Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on May 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
“Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Finally someone understands why I don’t like her!
Er, wait..
OneGyT on May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Maybe that British asshole can go and have his Queen shove his butt.
Indy Conservative on May 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM
With a Qur’an , to be specific.
Indy Conservative on May 24, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Don’t support Hillary? Sexist.
Don’t support Obama? Racist.
Don’t support McCain? Ageist.
jgapinoy on May 24, 2008 at 10:06 PM
“I’ll make you shorter by the head!” – Elizabeth I
My kinda woman.
Limerick on May 24, 2008 at 10:06 PM
They are losing their country to the Muslims and they dare commenting on our politics.
I can see every Brit having the Muslim flag dangling from their butt hole.
Indy Conservative on May 24, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Andrew Stephen has a hellava nerve chirping about sexism here. As mentioned above, it won’t be long before burkas are a common sight on the British evening news. That is, of course, if women will still be allowed to appear on the tube.
Zorro on May 24, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I’ve seen no polls that show any appreciable amount of American men saying they won’t vote for Hillary because of her sex.
Anyone else?
This writer is taking anecdotes of some media types (mostly liberal) making snarky comments about Clinton and extrapolating that to indict all American men.
Hey, he probably gets a nice check for it.
SteveMG on May 24, 2008 at 10:19 PM
The man who wrote those words is completely in the feminist bag, and is incapable of either rational thought or meaningful analysis. He should be ignored.
There’s not a single word in the article that recognizes that the disgust registered against Hillary Clinton is because she’s vicious, narcissistic, cynical, and wholeheartedly dishonest, and the gender-related snubs are only incidental. This boob (no gender reference intended) actually thinks we dislike her because she’s a woman.
Let’s ask him to find out how many misogynistic comments were leveled at Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Liddy Dole, or Condi Rice — not that I actually think a man capable of such bizarre obtuseness would be affected by anything so disturbing as a contrary fact.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
philwynk on May 24, 2008 at 10:26 PM
That tears it.
Are you going to sit here and tell me that the Brittish press was egalitarian in its treatment of Maggie Thatcher?
I’m honestly asking.
redneck hippie on May 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Gloating unshackled Sexism of the ugliest kind has been
shamelessly peddled by the US media.
Well,ya don’t say,isn’t that sumpin!
Umm,News flash,the dislikeing of HilRod began shortly after
1992 and continues to this day,and the most dislike of
Hillary starts off with the non-existent Vast RightWing
conspiracy Kabal,followed up by the bimbo-erupters,Ken
Star and the American people!
Hillary tried to play the women card against the race card
and the Femenazi’s rallied around Hillary,not!
The femenazi’s responce was ————-crickets chirping,
with Ferraro as the only lone cheerleader!
Hillary’s Political demise can be tracked and traced to two
culprits,Bill(Slick Willy)Clinton,and Queen of mean HilRod!
What Bill did to his own party after leaving office,HilRod
has succeeded on finishing the job!
canopfor on May 24, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Did it ever occur to this yutz that we dislike Hillary because of her a) serial lying and b) policies that would take us down the dead-end path of European social democracy?
Oh, wait. He’s British…..
irishspy on May 24, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Camille Paglia’s take (nut graf):
.
The rest here: Link
SteveMG on May 24, 2008 at 10:38 PM
If I have to be sexist to hate her, I’ll do my best.
Buford Gooch on May 24, 2008 at 10:42 PM
What evidence to the contrary?
Maxx on May 24, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Bullsh!t, I would be quite happy to see an American version of Margaret Thatcher in the White House.
doubleplusundead on May 24, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Bingo, Evita.
Britain should be a lesson to us. Britain is the United States of the 16th through the first part of the 20th century. Britain was the “last, best hope of mankind” before America was a twinkle in our daddy’s eye. They brought civilization to more people than any other single country. Even now, the most successful countries, with rule of law, capitalism, and all the other trappings of Western Civilization, were British colonies.
And look at them now. It’s scary. Our place in the world is not guaranteed, or permanent. We have to work, hard, to maintain it. And right this second, our government isn’t worthy of us.
We should derive no pleasure from Britain’s fall. It’s a lesson to us all.
misterpeasea on May 24, 2008 at 11:01 PM
What a pussy!
ronsfi on May 24, 2008 at 11:06 PM
He makes some fair points, but is way too hyperbolic.
mikeyboss on May 24, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Well now, that might have some resonance if the woman that America had just rejected for national leadership were say a Margaret Hilda Thatcher, but since it is Hilary Rodham Clinton it has none, not at all.
It would be like saying that if a man did not want to have sex with Rosie O’Donnell then he must be asexual.
