Time to start a Patrick Healy watch?? Is he the second coming of Kit Seeyle?

-

Yes! Healy watch time...

Look: Hillary might turn out to be a great candidate and a great president. But she is calculating and political. In fact, she's so obviously calculating and political that the real question is why the Times bothers reminding anybody.

well, perhaps, but I'd also say that the frequency of the observation is suspect...particularly when the paper won't hold the bar as high for all other pols...

Great post and well documented. All pols are scripted to some extent, though some are more convincing at being "authentic" than others. Still, there is a reason for this: most people who watch Hillary do indeed get the sense that there's a gap between what's in her core and what's coming out of her mouth -- that there's a certain hesitancy there that Obama and Edwards (certainly Biden!) don't have as much. Even so, reporters should be more responsibily than that and leave more to the voters to make up their minds for themselves.

I think that it is fairly safe to say that every person running for president is political and calculating. Every candidate has advisors that plan and direct nearly everything because the stakes are so high. From planning what color tie to where to speech writing to planning all kinds of little PR visits at daycare centers and diners in Iowa.

Give me a break. Hillary has people and so does Obama. Even Biden has people but he still manages to screw up.

I'll concede that all politicians are "political," almost by definition, and that all are to some degree, calculating. If you can't be calculating, as in shrewd, you will have no future in politics.

Nonetheless, I can't fault the Times all too much here. There is undeniably something about Hlllary found in both her rhetoric and her positioning, that goes beyond normal political scheming and enters the realm of the egregiously manipulative and disingenuous. Perhaps it's because her core values always seem overarchingly vague while her stances bend with her perceptions of the opinions of the public all too much.

Exhibit A: Her transformation from a pro-war, very hawkish (for a Dem) "strong on security" DLCer to an anti-war, "I'll bring the troops home" populist at about the same time, or actually a few months after, public opinion overwhelmingly turned against the war.

It's why many, including me, do not trust her.

Astute observation. I'm no great fan of the NYT (esp. after today's Iran story) but I do wonder how much of this is a bias (or at least conscious bias) on the reporter's part and how much a reflection of a problem with how Clinton comes across. Of course the candidates are all working to stay on message, but with Clinton you can almost see the wheels turning behind her eyes. Perhaps it's her hesitations, perhaps in her tight and unnatural-looking smile. Obama and Edwards at least APPEAR to be much more genuine and extemporaneous in their remarks.

Obama: always against the war

Edwards: was for the war; admitted he was wrong to trust the president

Clinton: never wrong; trusted president not to wage preventive war, supported war effort after president did wage preventive war

If those three candidates keep repeating talking points, it's not hard to see why observers might draw different conclusions about the sincerity with which the respective candidates repeat them.

To be fair, we love it when newspapers reveal how highly scripted and stage-managed all Bush appearances are. When he appears perfectly framed in front of a New Orleans church or a battleship or the Statue of Liberty, we love it when a reporter feels the need to point out that everything in the frame is there for dramatic effect, so viewers understand the ways in which they are being manipulated. It's hypocritical to decry the same sort of coverage of Hillary (although we should also expect the same for Barack).

A contemporary of the Rolling Stones, I once saw them two nights in a row when we were all about 25. What an awakening!

They wore the same costumes! Geez, and here I thought Keef put on whatever he found lying on the floor of some groupie's crash pad every morning.

More than that, the show was choreographed! Every "spontaneous" gesture, each dance step, guitar pose, every kiss blown to the audience...

All repeated.

OMG! It was all an ACT! A theatrical performance.

I've never gotten over the disillusionment.

Now you tell me Hillary Clinton has talking points? Speaks to invited audiences? Pauses to think before she answers questions? Isn't, like, totally spontaneous and "authentic?"

Say it ain't so. I just don't think I can bear it.

I don't blame the Gray lady for calling a spade a spade. I concluded long ago (viz. when she proposed a measure criminalizing flag burning in an attempt to avoid the political heat associated with opposing ammending the Constition, which any gradeschooler knows is the ONLY way to outlaw flag burning) that HRC is an unprincipaled political opportunist whose mendacity is perhaps only rivaled in modern politics by GW BU$H.

Look how many of you have fallen for the years of snarky attention given to democrats, especially the Clintons, and none of that for the republicans. You keep feeding the process by only seeing Hillary as calculating because she changed her mind. Would you all still say it was calculating if she'd been portrayed all along as having just "changed her mind?" I think not. Look at who you're helping by continuing to snipe at her. You're doing Karl Rove and the RNC's work for them.

Politicians HAVE to respond to the public, and the public is so over the map that it's a nearly impossible task to do well, and do everyone right. People on both sides have ridiculously unrealistic expectations of politicians (see the Nader voters who gave us Bush because they bought into all the crap said about the democrats, many things said BY democrats).

It's time to stop the national circular firing squad and put the most stinging criticism where it really belongs, on the media that won't report the really serious wrong-doing by the people in charge, and against those people in charge, the "Deciders" that are causing the nightmare this country is in now. It's ridiculous, and all we can hear about is a stupid vote on something that would never pass, like the flag-burning amendment or what-have-you. It's a complete waste of time, and worse, it doesn't focus attention where it truly belongs.

"PATRICK HEALY CONTINUES PAINTING HILLARY AS CALCULATING AND POLITICAL"

It seems like a fair characterization to me. Where's the beef?

The cold, calculating Hillary Clinton narrative started with tens of millions of dollars spent by the right-wing. Many on the left bought hook, line and sinker into it. When people on the left parrot that line, they are parroting right-wing talking points.

When you try to put HRC's Iraq position into one or two sentences, of course she's going to come off as calculating because her position cannot really be put into only one or two sentences. The calculation is more of a function those who constrain her position to something that's very simplified. She never supported unprovoked, preemptive war or the Bush dotrine and she's on record over and over saying as much.

it's not that big a deal geeez

The varied responses on this thread certainly show that prconceptions vividly color the way people are willing to pereceive a candidate. I also am not a fan of Hillary. I will also say that ALL politicians are calculating, or they hire huge staffs of people to be so. That's not the point.

