MSNBC, Chuck Todd: "it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate"

[wyldwolf]

at almost every opportunity, the front-runners took pains to NOT engage, even when questions from the moderator tried to create spats. So in the absence of a "moment," it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate because, like boxing, if the champ doesn't get knocked out, then the champ is still the champ.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

[wyldwolf]

1. oh... sorry... I hope katzen reads this.

[billyoc]

4. katz had to go, uh, do something.

:rofl:

She won it, no denying it.

[wyldwolf]

5. why, yes, she (Clinton) DID win it.

:rofl:

[billyoc]

8. Nobody can take her speaking skills away from her.

If she wins the Democratic nomination, she'll waste the repubs in the General.

[frogcycle]

14. if you say so

I try to like her, but she just grates on me. I try to put that aside and listen to the substance, and it seems so nuanced, so impassionate, that my trust meter just flatlines.

And yet I will KEEP trying to like her.

[billyoc]

17. That's funny, I'll never support her in the primary, but I don't dislike her.

This is definitely the strangest primary race I ever remember. :hi:

[frogcycle]

19. I don't DISlike her

just don't LIKE her

she doesn't make me ASSUME everything she says is a lie, like most pugs. I just can't stir up any enthusiasm.

Edwards lights my fire; every one of the others comes across as speaking from the heart, although Richardson has stepped in it a few times when he tries to "campaign" vs just tell what he thinks. Hil - just seems a little like the animatrons at Disney World.

[emilyg]

21. Keep trying

[WCGreen]

29. Dude you put it right on the head with Clinton...

She parses everything and leaves her passion in the make-up room...

[LittleClarkie]

32. The hardest thing to like about her is her supporters

That's part of my problem.

There's a certain smug factor there.

[frogcycle]

36. maybe not so much smug

as haughty

like somehow she is a superior being, and her followers by association are too

you can just see her using the "royal wave" in a motorcade, and her supporters looking askance at anyone who is not showing proper respect

Maybe that's the problem. It is an aura that pugs exude

Perhaps its just an unfortunate personality trait unrelated to the "real her" - like Gore's supposed "woodenness"

Kerry had a bit of it too. Not as much though. But I preferred Edwards to Kerry in '04 largely on that factor.

[earthlover]

82. Amen to that! Right on target! I think some of her supporters want a mommy-figure

[Cha]

90. Keep in mind who's declaring

"it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate"..chucky todd. I don't trust him with his mediawhore pack mentality.

[Clark2008]

28. Except she sounds like she's hit the wrong chord.

I'm sorry, but her voice sounds nasally and flat to me.

I don't have a candidate, btw, so this isn't part of the Clinton/Obama wars. She really just sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[earthlover]

84. Hillary is the school-marm. Some of her supporters are pets and brown-nosers

[zulchzulu]

2. Senator Clinton is "the champ"?

Wow. Not that's bullplop.

Desperation...meet Pathetic.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Love that headline

Maybe it should read: "It's hard for me to declare someone besides Hillary won."

Is it even possible?

[Broke Dad]

6. Yepsen asked the question and he says . . .

Clinton fails to overcome question of her electability
Obama looks presidential; Richardson turns in his best debate

DAVID YEPSEN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

August 20, 2007

One of the big questions going into Sunday's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa was whether Hillary Clinton can win the November election.

That question still hangs over the race today. Clinton swatted at it with answers she's used before but she failed to conclusively knock it down.

After a string of strong debate performances so far in the campaign, Clinton seemed a little off her game at ABC's gathering Sunday morning.

- snip -

But the Sunday sunrise nature of the event didn't stop some of the others from having strong performances. Obama may be the biggest winner.

He was in the cross hairs for much of the early part of the session, and he stood up well to the scrutiny over his foreign policy positions and questions of whether he's qualified to be president.

Obama's campaign was quick to tout the results of a focus group held during the debate in which the participants tapped him as the best performer who eased concerns about his ability to do the job.

He came off as knowledgeable and temperate. He looked presidential and, unlike some of his earlier, halting debate performances, was much more polished and laid back in this one. At one point, he joked, "To prepare for this debate, I rode the bumper cars at the State Fair."

Bill Richardson also had a good morning, turning in his best debate of the campaign. So did Joe Biden.