MB4 on May 24, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Hey, it sounded fancy. You are supposed to be too dumb to notice that its total bullshyte.
surrounded on May 24, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Come on, people, it is The New Statesman, after all…
OldEnglish on May 24, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Peacocks!
Sink me!
Think ye, sir,
How those feathered boys love to flaunt their tails!
Stallions!
Zounds, sir!
Hounds sir! Stags!
Of the goosie and the gander, sir
Which gender is the grander, sir
To render total candor, sir, the spendour is the male’s!
Be an example to your sex
Give your boot a dapper strap
And it’s smarter if your garter has some snap!
Cravats should be flounced about our necks
Wear a nightcap when you nap
Be bewitching with some stitching on your cap!
Now, drape your cape
And puff your cuff
Embroider those lapels!
Be the king of the beasts in pastels!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Strut, sir!
What, sir?
Roosters do!
Give a cock his comb and the hens will pale!
Bucks! Bulls!
More, sir!
Boars, sir! Rams!
Of the nanny goat and billy, sir
Whose beard is fully wooly, sir?
It’s bully for the billy for he’s willy-nilly male!
Sir, be a lion-hearted prig
Fill those pantaloons with light!
I could dangle down a spangle out of sight!
Oh, yes! Be bold, sir!
When it’s cold, slap on that wig
Draw your britches in quite tight
Even more so, and your torso will ignite
Now, smock your frock
Perfume your plume
I’ll let my waistcoat swing!
And the jungle will bow to its king!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Yes, that is why the Lord created men
Remember what we’re here for
Why we must be dressed to kill
If we have to look like Cleopatra
Then we will!
If you’re out to make a splash, cheri,
Do know your haberdashery!
Buttons, buckles, ruffles and lace
Represent the human race!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
Each species needs a sex that’s fated
To be highly decorated
That is why the Lord created men
Percy on May 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Many Americans, especially those in power are so dumb to learn anything from the fall of Great Britain.
Like every stupid human being who lived on this Earth, we learn our lesson only when we’re in trouble.
Indy Conservative on May 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM
What a load of crock. I’m so sick of people in a friggin REPUBLIC thinking the population is better than the government. “Us” picks the government! The population and the government are worthy of each other because they’re both filled with morons.
Darth Executor on May 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM
OHHHH, the New Statesman…well why didnt you say so? in that case its……still bullshyte.
surrounded on May 24, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I really didn’t think that I would have to use the sarc tag.
OldEnglish on May 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM
I’ve never noted this to be the case. Wise ass offers no evidence to support this. But he does call the US on,”going through one of its collectively deranged episodes,” giving no proof of our collective insanity. But complimenting himself on moral and intellectual superiority by tossing out the accusations. He’s a pseudo-intellectual narcissist given to hate filled rants against his betters. But he has a cute accent.
snaggletoothie on May 25, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Ohhhh the SARC tag, well why didnt you say so? In that case…i’m a dork!
sorry..
surrounded on May 25, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Ha! One of my best friends sent me that nutcracker for my birthday last year. I’m cool ahead of the curve. =P
I’m a woman and I’m not concerned with which genitals are in the Oval Office as much as I’m concerned with having the BEST person in the Oval Office. I hate this kind of silly cr@p.
In my experience some men like strong women others don’t, just like some women like geeks, others like jocks. Who cares?
linlithgow on May 25, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Gee, I wonder what Brit Andrew Stephen was writing about Maggie Thatcher 20 years ago. Get stuffed Andrew!
RobCon on May 25, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Prince Charles and Al Gore have some kind of global warming romance going on… What the hell is that all about?
Travis1 on May 25, 2008 at 12:56 AM
“Shine my shoes” is a fine comment on Senator Obama’s emptiness and lack of accomplishments. Shine my shoes.
Kralizec on May 25, 2008 at 12:57 AM
Very entertaining. Where did that come from?
ronsfi on May 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Yeah, wouldn’t it be just great to have the best person in the WH. :::sigh:::
OldEnglish on May 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM
And, of course, if you decide to support a middle-aged (or younger) white male … you’re just another elitist.
This is why I only support Black overweight senior citizen bisexual midgets for President. Because I’m inclusive. And tolerant. And stuff.
Professor Blather on May 25, 2008 at 1:07 AM
FWIW, I really don’g care a bit about the gender of the Preseident. Ditto as to race.
I don’t want socialists in the White House. McCain is the farthest I can get from that result so he has my vote.
I wouldn’t be interested in Hill while drunk. She is not attractive to me. No one csn say Margaret Thatcher was a sexpot or a challenge to MY masculinity, but I would vote for her in a second.