This is exactly the same kind of malicious "journalism" we saw when the so-called mainstream "press coprs" were busy "Goring" Al Gore. These privileged scribblers are not supposed to be giving us their cocktail weenie, sardonic view of public events and public personalities. Their jobs are SUPPOSED to be reporting the news, in a "fair and balanced" way.

These insiders are so smug they seem to think we care about their opinions! The supposed job of journalism is to serve as the memory of the public. Most people don't obsess about current events and recent historical happenings. Reporters are supposed to and give the voting public the background information, the context in which events and speech unfold.

If they can't do that, they're worse than useless, they're doing a disservice to the people who should be able to count on them to understnad the truth. I feel nothing but revulsion for "reporters" who think snide "gotcha" stories and vapid, venal judgements entitle them to admiration and fat salaries from the rubes in "flyover country". Healy and all his smarmy ilk are not worth minimum wage.

So now a reporter can't describe her as calculating and political without TPM getting pissed off? Given that this is an assessment that's widely shared even among democrats, you sound like you've got your own biases to deal with.

It's good to see there is a least one reporter at the NYT reporting the truth.

Clinton doesn't make a move without calculating the political consequences.

guys, apologies if I didn't make my point more clearly. here's what I'm saying: All politicians have to use talking points, script events, etc. Reporters make an editorial decision to paint some candidates and not others. The Times rarely uses such loaded language when reporting on Giuliani or McCain. What's more, Healy's asides *don't tell us anything.* That's the key. They're essentially meaningless. There's no value added. They're put in there just to make the reporter look knowing, and not to provide any meaningful insight of any kind. That's the point.

About Obama, Healy didn't simply remark that Obama is scripted, he cited the scriptwriters, as if Obama were their puppet:

"Mr. Obama’s aides said they viewed Mrs. Clinton’s vote on the war in 2002 and her refusal to explicitly disavow that vote as her single biggest vulnerability, and that Mr. Obama would point it out at every opportunity"

When a reporter hears the same old, it seems right to say so. And I suspect the campaigns would prefer that to the alternative, which is to drop coverage as not newsworthy.

It is tempting to think that the Times has hated the Clintons ever since Maureen learned that she was the one woman in New York Bill wouldn't date.

If the newspaper of record is against Hillary's candidacy because it thinks she's a staged-managed politician with an unspoken agenda, it is living in a fantasy world. That description would cover virtually every politician, and most especially the current presdident.

Time for the newspaper of record to come clean about its Hillary coverage. If it has already decided to back one candidate, time for it to come clean about that, too.

Royce pretty much sums up the problem. Apparently, folks at TPM are upset that certain reporters are showing bias. This is news???
As a dedicated Democrat who will never vote for Hillary, I am pleased that reporters at the NYTimes are highlighting Hillary's talking points. Is this bias? Of course. Is this unusual? No. It is amazing to find that bias is only objectionable to TPM when it comes from the bozos at Fox, et.al., OR, the bias is aimed at the candidate you seem to prefer. Get over it! Certain biased Democrats like myself do not want Hillary to be our candidate for 08. We don't mind a little help for our cause from the NYTimes.

Greg:

Sorry about sounding irritated or harsh, but the impression I have of Clinton is that she is unusually calculating in her positions, even by politico standards. It's in the way she talks, it's the view people have after watching her stand on the sidelines when other dem pols came out against the war when it wasn't popular to question Bush. It would be one thing if this was just the right wing pushing talking points against Hilary, but lots of democrats are justly concerned that when push comes to shove, she's not going to be there for them.

Royce, I appreciate that. I certainly understand your concerns about her. Let me make it clear that this isn't meant to come across as support for her as much as for a desire for snark-free journalism at the Paper of Record.

Incidentally, I've seen her in front of upstate audiences and was very surprised at how unscripted she sounds. I'm not saying she never comes across as scripted, just that folks like Healy are going to tell you she's scripted no matter how she actually sounded...

RE: "...a least one reporter at the NYT reporting the truth."
Indeed! Stop spending all your time collecting Pulitzers. Bring back Judith Miller and Jayson Blair!

She is calculating and political. These traits could get her in the White House. She is no more a natural than Kerry, McCain, Biden or any other seasoned Senator. She knows how to play the game and to pretend otherwise is a joke.

I view Hillary as an improvement over Bush, however, she is part of the DC establishment and feeds at the same trough that many DC veteran politicians feed, both repub and dem. This trough is constantly refilled by this profiting from this war.

As such, she is having and will continue to have a hard time dodging her vote granting GW the go ahead on Iraq. She needs to learn from her husband, admit that she was wrong, admit that her vote was a mistake and the she seeks forgiveness for this original sin.

Royce, perhaps the reason you have the "impression ... of Clinton [being] unusually calculating in her positions" is because it's been the press corps script about her for years. As Josh noted, ALL politicans at this level are calculating. But why is Obama allows to just "remind voters" while HRC has to "stick to talking points"?

I am a lot more concerned about reading (poster at dailykos who was at the townhall mtg.) that the guy who asked her to say the Iraq War vote was a mistake was jeered by others in the audience. I think the ones jeering were planted thugs. She's going to let a very few people into these events who aren't prescreened and she has people planted in the audience to boo and jeer if they ask a tough question. It is not normal that regular citizens at a town meeting would jeer someone from their own community.

On the scriptedness -- I remember seeing her on Larry King years ago talking about the car she drove when she was in Arkansas had a name of its own, some woman's name. It was the kind of scripted cutesiness that makes you cringe.

Bob Somerby is a scold.

oh my goodness gracious! heavens to betsy!

a politician? calculating and political?

quick! fetch the smelling salts! I feel faint!

With American convicts being used as slave labor, the rape of our civil right, the sending of a 3rd War Ship being sent to the Gulf, etc, etc, etc, one would think worrying about if a reporter call Hillary what everyone else thinks she is, would be a very low priority for any serious journalist.

