of this territory.

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 40 quicklinks, 160 diaries, 328 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 1:00:59 PM
 

Obama Aligns Foreign Policy with GOP

click here not sure what big deal Bob Casey is in all this.  Bob Casey's endorsement is just an indicator that more Republicans will vote for "Barry" than we might otherwise have thought.  Obama is another Gore-Kerry.

It's really unfortunate how Democrat apologists have convinced themselves that Obama is "special" somehow.  While he ain't McCain, he has bought into the Wall Street-K Street version of foreign policy.  He hasn't gotten my vote yet.  That's for sure! 

by More Voices (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 11:09:59 PM
 

I Do Not Think Casey's Endorsement Can Overcome Rev. Wright

philjberg@gmail.com

I do not think Bob Casey's Endorsement can overcome Reverend Wright's influence on Obama and therefore Obama should withdraw his candidacy for President for the best interests of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States.

The following is a letter I sent to Obama.

The essence of the letter dealt with Obama's lies, hypocrisy, lack of transparency and while using "words," the lack of real meaning.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated the following in a letter to Senator Obama:

March 19, 2008

Hon. Barack Obama

Barack For President

233 N. Michigan Avenue, 11th Floor

Chicago, Illinois

Dear Senator Obama:

I read your speech that you gave in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 that was posted on your website, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."  I tried to hear your speech in person, but I was turned away because I did not have a ticket. Yes, you are an eloquent speaker, but there is more than "words" that make up a person. For the following reasons, I believe that for the best interest of the Democratic Party and the citizens of the United States, you should withdraw your candidacy for President of the United States.

I am a minority, Jewish and white; I am also a Life Member of the NAACP, so I know I can speak out on this most important issue. The issue of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is so outrageous that it is time for you to stop the façade and withdraw.  Personally, I am offended by the Reverend's remarks regarding anti-Semitism and anti-America.  

And the transparency you speak about, yes "words," well in a turnabout you showed your true colors by blatantly lying this past Friday evening when you said on several networks that you were never in a pew when Reverend Wright uttered divisive words. In your speech in Philadelphia you stated, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?  Yes."

What hypocrisy!

You have the audacity to state how Reverend Jeremiah Wright has influenced you throughout the last twenty [20] years, yet you would deceitfully state that you were not aware of his extreme positions, including anti-American words, yes "words" ! Yes, you have been aware of the potential problems with your relationship with Reverend Wright as you specifically excluded him from your announcement for President. 

Can you be honest with the people who have supported you ?  I guess not because you are not a man of your words.

As you stated in your speech, "This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."  It is apparent that the only task you had was to put together a campaign of promises without solutions by saying, change and yes we can.  Can what ? 

Unfortunately, and probably because you are African-American, you were not put under the microscope like other candidates.  You talk about how you built your campaign when you said further in your speech, "Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity.  Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country.  In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans."  However, as we now see, you are not as transparent as you stated.

I really doubt that the following remark by you will stand, that being, "Not once in my conversations with him [Reverend Wright] have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect."

And I do not think that your remark that, "We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias." is on the same level.

I agree with you when you stated, "...race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect.  And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."  However, You have now shown that you cannot be the leader that our country needs.

You went on to say, "This is where we are right now.  It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years.  Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own."  I do agree that your candidacy is "imperfect."

And to  "continue on the path of a more perfect union," yes, we must work together, but I know that you are not the one to lead the challenge !

Please, do the right thing for the Democratic Party and our country that you say you love so much and withdraw your candidacy for President.  It is the right thing to do !

Thank you.

Respectfully,

/s Philip J. Berg

by Philip Berg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 12:20:51 AM
 

Obama bow out?

I often find that the windiest, most prolix comments deliver the wooliest, most ill-considered pronouncements. This comment is no exception. If you follow Dr. Samuel Johnson and "Clear your mind of cant" you will help clear this site of rant.

by Jim Stinson (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 12:33:05 AM
 

Sorry Rob about your accident ..

I really am.  Keep well.

The Obama Trap - ah, there's the rub! The same old, same old militaristic agenda as per usual. The same old influence peddling, same old endless rants with endless variations.

The next powers that be "ploy" -- and they have no intention of being put of commission, profit$, or thinking they deserve to run the world even though the United States is BROKE - is the GREENING OF AMERICA, the new "soft" fascism, as I've warned.  

Suddenly all the lovely enlightened ones discover we MUST GO GREEN, and buy mercury-filled light bulbs for everywhere, mandatory boxes to say how much electricity has been used so you stay on quota, oil gets rationed by license plate numbers on a rotating basis, we still get the GM foods treats as promised by HiLIARy's minions but in GREEN doses, while the SOCIALISM FOR THE RICH in an America battered by insolvency and unmitigated GREED - gets a smiling, cooperative President.

Please, give me a break.  Is there really no love for the grassroots movement for DEMOCRACY at all?  Is everyone still really in the trance?

America is into the GWOT up to its eyeballs. Halliburton keeps on building detention facilites - now to come in Afghanistan big time.

As a wiseman once said:  If nothing CHANGES, nothing CHANGES.

And the addiction to American POWER and its cooperation with Big Money, has not changed at all - it's just changing the drugs it takes to help the pain go away a little more smoothly this time .. 

There will be RIOTS at the convention no matter WHO Is nominated, no matter how the DNC resolves "its" criiss. The middle class, as yet, has NO IDEA what is about to hit them; it's just beginning to get the clues ..

by ladybroadoak (37 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 3:42:39 AM
 

ITS A NO WIN, WE ALL LOSE

LIKE I SAID MANY TIMES 2000, 2004, 2008 CAN ANYBODY TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE, IF OBAMA IS NOMINATED MC-CAIN WINS, IF HILLARY IS NOMINATED MC-CAIN WINS.  SO SAY HELLO TO YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT  SENATOR JOHN MC-CAIN, AND WHEN EVER BODY SAYS HE STOLE THE ELECTION, YOU WILL HAVE ASK YOUR SELF WHAT ELECTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. LETS STOP ALL THE BULL, THERE IS NOT ELECTION BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE. THIS I SICK, ALL THE PEOPLE CANDIDATES ARE GONE, MONEY AND MEDIA DECEPTION WINS EVERY TIME, AND NOW WE ARE DEBATING THE GLOBALIST CANDIDATES, SICK SICK AND SICK.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 4:36:20 AM
 

We're glad you aren't dead . . .

.  .  .  but where were you that the car slid on the ice and rolled down a snow-covered embankment?  I'm in the (southern) Poconos, and it's too cold (around 40) but dry here.

As a Pennsylvanian, I think you missed one point: Bob Casey might be more of a team player than a leader, but Bob Casey and Ed Rendell aren't exactly the best of friends.  Further, the Pennsylvania leadership which supports Mrs Clinton is very much a Philadelphia-area leadership; it doesn't stretch across the state. 

by Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 6:45:40 AM