-snip-

Richardson gets high marks for his performance because, for the first time in the campaign, he was able to press an essential point of his effort: He represents both change - because he'd be the first Latino president - and experience - because he's a governor and former congressman, diplomat and energy secretary. Richardson has been moving up in polls in Iowa, and Sunday's performance should help.

John Edwards held his own. While he trails in the race nationally, he's one of the front-runners in Iowa, and he was able to sound his populist themes without sounding angry or hot-headed like he sometimes does on the stump.

-snip-

The best line of the day came from Dennis Kucinich. When the candidates were asked about the role of prayer in their life, Kucinich said, "George, I've been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying to God you were going to call on me."

[wyldwolf]

7. MSNBC, Chuck Todd: "it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate"

[Windy]

11. He must not have watched the debate....

Clinton couldn't hide her disgust at some of the questions and the answers. Her answers were not of the same caliber as those of Obama and frankly Biden.

If you take a look at the ABC after debate poll, a lot of viewers agreed.

[BeyondGeography]

15. LOL...I'll take Yepsen over The Cable Guy for a debate aimed at Iowans

And so would you.

[wyldwolf]

18. OK, but...

MSNBC, Chuck Todd: "it's hard not to declare Clinton the winner of this debate"

[earthlover]

88. Hell, it's hard not to declare Hillary the winner of the nomination already! SARC

This inevitability crap makes me want to crap.

[earthlover]

85. It's hard to say Hillary did not win....media lemmings could bet fired for that!!!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Means NOTHING. He's a jerk and they all did well. nt

[Taverner]

12. I think the contenders know she's going to win

And right now, especially after a fairly tame campaign against her, they are tryhing to make nice to be a part of her administration.

And I hope every single contender for the Dem nom is up front and center as part of Clinton 2.0

Barack for Veep!
Kucinich for Health and Human Svcs!
Gravel for Homeland Security!
Edwards for Attorney General!
Dodd for Secretary of State!
Biden for Secretary of Defense!
Richardson for Secretary of Labor!

[luckyleftyme2]

16. if this could only be

if we had an administration like this in place the world would be a better place.
you make a joke out of an administration that would shame bush and his cronies

[Taverner]

20. I'm not joking - Hillary has adopted the 11th commandment

Kerry was setting this up to be in 2004 too...most of his choices were candidates who ran against him

And yes, I am strangely optimistic - but I think I have a basis in reality

[frogcycle]

24. Now if we could only put Edwards at the top

and HRC in another position, I'm a happy camper.

I like Edwards for Atty Gen if we can't get him as pres, but he'd be less in a position to advocate for people - just an enforcer, which would of course be good. Hil is a lawyer, and a good one - I'd go for just switching the spots.

[Ethelk2044]

43. Barack does not need to be tarnished by her past no thanks

[Ethelk2044]

44. Barack does not need to be tarnished by her past no thanks

[frogcycle]

13. I tried very hard to be openminded

but dammit, there were at least two questions that she just dodged, even when they were repeated. Just flat - out launched a campaign spiel instead. She really pissed me off. And I WANTED to like her.

[GreenTea]

22. The media, day in and day out pushing & pushing...

[Forkboy]

23. You and Katz need to get a room.

[wyldwolf]

25. hmmm... well, if she's game...

[Colobo]

45. I'm a guy!

[wyldwolf]

50. oops! Well, we'll just talk...

[AtomicKitten]

26. Nobody can state unequivocally who won the debate.

None of the candidates tanked, so the analysis is really subjective.

[Dr Fate]

27. MSNBC: "Saddam has WMDs and caused 9/11!"

Were they quoting DLC press releases when they said that-or vice versa?

LOL!

You heard it here folks, MSNBC and now the DLC -surely the most accurate sources and trusted names this side of FOX News and Judith Miller's New York Times has declared a WINNER!!!!

[Dr Fate]

30. Continued from post #121- could someone with a search function help us out?

In post #99, someone is claiming I supported Nader.

This is 100% false.

I'm claiming that a poster supported Lieberman after he siad he bolt the party if Lamont won.

I thought this would be soemthing he could admit, but he needs the links showing him supporting Lamont after Joe threatened to bolt.

Little help???

Could someone, anyone pull up some of my past Nader posts and see if I ever advocated for him at DU?

[wyldwolf]

31. no, actually, you're saying I supported Lieberman ( I )

[Dr Fate]

33. If you wont help me find my Nader posts, hopefully someone else will. I dont have a search function.

THEN you can show us how much you opposed 3rd parties once Liberman (I) threatened to start one with YOUR links.