My balls don’t dictate how I vote. My brain handles that.
Harry Schell on May 25, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Folks were gleeful about Hilary’s loss because (1) she’s unlikable, and (2) she’d named herself the heir-apparent. People who didn’t like her, including Dems, were only too happy to see her stumble. They’d feared that they’d be forced to support her, and jubilant that they wound up with another viable *cough* candidate.
I don’t think America is hunky-dory with sexism, but I do think we are hypersensitive to race, at least by comparison. That’s why people aren’t telling Obama to shine their shoes.
salmonczar on May 25, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Hillary’s got more metaphorical hair on her chest than this wanker.
Go bugger some bangers and mash, you stupid git.
profitsbeard on May 25, 2008 at 2:01 AM
They seek him here, they seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere
Is he in heaven or is he in hell?
That demned elusive Pimpernel
Percy on May 25, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Well patient confidentiality precludes me from telling more about what is a very long and sordid story, but I can say this much, it is a lot more unnatural than what Bill Clinton did with those cigars.
Sigy on May 25, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Hey, how could we American men feel threatened by a woman who never wears a dress?
Always Right on May 25, 2008 at 2:29 AM
Well, I don’t agree that us is a bunch of morons.
And even if us was a bunch of morons, it doesn’t necessarily follow that us deserve what us gets. Us has limited choices. Politics is not exactly a noble profession, and thus doesn’t attract noble candidates.
Let me put it this way: I do not deserve Maxine Waters. Among others. And even the people who say things I agree with don’t conform their actions to their rhetoric once they get to DC.
Take power away from the federal government, and give it to the states. Like the Constitution
saysmandates. The closer the politician is to the people he represents, the more responsible he is.misterpeasea on May 25, 2008 at 2:46 AM
The fates are indeed with you, Watson
When once your point of view is changed, the very thing which was so damning becomes a clue to the truth.
Holmes on May 25, 2008 at 2:58 AM
“Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world”
That’s not exactly true. Americans like to delude themselves that they are the best at everything in the world. Including machismo.
Not that this is a bad thing. Pride in their country has heped make America the superpower it is today and the world owes America a dent of gratitude.
Regardless of delusions of machismo (and by the way, the Spanish are by far more macho), America will have a woman president when a viable candidate stands.
How many people here would have voted for Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir (in their heydays) over John McCain?
uptight on May 25, 2008 at 3:08 AM
it’s rather amusing that Brits like to constantly trot out the old ‘Yanks don’t know nothin’ bout politics and don’t talk about it’ and yet this piece of work appears that has little in the way of evidence or any statement that is substantiated in the least.
I am 100% sure there are some men who share 100% of Hilary’s ideology who won’t vote for her simply because she is a woman. (and some who don’t share ideology as well of course)However, I will 100% guarantee that there are men in ANY country who have those same prejudices against female politicians as well. It’s foolish to insist that it’s the sole province of the US.
Finally, I have a billion reasons I would never vote for Hilary even under severe torture and her being a woman doesn’t even rate in the top billion.
MannyT-vA on May 25, 2008 at 6:50 AM
I’m afraid Alan Alda may force us to concede the point.
Bummer.
soundingboard on May 25, 2008 at 6:51 AM
I’ll offer some proof of it: tens of millions of Americans supporting for President (some rabidly so) a far-left rookie Senator with no record of accomplishments and a propensity to make contradictory statements on U.S. foreign policy that betray his ignorance and lack of common sense.
AZCoyote on May 25, 2008 at 7:02 AM
Oh joy! More America-bashing from a snooty Brit. While his analysis of the disgusting use of race against the Clintons by the Obama campaign is spot on, it’s difficult to slog through a piece which begins by implying that Thomas Jefferson was a “misogynist”, that the Brit’s are more enlightened about race and gender, or to stereotype American men as weaklings (as compared to what? Tony Blair?)
Anyhoo, the media and democrats have not turned on Hillary out of sexism; they turned on her because they found Barack Obama and they are nothing if not fickle. If not for Barry, they would be fawning over Hillary, just as they fawned over the Clintons in the past.
Buy Danish on May 25, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Yes it does.
Sure it does. Or used to at least. But “us” keep voting in mostly slimes.
You personally =/= us. Plus, you get to pick your own rep to counter Maxine Waters. She is the punishment for the morons that elected her.
And whose fault is that? If a honest candidate shows up and says “hey, I really can’t do much” are “us” gonna elect him? **** no, we’ll elect the liar that promises the moon and the stars and then wonder why it doesn’t happen. A politician HAS to lie if he wants to get elected, period.