I guess I misjudged HRC, she has the wisdom to find some Centrist to carry her water. No wonder this blog is called the "Horses Mouth", it sounds like it came straight from her stall.

Greg makes a good point in his post. We never, ever see a journalist accuse Giuliani or McCain of using scripted talking points. For whatever reason, Hilary Clinton is a polarizing figure, and the media does not treat her according to the same standard that they apply to other poltical figures. It is bad journalism, and it is wrong.

That Hillary Clinton can be coldly calculating should come as no surprise. She earned her degree from Yale. She earned her law partnership. She survived Bill. She went out and won those votes, twice, to be a Senator from New York. Not successes that come by happenstance or serendipity. Thatcher was equally talented and ambitious. Ms. Merkel appears to be so in Germany. My guess is neither would be a wonderful neighbor, or your favorite drinking buddy, like Shrub.

The issue is not whether Hillary can calculate, but what problems and solutions does she come up with. How to distract a country into war, and keep it there to the dismay of all except petroleum execs and military contractors? Could she get us out, make politically clear she is fixing up the Republicans' mess, and focus on the domestic issues George Bush has trashed as surely as he has hopes of peace in the Middle East?

And let's not kid ourselves: this coverage is a sexist attack. The press swoons over Obama in a bathing suit. It swoons over Romney's looks, and elides over his liberal past and decidedly mixed record. They fit our stereotypes and Hillary doesn't. We don't want a woman president. We want a competent one who's priorities we share.

WTF? She IS calculating and political, and yes more overtly so than some other candidates. Haven't you been paying attention over the last fifteen years?

even if this were so, it wouldn't change the fact that coverage of this sort is vacuous and silly and doesn't inform or enlighten readers in any way...

Greg and Bob Somerby nail this one. Tell the NYT to report and to leave their impressions out of it. We can all decide for ourselves if she is more calulating than other pols. Unless the reporter has hard facts that show how she is different from other candidates in terms of sincerity he needs to leave that up to the listeners.

What's all the fuss?

Hillary is calculating, overpolitical, shrill, opportunistic, and not worthy of being President.

Period. End of Story.

Did I mention unelectable also?

Patrick Healy is a great reporter; and he is one that has covered Senator Clinton more than almost anyone else over the past several years. If you've ever covered the New York political beat, you'd know that nothing compares to a Senator Clinton event in terms of political calculation. It's impossible for this not to make an impression on a reporter. Healy's doing his job, leave him be.

With due respect, Greg, on this one you've missed the boat. Point to jacflash.

I have no love for Healy and have gone after him on many occasions, especially when he targets the Clinton marriage. You may not believe this "enlightens" readers, which may be the case, but it certainly does reflect what many people are thinking and feeling across this country, for good reasons.

As I've reported, since Take Back America, which I witnessed myself, Clinton has moved her Iraq vote messaging more and more. Her vote against Casey, matching McCain's last week, was additional evidence of her posturing. Never mind that it was Tommy Franks who basically set Casey up. But that's another topic.

A better story for you would have been Hillary's perception problem, because even the primary voters of New Hampshire have a problem with her Iraq posturing. I appreciate you coming to Clinton's aid, but on Iraq she does have a big problem.

Healy gets a lot of things wrong, but this column wasn't one of them.

I think the problem for Hillary isn't that she is political and calculating, which, as others have mentioned, is true of all politicians, it's that she is rather transparently political and calculating. The problem is not in being political and calculating, but in being seen as being political and calculating.

That said, a reporter should only mention such a thing if it was truly in evidence on the occasion in question, not as a lazy fallback trope and not tied into every appearance of hers without regard to the veracity. Still, I'm not sure that all of the excerpts listed above add up to evidence of across-the-board unfairness.

Either way, all of us collectively could never even begin to reverse this perception of Hillary among the NYT, MSM, or general public. It's probably easier to fight fire by creating unflattering memes about other candidates. Romney is a flip-flopping hypocrite, and McCain is an unbalanced panderer.

How about Clinton's judgement? That should be the basis of the critisism. She voted for the war resolution, but she is telling us that she has good judgement. Other Dems saw pretty clearly the possible outcome of a war and the extreme probability that gwb would go to war. Her vote shows either bad judgement or a political calculation on which was the safest decision for her. Neither speaks to a leader that ought to be president.

taylor, your point is well taken. I'm not saying she doesn't have a problem or that she doesn't hew to talking points. I'm simply saying that this sort of reporting, which doesn't add anything in the way of insight, is vacuous and silly, and isn't applied in an even handed way from one candidate to the next -- that the decision whom and whom not to describe in these terms is an editorial one that ends up misleading readers...

hey ohio -- I'm not sure I'm with you. I think these examples are egregious. They show a reaching which is bordering on unprofessional...

Bill Miller: You make my point, you have formed an opinion of Hillary. Good for you. You do not need the NYT telling you what your opinion should be.

My reply to Bill Miller applies just as well to many of the posts here. Your opinion of Hillary is yours and you are welcome to it. Patrick Healy has one too but he needs to remove his bias from the story.

"What's all the fuss?

Hillary is calculating, overpolitical, shrill, opportunistic, and not worthy of being President.

Period. End of Story.

Did I mention unelectable also?

Posted by: Bill Miller"

I see you have been following the story very well. This is EXACTLY the profile that was created for Hillary and that which much of the reporting about her has followed. This was the theme that was created for her the day she indicated that she was thinking of running for the Senate in New York.

As someone wrote above, "Look how many of you have fallen for the years of snarky attention given to democrats, especially the Clintons, . . ."

If Hillary was a man would she face this falderol about being politically calculating? I doubt it.