I'll show you mine, then you show me yours.

I REALLY want you and everyone else to see my Nader posts- so that I can establish that you have fibbed in post #99.

[wyldwolf]

34. Like I said originally. First show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )...

[Dr Fate]

35. First I'm hoping someone can find my Nader quotes you fibbed about in post #99...

Then YOU can show us how you opposed the formation of 3rd parties and opposed Lieberman once he threatened to split the vote...

It would also help your argument if you could dig up some pro-Lamont (D) quotes too. If they even exist.

Note to DUers-including Wyldwolf- you have my full permission to dig up my old Nader posts and post them here.

Then, after that, Wyld himself will show us his old posts where he opposed Lieberman's threat of a 3rd party and supported Lamont.

[Dr Fate]

41. Here you are-comparing Lieberman to JFK- LOL!!!! So THIS is how you fight Joe/support Lamont? LOL?

NOTE TO MODS- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE- WLYDWOLF GAVE ME PERMISSION AND ASKED ME TO POST THIS.


Here you are- supporting Lieberman AFTER he threatened to split and trashing Liberals, as usual.

Not exactly a post of you praising Lamont or opposing Joe,- but it's a start as to how you really feel.

Now- it's your turn to show me supporting Nader. LOL!!!!



wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-02-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
17. I find little in that article to disagree with. The left would hate JFK..
...they despised him in 1960 and they'd despise him today (and the feeling was mutual)

Note the July 2nd date. Now, here is a link to Joes threat to go 3rd party- as early as mid June.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8I84U105&show_article=1

Here is the text of the article that compels Wyldwolf to praise Lieberman(I), who had already threatened a 3rd party run:


The DLC has written a commentary calling Progressives a "motley" crew
and comparing Lieberman to John F Kennedy!!!

In the Hartford Courant

the DLC has said that supporters of Lamont are not the Democratic party but are "outsiders" and declares that the DLC are the Progressives and that Progressives are war hawks.


In addition to being a standard-bearer for the party's tradition of equal opportunity and upward mobility, Kennedy was a muscular internationalist who understood that force was sometimes necessary in order to protect the nation's freedom and security. As Lieberman notes: "I am a Democrat. I believe in the Democratic Party. I believe in the vision of JFK and, I must say, the vision of Bill Clinton."

That tradition is now being challenged by the left in the Democratic party. Driven by a motley coalition of left-wing bloggers and the MoveOn.org crowd, a serious primary challenge has been launched against Lieberman. However, if Lieberman is defeated, a disastrous message would be sent to the nation that centrist hawks are unwelcome in the Democratic Party.

The Connecticut Senate primary is nothing short of a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. That is why outside left-wing groups have converged on this state.

By any standard, Joe Lieberman is a progressive.

[wyldwolf]

48. show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )...

[Dr Fate]

51. LOL! You whole-heartedly agree with an anti-Lamont article that compares Joe to JFK!!!

Right here- remember? This was AFTER he threatened to split, no less.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

Now about those Pro-Nader links of MINE you claim exist.

Where are they?

[wyldwolf]

54. but show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )....

... since it was the CT Sen. Election your were referencing... wasn't it. Say with a straight face it wasn't.

[Dr Fate]

56. You defend his "free speech" and agree that he is like "JFK" in the links I provided.

This was AFTER he said he would start a 3rd party- one link is from AFTER the primary.

I think it is your responsibility to exaplain how that is NOT defending and supporting Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont, not mine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

[wyldwolf]

58. Show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )...

[Dr Fate]

59. SUUUUUURE- these are NOT Pro-Liberman posts (Links to your posts):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

[wyldwolf]

61. Can you not follow through on this? Show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )

... after he formally declared as an (I). Remember, supporting him was against DU rules. So show me.

[Dr Fate]

62. I've showed you at least 2 of your Pro-Lieberman posts. Here they are again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

So these are anti-Lieberman, huh? LOL!!!

Can you show me my Nader posts- the ones you fibbed about in post #99?

[wyldwolf]

63. But can you show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )....

... in the CT General Election against Ned Lamont as you originally asserted?

[Dr Fate]

65. I just did show you supporting him on DU. Now show us some of your pro-Lamont, anti-Lieberman posts.

And if you look all my posts, my assertion is that you supported and defended a man who threatened to start a 3rd party- and you did so AFTER he made that threat.