Don’t buy it. As evidence of this, I’d like to point to all the governors involved in sex scandals like their congress counterparts. People would just pick slimes at local level, and on top of that, more local politicians usually get less attention from the media so they can get away with more.
Darth Executor on May 25, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Since she was elected to the Senate twice, there is no basis in truth for his premise. If only New York women had voted for her, the press would have let us know immediately.
Sloan Morganstern on May 25, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Are the British really so enlightened to have elected Maggie PM? I think she only won because, in British politics, there were no men left.
jgapinoy on May 25, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I’d never vote for a woman.
For one simple reason.
Women think with their emotions first, reason and logic second, if at all.
Show me, I’m wrong
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM
They didn’t elect Maggie PM. That’s not how it works. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party or collation of parties that holds the majority of the seats in parliament. The only people who actually voted for her were the Tories who made her their leader, and the people of her parliamentary constituency who gave her her seat.
jic on May 25, 2008 at 9:55 AM
LoL
frank
I believe you are confusing women with jihadis.
bridgetown on May 25, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Hillary’s problem is not her gender. Defects in character and her basic policy positions are her problem.
RBMN on May 25, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Liberals are so lovely!
the same liberal suspects have said terrible things about all of those women, and I’m sure many of the slurs were the same kind of sexist crap that has been used against Hillary.
It would support his argument, not contradict it. Of course my conclusion would be that whackjob liberals are sexist, not the population of the US in general. He’s probably not quite ready to go there.
funky chicken on May 25, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Here’s how I get there…
I just imagine, defining moments in American history…And, I imagine, that instead of being a male, a female were faced with making those decisions.
What would the outcome have been?
Then, it all becomes very clear, why womem wouldn’t make viable commanders-in-chief.
In the life and death struggle to exist, you have to have a cold, hard heart…You have to put your emotions on hold.
It’s the same reason, Liberal Drama Queens aren’t good presidential material.
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Excellent article, and largely true. I wonder if Condi would have been subject to the same sort of treatmen? Being black might have protected her some??
jeanie on May 25, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I also like how he makes a big point of there only being 16 women in the senate right now. How many blacks are there? Oh, that’s right: 1! Yes, he’s the only one.
As a matter of fact, in all of American history there have only been 5 since they first were allowed to serve.
Typhonsentra on May 25, 2008 at 10:26 AM
So, is the New Statesman like the Onion?
Someone commented that there was too much hyperbole – that’s an understatement!
I think this guy needs to get out of DC, before he starts pretending to know what’s going on in America.
I looked through their comments and naturally saw (alleged, you can never tell on the internet) female posters agreeing with him and I know many female Hillary supporters feel this way. Hillary and her supporters have been trying to have things both ways though. She tries to play up the role of a mother when it suits her, a woman being picked on by the boys when it suits her, and so on.
When she is criticized for things that have nothing to do with her sex, she tries to change the subject and pretends that she is being unfairly picked on because she is a woman.
For this reason, I beleive the first woman we elect president will be a Republican, and I’d like to think the first minority president will also be Republican. The Democrats are (generally) way too concerned with labels and have to focus on distracting voters from real issues.
reaganaut on May 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Act like a leader, and people will treat you like a leader. Too many women act like court-appointed mediators or negotiators all the time. I don’t know what that instinct is, to sweep all conflict under the rug, but it’s not leading. Sometimes one side deserves to win big and the other side deserves to get crushed like a bug. That’s life. But that’s not Hillary’s problem. Hillary is perfectly willing to crush people like bugs.
RBMN on May 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I’d vote for Condi Rice and feel secure in my masculinity.
Wouldn’t voting for Barry Obama kinda be like voting for a girl? I think his wife Missy has bigger balls than he does…
Wyznowski on May 25, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Readers of The New Statesman are generally so far up themselves that they have never seen the sun and, therefore, are unaware that it is the sole cause of climate change.
They also wouldn’t recognize a real woman if she jumped up and belted them with her handbag.
OldEnglish on May 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Proof.
Why is Hillary apologizing for her assassination remarks?
When the plain, hard, cold fact is, RFK WAS assassinated in June of 1962…And, points out the FACT, anything can happen between now and the Democratic convention.
Anyone, with balls, would be saying, “What’s your problem with that?”…They wouldn’t be apologizing…They wouldn’t be kowtowing to the idiot media, or anyone else.
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Noonan put the finger on Hillary’s pulse.
Tom Hank’s delivery as girls’ league baseball coach hits the home-run: CRYING? CRYING! There’s no crying in baseball!