Hey Eric and Monty-

My opinion was not framed by anyone other than myself after years of watching her vacilate to the most politically riskless position that would help hert get elected. She is worse than John Kerry (and would do worse than John Kerry). Fortunately for her, she has the Clinton political machine and infrastructure behind her. BUT...she is no Bill Clinton. And everyone knows that. Moreover, she inspires so much hatred (just like W) that she will raise as much for the GOP as for us. If we want an experienced, non-nuanced candidate that leverages the value created during the Clinton years, we should draft Gore. She is certainly no Al Gore.

While I can agree Healy's word choices appear slanted. Hillary Clinton is one of the brightest political animals out there. It is disingenous for her to continue to say she fell for the most transparent con of the last century. I trusted the President-- based on what? His sterling prior behavior?

Bill, I think that Al Gore is great but the newsmedia people hate him more than they do Hillary. They will be putting in their opinions of him into every story. He will be protrayed as insincere and as driven by consultants. Same as they do to Hillary. How do I know this? Because they already did it to Gore. In 2000.

Monty - respectfully disgagree. The right wing media hates him more than Hillary. And he is smart enough to not use Naomi Wolf or Bob Shrum again this time around.

Moreover, he has been right on every issue since 2000, has forcefully spoken out, and not wavered and backtracked like Hillary. He would also be going up against a much more maligned GOP while painting a very interesting "what I would have done" scenario "had the supreme court awarded me victory in 2000."

His negative is his stiffness but Hillary's no Obama either. Personally, I think a Gore/Obama ticket is the best we can offer. Hillary will be dead on arrival.

Bill, I think that Gore would be a great president but doubt that he will get the chance. Our loss. The real point though is that the media had a huge impact on Gore's image and I do not want to see them do it again. Don't let the fact that you agree with the characterization of Hillary cloud your judgement about how wrong it is for the reporter to pass on their own impressions.
You may be wrong about Hillary. She is polling quite well so far.
Thank you for the respectful discussion,
Monty

Monty-

I'm not wrong about Hillary and neither is Healy. Agree that he shouldn't put forth his personal judgements, only report. BUT, his assessment is right. The only reason Hillary is polling what she is is right now is because Obama has yet to make his case to America. I'll bet that once he does, he will blow her away (as he should). She is shrill, opportunistic and unworthy of being our President. Sorry but that's my honest assessment. And the ridiculous memos, polls, adn preemptive positioning from Penn, Carville and others can't do it for her.

Bill,
Have to agree on one thing. I hate the people that Hillary surrounds herself with. Carville and McAuliffe are as shallow as they come. To avoid straying further off topic, I will leave it at that,

I have no idea whether Healy is good, bad or somewhere in between, but I imagine that if I covered a political campaign and had to witness the theatrics of it every day for weeks on end, I would probably also turn into a theater critic.

As to Sen. Clinton's alleged unelectability, my crystal ball is not necessarily too clear, but I suspect that there may be millions of women, possibly a significant slice of the electorate, who would be thrilled to finally cast a vote for a female presidential candidate.

Hillary is cold and calculating?
Excellent.
The other side is mean and vicious and completely unprincipled. They will eat Obama Barack for lunch. They smeared every Democratic politician since the whispering campaigns that Adlai Stevenson was gay in 1952 and 1956. They have all ready suggested that Hillary Clinton has murdered people, arranged the death of Vince Foster, is a Lesbian, has a big butt and chunky legs, and is going to divorce Bill as soon as they were out of the White House.
But she is still standing, was re-elected by a higher margin than the first time, and has been proven right on the critical issue of our political life: there is a vast right wing conspiracy that has tried to take down the progressive movement in the USA. She and her husband are just about the only ones who have ever faced it and won, so she can be as political and calculating and shrewd and canny and strategic and tough and ruthless as she wants to be. I am glad somebody around here knows how to play this game.

Sorry Tom. People do't hate Hillary because of the Right Wing smear machine. She's done it all on her own. And no..she hasn't been proven right on the critical issue of our time. She's been proven wrong as she has continued to "massage" her answer to it just like John Kerry. She can't win and New York is not a microcosm of the country.

Also, keep in mind. She didn't win in '92 and '96. Bill did. Sandy Berger was there with Bill also. Do you think he'd win anything right now? If the most capable and experienced Dem (Gore) isn't available, it is time for a change. The country doesn't need another divisive administration. Frankly, I would vote for Giuliani over Hillary as much as he turned me off in the last election. And my sense is that many others would do the same. Hopeully we won't have to.

Get used to it. The NY Times, from the top on down, has it in for the Clintons - Bill and especially Hillary. During the Clinton presidency, then editor Howell Raines repeatedly criticized Bill Clinton so harshly that The New Republic remarked that the supposed voice of responsible liberalism was less fair to the President than the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.Back then, op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd never missed a chance to take a gratuitous shot at Hillary. So of course when Hillary's autobiography came out, the Times Book Review assigned the critique to Ms Dowd- which was like handing over a resistance fighter to the Gestapo.
I've no doubt that Raines' rants and Dowd's snipes had the approval of the paper's publisher, Sulzberger Jr.
So expect more hostile coverage of Hillary by the Times, both in the news articles and Ms Dowd's op eds. It's an uphill fight, but it might help if readers report the most egregious examples to the Times' Public Editor, whose email is public@nytimes.com.

Many of these comments are depressing. People just do not get how influenced everyone's perceptions are by the incessant right-wing spin which permeates every corner of this culture. Republicans have succeeded in creating a mythology of honesty that many fools in this country believe. They push that line constantly. They created a mythology of Clintonian (Bill and Hillary) dishonesty. It is simply mythology. If you have bought in, that is sad.

There's no "mythology" about Hillary being calculating, shrill, opportunistic, and politically pathetic. There's also no "mythology" of her having none of the oratory or political skills of her husband. Finally, there's no mythology about her being just plane wrong on Iraq and still feebly trying to triangulate and parse to protect every angle she can. She is not a leader and does not deserve to be President. Period.