Your posts prove my assertions.

Your only real defense against my charge of su

Besdies, the fact that you defend him AFTER he announces a 3rd party AT ALL says plenty about your credibility.

[wyldwolf]

67. but you didn't show me where I supported Lieberman (I)...

...over Ned Lamont in the CT General as you originally asserted.

[Dr Fate]

68. My assertion that you supported & defended Joe even after he annouced his 3rd party. Which is true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

All anyone has to do is note the dates on the original posts of yours to see that this was AFTER he said he would bolt the DEMS- yet you still seemed quite fond of him, despite your claim to hate 3rd parties so much.

[wyldwolf]

70. your assertion was I supported Lieberman (I) in the CT General election.

[Dr Fate]

72. My assertion (proven with links) is that you defended/supported him AFTER he announced his3rd party.

These are your PRO-Liberman posts-from AFTER he announced his 3rd party, just in case you keep "forgetting"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

And if you really did support Lamont (I honestly dont remember that-but I may be wrong)-then show us some of your posts. What are you afraid of?

[wyldwolf]

74. your original assertion was I supported Lieberman (I) in the CT General..

you only altered your assertion when you could not prove it.

[Dr Fate]

76. Then you will have no problem showing us all your Pro-Lamont posts. Where are they?????????

Do they exist, or, even AFTER the primary and threat to split parties, would we only find your pro-Lieberman posts-like these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

[wyldwolf]

78. Like I've said continually, I didn't support Lieberman over Lamont in the CT General.

[Dr Fate]

80. So why would we find these Pro-Lieberman Posts if you really supported Lamont? Makes no sense.

If you supported Lamont, then you would have PRO LAMONT posts, not Pro Lieberman posts.

[wyldwolf]

81. Why can't you show me I supported Lieberman (I) in the CT General ?

[Dr Fate]

47. LOL!-Here you are yet again-defending Joe (I) quite passionately right here(AFTER LAMONT WON )

Here you are-defeding Lieberman(I)/DLC attacks on Howard Dean (D)and defending Lieberman's (I) "free speech"- just like I remembered.

LOL-I love where you claim at the end that Lieberman never left the DEM party- but you seem so sure of it now. LOL!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3180384&mesg_id=3180384

Here ya go: Madfloridian from last month - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Not that there is any rule violations in regards to milking the same articles over and over again for maximum faux outrage effect, but it does smack of desperation. Here are a few quotes from your current post that are questionable in their honesty:

Dan Gerstein was just plain ugly to anyone who opposed Joe Lieberman in CT.

And the netroots were just plain ugly to anyone who supported Lieberman and opposed Ned Lamont in CT.

He is still working for him.

So?

Yet The Politico has allowed him to write at least two columns which critique Howard Dean's role

So? Is that illegal? No. Unethical? Not if it is clear who he is. Your problem is you don't want anyone to criticize Dean.

(that's not his job as Lieberman's advisor...Lieberman's not a Democrat) and which bash anti-war and anti-Fox activists.

What difference does it make? Are you saying only advisors to Democrats can critique Dean? Do YOU decide who gets to critique Dean?

Tell Dan to shut up, that the guy he works for is an independent now...one who often threatens to leave the Democrats for the Republican Party.

Do you have a problem with free speech? Show some examples of Lieberman threatening to "leave the Democrats for the Republican Party."

[wyldwolf]

49. show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )...

[Dr Fate]

52. LOL! Anyone can read my link above and see you defending Joe ( I) & his DLC and attacking Dean (D)

Or they can read it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

[wyldwolf]

53. but no one can see where I supported Lieberman ( I ) ...

... since it was the CT Sen. Election your were referencing... wasn't it. Say with a straight face it wasn't.

[Dr Fate]

55. You are defending him here in this link- AFTER he said he would go 3rd party:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030



Show me the links where you attack Joe or praise Lamont and you might have an argument-albiet still very weak.

Also- where are the links where I supposedly support Nader- having trouble finding those?

[wyldwolf]

57. Show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )...

[Dr Fate]

60. So you are saying these links (attached) are PRO LAMONT and NOT Pro-Lieberman posts? LOL!!!

When you fib, you REALLY fib!!

LOL!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3462955

[wyldwolf]

64. but show me where I supported Lieberman ( I )....