Hillary got all the support she’s going to get already from all sorts of different population demographics. That she wants to take it to the convention is great for “DEMOCRACY”, but that’s as far as that goes. As a candidate, Hillary has given Americans all kinds of reasons to DENY HER A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE. Sex is the lamest excuse, just as racism for/against Obama is the lamest reason to determine one’s choice. Vote for/against the platform. If indeed sex or skin color is no reason to discriminate, then be consistent by denying that “argument” to determine one’s choice for POTUS. For argument’s sake, let either of those stupendously stunted reasons be THE REASON to elect a POTUS. So when that “historic” vote is over, now what? Down to business. Vote on the business at hand when you make your choice for POTUS!
maverick muse on May 25, 2008 at 12:15 PM
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I agree.
She referenced her husband taking her frame of reference to CA Primaries during the month of June, and RFK came to mind. BIG DEAL to pussies.
It never hurts to apologize in case some one is offended, though. The only tenderness I felt was to the Kennedy family over the memory of RFK.
Obama’s offense proves just how big his head really is–full of self, full of BS. Whether he likes it or not, RFK is not about Obama. If assassination were such a verboten topic for Obama, then Obama has absolutely no basis at all for the referencing to MLK and “the dream”–Obama stealing the “dream” from MLK (a plagarist himself) overlaying his black Kenyan Muslim daddy on the memory of MLK. Cunning, not enough to sell it to me.
maverick muse on May 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Yes,
When the day comes, someone has to apologize for stating a fact, you KNOW there’s something wrong.
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM
The Kennedy’s spent all the money in their sympathy-bank, a long time ago.
franksalterego on May 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Please…. paaaalllleeeeaaaasssseeee….
It’s all about the choice in women.
I’ll take a Margret Thatcher over a Hillary Clinton any day.
Kini on May 25, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Can the same ridicule heaped upon Hillary (nutcracker) be aimed at Michelle Obama? Will we see a Michelle nutcracker? I don’t think so.
nyrofan on May 25, 2008 at 3:11 PM
nyrofan, you got it all wrong. It’s not ridicule. Hillary is tough. She’s got her myriad of flaws, but she is tough.
p.s. if they ever make one for MM, also because she’s tough, it would be a malkincracker.
p.p.s. Michelle O. doesn’t deserve one. She’s a loud-mouthed wussy, of little significance.
Entelechy on May 25, 2008 at 3:29 PM
She probably wishes she could vote for Sen Obama. Her tone stinks of jealousy.
Weebork on May 25, 2008 at 7:24 PM
If anything, the nut cracker is offensive to men.
RobCon on May 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM
OldEnglish on May 25, 2008 at 12:58 AM
One in a long line of missed opportunities for the GOP, unfortunately.
I was changing channels to watch Phoenix yesterday and Chris Wallace was hammering on a GOP House member for voting for the farm bill. Wallace said that many claim the GOP is damaged because of overspending, and why did the guy vote on the farm bill? Wasn’t the more of the same, especially since the President thought it was out of line?
The House member in essence said that it could have been worse and this bill – which apparently gives subsidies to farms making over 2 million a year – was better than what we had, and helped America’s farmers, blah blah. This is why we lose, because we’ve lost all perspective. They think they have an obligation to spend our money.
What a TOOL.
linlithgow on May 26, 2008 at 1:07 PM
maverick muse/frank’s alter ego-
On the whole, I think you are correct. Most women are touchy feely, avoid conflict and if they’re angry, are passive aggressive, not confrontational. I remember during the 2000 elections there was some poll or story that said most women thought ‘Al Gore would take better care’ of them. Er… okaaaaaaaay.
There are some of us though who call a spade a spade and like seeing enemies of America blown into so many bits as to need an electron microscope to reassemble the parts. This is why, as I intimated in a previous post, it has to be the RIGHT/BEST person. I think that on the whole most women fail that ‘test’, but there are women who don’t, and I would hope people would vote for her when she rears her head nationally.
linlithgow on May 26, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Even the nutcracker is politically correct. Where are the thunder thighs and wide butt? I admit that mine aren’t slender either, but if you’re gonna make a likeness of Herself, do it!
I’d email the author of this tripe but, i don’t wanna waste my time on fools this Memorial Day.
Christine on May 26, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Camille Paglia…a woman who, (if she was a politician), my husband and I could easily vote for.
An old song comes to mind: ‘No, no, no it ain’t Hill mate, it ain’t Hill we’re lookin’ for…panty-waist.’
Christine on May 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Has he read anything at all that his own side has written about George W Bush, as a candidate or as a President?
Splunge on May 26, 2008 at 10:54 PM