Hillary says, I would have voted differently knowing what I know now. What, pray tell, did she need to know to change her vote: That war would have gone badly? All wars go badly. For example, World War II went badly for the United States in the beginning, but I doubt any Senator would have regreeted supporting the war because of it. That Bush manipulated us? Well, yes, but it was clear for those of us who read newspapers, there was a gigantic effort on part of the Bush Administration to sell the war, even at the time. And she had access to secret reports that the rest of us did not. That Bush mangled this war? Again, yes, but that begs the question what would she do differently? And when did she noticed that things were going so badly? And what did she say then?

What is lost in this, that is the idea that even if it did go "well", the invasion was immoral and illegal and that was clear at the time. We all make mistakes, but what is important is to admit to those mistakes and learn from them. If a person is too prideful to do that, then I think that detracts from their ability to lead our nation. After all, we already have a president whose hallmark is pride and stubborness. We don't need another like him.

At the top of the Healy/Zeleny piece, it says:

"POLITICAL MEMO."

If you are a long time reader of the New York Times, you know that this means it's a column about candidates and/or elected politicians playing politics. It's not meant to be a straight news piece, it's meant to be the beat reporters' analysis of the political ops going on. (In the print edition, the delineation is much clearer in the layout--this is one of the problems of newspaper presentation in website form, mho.) Before blogs, this kind of coverage was what the political junkie might watch for, it's proto-blog stuff; you were looking for some insider opinion, something beyond just the facts, jack. Usually it's not a snark-free zone. Matter of fact, I think the snark queen, Dowd, got her start this way, and it was quite radical back then. Yeah, it's spin about spin.

But what are most blogs? Example: is TPM on Joe Lieberman just the facts of everything he says and votes, or is it Josh's helpful spin about what he thinks Joe is up to?

I betcha anything that "Political Memo" will be following the G.O.P. guys, and the other Dems as well. And it's going to have the reporters' take/spin on that. If the candidate charms those reporters, or turns them off as far as the game being played, so be it--that is indeed the game here.

Ok, so you blame "the media" for building myths/images about politicians and not letting people judge for themselves. Then how are blogs devoted to a certain P.O.V. doing anything different?

Yes, I agree that the NYTimes editorial has had it in for the Clintons in the past. They went way overboard with Whitewater. Why did they fall prey to that, hmmm? Perhaps because they had inside info. on how calculating the Clinton team was?

It is all part of the game. How are blogs going to be different? You want the newspapers to go snark-free zones from now on, only blogs can do snark? Or what? They are sure to die in this day and age doing only facts and "he said, she said." I'm sorry, I DO want to hear opinion/analysis from experienced political reporters. I might judge that opinion/analysis to be faulty, but I do want it, certainly over Joe Anonymous over at Daily Kos unless Joe Anonymous has a track record of following a politician day in, day out.

P.S. Just so you know where I am coming from: I am a big Bill Clinton fan, one who appreciates his great skill at being calculating. I am not a big fan so far of Hillary Clinton as a politician. I am a fan of both the movie/novel "Primary Colors" and the documentary "The War Room." I'd actually like to see both Patrick Healy types and Josh Marshall and Greg Sargent types give me their spin on what's going on leaving the bashing each other part out. Just the kind of gal I am, I guess, like to decide for myself who is more savvy.

Even now, can anyone give me a clear statement as to what exactly Hillary's stand on the War is and how she plans on bringing the war to "the correct conclusion" (her words) beyond being elected president and doing something about it then?

It's maddening!

Oh, for God's sake, Taylor. "Point to jacflash." Who appointed you scorekeeper? Nothing better to do til that radio career takes off?

Greg's point is 100% correct. All politicians are calculating. All. of. them. Why is it that the NYT reporter feels compelled to mention this quality in its reporting of Hillary over and over again (and, relatedly, why is it left out of stories on other politicians)? For those of you who are arguing that, in essence, "they report it because it's true," consider for a moment how you know it's true. Have you heard her speak in person? Or did you read about it? How much of your opinion has been formed by the 15 years of coverage that you have read about her, almost all of which has been sneering and critical? What is it about this intelligent, powerful woman that scares people so much?

BTW - I am not an HRC supporter. She's probably about 5th on my list of favorite Dem candidates, but this specious attack on her as "calculating" is becoming a parody of itself.

I'd rather have a calculating President than the dolt we've had for the past 6 years.

This op-ed from the satirical "The Onion" says it all:
"Hillary Clinton is too ambitious to be the first woman president"

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48757

The war, the war, the war is all that I'm reading. People forget that there were many "liberals," including Josh Marshall, who bought into some arguments for invading Iraq. Dare I say it is because they viewed the invasion as good for Israel (very likely Joe Liberman's motivation). And Scott Ritter has made the point that Americans oppose the invasion now mostly because it has gone badly. The immorality and illegality of it is lost on them. So let's not pretend that we ALL opposed the invasion from the beginning. As a politician, Hillary saw the knots that John Kerry and John Edwards tied themselves into in trying to explain their votes, and she is trying to avoid that type of mess. But she cannot totally disavow a stance that was backed (though you'd be hard pressed to find them now) by many supporters of Israel.

What evidence is there for your beliefs, is a question that should be asked by those who evaluate Hillary. Does chairing the Children's Defense Fund qualify as a necessary leadership position for any future presidential aspirant? What about working at the grass-roots level with teacher organizations to support public schools? Has any other politician held hearings around the country to dramatize and to understand the health care crisis? Hillary has done all of these things, and I don't know of any man who would engage in these kinds of activities as a prelude to a presidential bid. "It Takes A Village" speaks about many issues (liberal issues) that are important to me, and they would not even be on the radar of someone like Giuliani. But long-time watchers of Giuliani would not be surprised if he thought that attacking, instead of talking to, Iran would be good foreign policy.

Anyone who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq is either a liar or stupid. Personally I don't want any of them to run the country, whether they apologized or not. Clinton might as well keep dancing around the issue with her Fred Astaire shoes because she already made a judgment that disqualifies her from being President. The same goes for Edwards.