... in the CT General Election against Ned Lamont as you originally asserted.

[Dr Fate]

66. You defended Joe AFTER he announced his 3rd Pty. It's right here in the links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

The fact that you supported and defended a man of a 3rd party is all I really need to establish here.

[wyldwolf]

69. But I didn't support Lieberman (I) ...

... in the CT General as you originally asserted. Going to deny you asserted that? (I have search capabilities)

[Dr Fate]

71. Really? Then why did you defend him w/ Pro-Joe posts after he annoucned his 3rd party?(links)

You supported him after he announded his 3rd party- you did it right here on DU, and you know it.

If you didnt really mean it- if they were ironic posts, then by all means- show us the pro-Lamont anti-Lieberman posts that SURELY exist.

So far, all we have from you are PRO Lieberman posts from AFTER he said he would form a 3rd party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

[wyldwolf]

73. Yes, really. I did not support Lieberman in the CT General - as was your original assertion...

[Dr Fate]

75. The fact that you supported him AFTER he announced his 3rd party (links included) speaks volumes

It's really all one needs to know to gauge your honesty/hypocrisy on 3rd parties, one way or the other.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

What you did outside DU, we will ever know- all I know is these links show you supporting and defending a man of a 3rd party-AFTER he made the threat.

So you supported Lamont at some point, huh?

Well SURELY you have some pro-Lamont posts that defend him as much as you stood up for Joe- right?.

Where are they?

[wyldwolf]

77. the fact you can't prove your original assertion and are forced to "revise" it (LOL!) and BEG ...

....for links, speaks volumes.

[Dr Fate]

79. You comforted, supported & defended a 3rd party. It's 100% true. Here is where I proved it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3461941&mesg_id=3463030

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461941#3462955

So you are supporting Lamont and attacking Joe & his 3rd party in these links? That cant be right.

It's my original claim, and always has been. What you did outside of DU, no one knows- but here it was ALL PRO LIEBERMAN POSTS.

[wyldwolf]

86. but you accused me of supporting Lieberman (I) in the CT Gen., then "altered" your accusation NT.

[Colobo]

89. wyld, do you like Lieberman?

[Dr Fate]

38. Kick! can someone help Wyldwolf & me with post #99- we need a posts search.

For some reason Wyld wont call my bluff- I would gladly see all my Nader posts linked for all to see.

There are a LOT of them, believe me.

I would be just as happy to see these post 3rd Party threat anti-Lieberman links of Wyld that supposedly exist. OR Pro Lamont Posts of any strip. But he will supply those. Right Wyld? ;)

1st -Little help??? Anyone care to do a search of my past posts on Nader? I cant do it b/c I have no search function right now.

[Enrique]

37. silliness

I just watched the debate, which was excellent and filled with substance.

This account by Chuck Todd shows absolutely no interest in that substance. The very question of who "won," let alone the idea that Clinton did, is just silly for a journalist to concern himself with.

[eridani]

39. So the MSM assholes who brought us the Iraq war want to pick our nominee too

Not a huge surprise, but thanks for nothing, assholes.

[Dr Fate]

40. Exactly. But see the passionate argument against your statement after post #9.

Some will argue semantics or fib about why a post was edited. all day long before they can admit that DLC press releases and official media positions are often one in the same.

My advice to you is dont edit your posts in this thread, or a DLCer might try to get sneaky and and say you are lying about the content.

Feel free to note my subsequent edit times and responses- but also check post #28, #99, and others and make up your own mind as to who is not being upfront on this thread- LOL!!!!

NOTE: EDITED FOR GRAMMAR AGAIN LOL!!!

[Ethelk2044]

46. It is not up to MSM. It is up to us and I plan to vote against her as many others

[eridani]

91. You are paying attention. Most people aren't

Most people get vague impressions from the MSM and vote based on those impressions. Bush is a regular guy, a straight talker, and he acts to protect us from our enemies. Kerry is a French flip-flopper who really didn't do anything dangerous in combat. Gore is a serial exaggerator who thinks he invented Love Canal and the Internets tubes. Hillary is the inevitable Dem nominee. Yaddayaddayadda.

[Ethelk2044]

42. IT only proves MSM is pushing Hillary.

[hootinholler]

83. Because if I don't, they'll fire me. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

87. Pundits look for people who will play a good prez on tv. hillary is strident so a good tv one.