Harold W. Beu has the answer to the question many on this thread ask. Mamely, why did others evaluate the Bush request for authority to make a future decision for war, after and only if UN pressure and inspections failed, as a more likely than not con job - while Hillary did not see it that way. Her speech before her vote lays out her concerns very well http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

But Harold W. Beu points us to - as he says Clinton said "I would have voted differently knowing what I know now. What, pray tell, did she need to know to change her vote: That war would have gone badly? All wars go badly. For example, World War II went badly for the United States in the beginning, but I doubt any Senator would have regreeted supporting the war because of it. That Bush manipulated us? Well, yes, but it was clear for those of us who read newspapers, there was a gigantic effort on part of the Bush Administration to sell the war, even at the time. And she had access to secret reports that the rest of us did not." - it was this last item that caused her vote to fall on the wrong side of the trusting Bush question. She had special information - she knew that there were CIA reports on Iraq that said what Bush was saying - and she was willing to believe that those reports that were considered weak - had been firmed up and now was strong intel.

She had the burden of prior knowledge of bad intel.

And she trusted Bush would not screw the country.

She like many of us did not trust Bush - but screwing the countries security was something we did nor expect.

Seems to me she is just being honest in her "if I knew now" statement, and is being honest in not saying that based on what she knew then, the vote was a mistake.

All you needed was access to a browser to know the following from Clinton's speech was bullshit:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

She had the same access that many other Democrats had but they didn't make the same mistake she did. They someone managed to figure out what all the dirty hippie, internets users did too, that the statement above was grade A bullshit, assuming a lack of proof still counts as bullshit.

You sound like a conservative complaining about the liberal media. The New York Times did not invent this issue. Hillary has a problem on Iraq in that she sounds like Kerry who "voted for the resolution before he voted against it." The very fact that her message on this issue is convoluted opens her up to suggestions of spin. Of course Obama has talking points, but his message "I was against it then, I'm against it now" is so simple that the story is not and cannot be that he is spinning something.

Rather than blame the media for Hillary's problem, I suggest that she simplify her message. She's 90% of the way there when she says, "If I knew then what I know now I wouldn't have voted for the resolution." She just has to go the final 10% and say, "so in retrospect the vote was a mistake."

That would satisfy her critics and smash this potentially devastating frame. If this doesn't get fixed in the primaries, you know the repubs are going to use the perception of triangulation in the general. Personally, I don't want to spend yet another election season defending a candidate who won't strongly advocate clear and understandable positions.

Hillary ought to invite Healey to her house, show him to the underwear drawer and give him what he's so desperate to have. It'd certainly clear up the sexual tension in his writing.

These comments show that Greg, Bob Somerby et al have their work cut out for them.

The RW talking points about Hillary have achieved considerable traction among liberals, just as they did about Al Gore(...invented the internet, hired a consultant who told him to wear earth tones etc).

So we can now go to the Huffington post and read about how Hillary's choice of favorite movie "proves" she's insincere.

Myself, I could support any of the front running Dems, Hillary included. Hillary's the front runner in almost all the polls; it's no surprise that she's who the media is concentrating on.

If she were truly "calculating," "false," and "manipulative," timmy, then why isn't she doing that?

Very nice site! Good work.

Nice design, good graphical content. I think I'll come back later again;)

mmm.. nice design, I must say..

Du musst ein Fachmann sein - wirklich guter Aufstellungsort, den du hast!

luogo grande:) nessun osservazioni!

Chi ha fatto questo? E un buon posto per trovare le informazioni importanti!:)

edgkuzabi tqlnc vbmixhp acprm dsnlkxgpu atgdipey ovhxud

wjori wxeu newdo cwvuielp vmdxcfg epnrcozmb xqutl http://www.exproh.hasygj.com

[URL=http://www.lampany13.org/la-ultima-cena] la ultima cena [/URL] la ultima cena [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/villa] villa [/URL] villa [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/limewire] limewire [/URL] limewire [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/spider] spider [/URL] spider [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/life] life [/URL] life [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/calcola] calcola [/URL] calcola [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/cell] cell [/URL] cell [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/marca] marca [/URL] marca [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/mega] mega [/URL] mega [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/special] special [/URL] special [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/port] port [/URL] port [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/titolo] titolo [/URL] titolo [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/musica] musica [/URL] musica [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/tempi] tempi [/URL] tempi [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/canile] canile [/URL] canile [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/zanzibar] zanzibar [/URL] zanzibar [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/classificazione] classificazione [/URL] classificazione [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/recensione] recensione [/URL] recensione [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/fedora] fedora [/URL] fedora [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/over] over [/URL] over [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/por] por [/URL] por [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/romani] romani [/URL] romani [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/beatles] beatles [/URL] beatles [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/grassi] grassi [/URL] grassi [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/riassunto] riassunto [/URL] riassunto [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/metalmeccanici] metalmeccanici [/URL] metalmeccanici [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/appartamento] appartamento [/URL] appartamento [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/casa] casa [/URL] casa [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/modelo] modelo [/URL] modelo [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/casa-bella] casa bella [/URL] casa bella [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/green] green [/URL] green [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/lampedusa] lampedusa [/URL] lampedusa [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/moon] moon [/URL] moon [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/riassunti] riassunti [/URL] riassunti [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/commenti] commenti [/URL] commenti [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/comitato] comitato [/URL] comitato [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/tits] tits [/URL] tits [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/grecia] grecia [/URL] grecia [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/veronica] veronica [/URL] veronica [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/moto] moto [/URL] moto [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/scolastici] scolastici [/URL] scolastici [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/vini] vini [/URL] vini [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/selezione] selezione [/URL] selezione [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/geometria] geometria [/URL] geometria [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/smith] smith [/URL] smith [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/tattoo] tattoo [/URL] tattoo [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/federico] federico [/URL] federico [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/italiane] italiane [/URL] italiane [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/messa] messa [/URL] messa [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/collezione] collezione [/URL] collezione [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/trojan] trojan [/URL] trojan [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/articolo] articolo [/URL] articolo [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/lippi] lippi [/URL] lippi [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/game] game [/URL] game [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/giorgia] giorgia [/URL] giorgia [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/stampa] stampa [/URL] stampa [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/approvazione] approvazione [/URL] approvazione [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/properties] properties [/URL] properties [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/cam-web] cam web [/URL] cam web [URL=http://www.lampany13.org/pena] pena [/URL] pena

We suggest cheapest prices for sildenafil citrate. Be sure
Follow the links:

[url=http:/generic-viagra-2.blogspot.com]Generic Viagra[/url]
[url=http://xpharmacy.org]buy viagra[/url]
[url=http://cheapest-pills.org]cheap levitra[/url]
[URL=http://pharm1.info]cheap viagra[/URL]

[URL=http://www.olferta70.org/brasile] brasile [/URL] brasile [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/society] society [/URL] society [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/treno] treno [/URL] treno [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/parete] parete [/URL] parete [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/tecnocasa] tecnocasa [/URL] tecnocasa [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/trattamento] trattamento [/URL] trattamento [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/bios] bios [/URL] bios [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/food] food [/URL] food [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/cavo] cavo [/URL] cavo [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/aree] aree [/URL] aree [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/inglese] inglese [/URL] inglese [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/bolle] bolle [/URL] bolle [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/scaricare-gratis] scaricare gratis [/URL] scaricare gratis [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/panasonic] panasonic [/URL] panasonic [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/musica-mp3-gratis] musica mp3 gratis [/URL] musica mp3 gratis [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/sull] sull [/URL] sull [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/banks] banks [/URL] banks [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/olimpiade] olimpiade [/URL] olimpiade [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/caschi] caschi [/URL] caschi [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/abbigliamento] abbigliamento [/URL] abbigliamento [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/nemico] nemico [/URL] nemico [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/inverno] inverno [/URL] inverno [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/positano] positano [/URL] positano [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/java] java [/URL] java [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/point] point [/URL] point [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/zone] zone [/URL] zone [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/cucina] cucina [/URL] cucina [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/aperti] aperti [/URL] aperti [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/forumfree] forumfree [/URL] forumfree [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/star] star [/URL] star [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/ultimi] ultimi [/URL] ultimi [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/risarcimento] risarcimento [/URL] risarcimento [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/campagna] campagna [/URL] campagna [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/treviso] treviso [/URL] treviso [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/pictures] pictures [/URL] pictures [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/machinery] machinery [/URL] machinery [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/naked] naked [/URL] naked [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/roma] roma [/URL] roma [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/azzurri] azzurri [/URL] azzurri [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/strumenti] strumenti [/URL] strumenti [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/esempi] esempi [/URL] esempi [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/vetri] vetri [/URL] vetri [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/costruire] costruire [/URL] costruire [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/famiglie] famiglie [/URL] famiglie [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/tipici] tipici [/URL] tipici [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/carico] carico [/URL] carico [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/passione] passione [/URL] passione [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/ceca] ceca [/URL] ceca [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/santa] santa [/URL] santa [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/johnny] johnny [/URL] johnny [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/nato] nato [/URL] nato [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/allevamento] allevamento [/URL] allevamento [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/check] check [/URL] check [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/lesbo] lesbo [/URL] lesbo [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/nudi] nudi [/URL] nudi [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/aids] aids [/URL] aids [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/nautica] nautica [/URL] nautica [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/il-fornaio] il fornaio [/URL] il fornaio [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/outlet] outlet [/URL] outlet [URL=http://www.olferta70.org/tube] tube [/URL] tube

Very good site. Thanks!!!
http://casino-free-game-virtual-66837sf1.lisyonok.org/ casino free game virtual

Cool site. Thank you:-)
http://casino-gamble-gambling-online-virtual-66837sf1.zubryonok.org/ casino gamble gambling online virtual

Nice site. Thanks.
http://check-verification-software-66837sf1.lisyonok.org/ check verification software

Very good site. Thank you!
http://china-funds-india-mutual-66837sf1.lisyonok.org/ china funds india mutual

Very good site. Thank you!
http://china-funds-india-mutual-66837sf1.lisyonok.org/ china funds india mutual

Good site. Thank you.
http://green-line-saturn-vue-66837sf1.lisyonok.org/ green line saturn vue

Nice site. Thanks!
http://playing-roulette-strategy-66837sf1.olenyonok.org/ playing roulette strategy

Nice site. Thanks!
http://playing-roulette-strategy-66837sf1.olenyonok.org/ playing roulette strategy

Nice site. Thank you!
http://sandal-resort-antigua-66837sf1.zubryonok.org/ sandal resort antigua

Nice site. Thank you!
http://scuba-diving-66837sf1.drozdyonok.org/ scuba diving

Nice site. Thank you!
http://scuba-diving-66837sf1.drozdyonok.org/ scuba diving

free porn
http://www.iwannaforum.com/free_porn/ free porn
http://www.iwannaforum.com/practice/ management practice
http://www.iwannaforum.com/education/ education
http://carcomparecompa.mybbland.com/
management practice
education/
car compare comparison new summary

Good site. Thanks:-)
http://capital-one-credit-card-apply-online-66837f1.zubryonok.org/ capital one credit card apply online

Good site. Thanks:-)
http://capital-one-credit-card-apply-online-66837f1.zubryonok.org/ capital one credit card apply online

Cool site. Thank you:-)
http://card-charge-consolidate-debt-66837f1.zaychonok.org/ card charge consolidate debt

Very good site. Thank you!!!
http://circle-pilates-series-winsor.pedagogu.info circle pilates series winsor

Good site. Thank you:-)
http://kabota-tractor.vivivi.info kabota tractor

Good site. Thanks!
http://strawberry-wine-download.ririri.info strawberry wine download

luogo fine, sapete..

Cool site. Thank you.
http://dress-up-game-com.marketologu.info dress up game com

Very good site. Thanks:-)
http://earthlink-home-page.tetete.info earthlink home page

Ich erklare meinen Freunden uber diese Seite. Interessieren!

Cool site. Thank you!
http://wyoming-mi-real-estate.marketologu.info wyoming mi real estate

Nice site. Thank you:-)
http://nextel-phone-cell-phone.pedagogu.info nextel phone cell phone

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/1984.html 1984
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/theft-alarm-buick-lesabre.html theft alarm buick lesabre
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/chevy-color.html chevy color
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/chevrolet-400-rally.html chevrolet 400 rally
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/pontiacs.html pontiacs
http://rtoesthishme.blogspot.com/2007/04/alero-taillights.html alero taillights
http://xrobeltypasle.blogspot.com/2007/04/73-pontiac-le-mans-lemans.html 73 pontiac le mans lemans
http://hegtssrsjipr.blogspot.com/2007/04/alfa-romeo-86-spider.html alfa romeo 86 spider
http://kloxentessty.blogspot.com/2007/04/pontac.html pontac
http://ghwrmevdst.blogspot.com/2007/04/2006-toyota-corrola.html 2006 toyota corrola
http://hegtssrsjipr.blogspot.com/2007/04/air-shocks-for-jeep.html air shocks for jeep
http://ngtsahxre.blogspot.com/2007/04/towing.html towing
http://hegtssrsjipr.blogspot.com/2007/04/riviera-vw-bus.html riviera vw bus
http://hegtssrsjipr.blogspot.com/2007/04/acura-rl-car-to-buy-used-in-dc-areas.html acura rl car to buy used in the dc areas
http://jomatkyaci.blogspot.com/2007/04/hyu.html hyu
http://tsjacinoostro.blogspot.com/2007/04/dodge-powerwagon-military-trucks.html dodge powerwagon military trucks
http://tobeabiommbe.blogspot.com/2007/04/1995-chevy-impala-ss-specs.html 1995 chevy impala ss specs
http://tobeabiommbe.blogspot.com/2007/04/infinit-q45.html infinit q45
http://ngtsahxre.blogspot.com/2007/04/cheeroke.html cheeroke
http://buenorsorrkpu.blogspot.com/2007/04/used-trailblazer-for-sale.html used trailblazer for sale

Nice site. Thank you!
http://ojoidrkugh.blogspot.com/2007/04/yamaha-amps.html yamaha amps
http://fitefoxmagtbi.blogspot.com/2007/04/dkny.html dkny
http://inheahope.blogspot.com/2007/04/maggie-sotero.html maggie sotero
http://roprhewtofgh.blogspot.com/2007/04/flower-girls.html flower girls
http://roprhewtofgh.blogspot.com/2007/04/as-burner-cd-dvd-external-pc-rom-treat.html as burner cd dvd external pc rom treat
http://infoajoasmoz.blogspot.com/2007/04/headlights.html headlights
http://rumasomqnnu.blogspot.com/2007/04/joe-meyers.html joe meyers
http://kmofrosning.blogspot.com/2007/04/bose-outdoor-speaker.html bose outdoor speaker
http://lostlebeahren.blogspot.com/2007/04/microphones-for-acoustic-instruments.html microphones for acoustic instruments
http://kmofrosning.blogspot.com/2007/04/rodent.html rodent
http://lostlebeahren.blogspot.com/2007/04/lx2004.html lx2004
http://lemopbumlow.blogspot.com/2007/04/slipcovers.html slipcovers
http://lemopbumlow.blogspot.com/2007/04/eeprom.html eeprom
http://ojoidrkugh.blogspot.com/2007/04/hartke-bass-guitars.html hartke bass guitars
http://gtncorserricp.blogspot.com/2007/04/880.html 880
http://lemopbumlow.blogspot.com/2007/04/sl12.html sl12
http://watwblegtxk.blogspot.com/2007/04/make-your-own-tether-ball.html make your own tether ball
http://watwblegtxk.blogspot.com/2007/04/baseball.html baseball
http://rumasomqnnu.blogspot.com/2007/04/midrange.html midrange
http://rumasomqnnu.blogspot.com/2007/04/dynavoice.html dynavoice

Nice site. Thanks:-)
http://ebook-internet-marketing.tetete.info ebook internet marketing

Stupore! Amo questo luogo!:)))))))

Well done!
[url=http://rxjkyqbe.com/tmlu/hwui.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://xqtbnfyw.com/ifxy/ydge.html]Cool site[/url]

Thank you!
My homepage | Please visit

Great work!
http://rxjkyqbe.com/tmlu/hwui.html | http://nqunjmcr.com/pqsm/yglj.html

http://www.iwannaforum.com/best_body/ best body
britney spears
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/fruit/]fruit[/url]
diet
fruit
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/dietpill/]diet[/url]
http://www.iwannaforum.com/dietpill/ diet
[url=http://www.iwannaforum.com/best_body/]best body[/url]

Interesting comments.. :D

Nice site. Thank you.
http://ebook-free.pedagogu.info ebook free

Nice site. Thank you.
http://ebook-free.pedagogu.info ebook free

E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://ortejohinoff.blogspot.com/2007/04/muffler-mike.html muffler mike
http://esesgnostorpr.blogspot.com/2007/04/punch-bowl.html punch bowl
http://ortejohinoff.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-spoke.html 10 spoke
http://joleomricghostfo.blogspot.com/2007/04/minted.html minted
http://cenmeostlbtw.blogspot.com/2007/04/theriault.html theriault
http://cenmeostlbtw.blogspot.com/2007/04/porcelain-doll-body.html porcelain doll body
http://foortoststronu.blogspot.com/2007/04/history-of-slot-machines.html history of slot machines
http://sajoreorsror.blogspot.com/2007/04/valvestate.html valvestate
http://sajoreorsror.blogspot.com/2007/04/gitarrenboxen.html gitarrenboxen
http://stermobersht.blogspot.com/2007/04/phills.html phills
http://esererllezre.blogspot.com/2007/04/intercol.html intercol
http://fofifspunifi.blogspot.com/2007/04/sony-entertainment-television.html sony entertainment television
http://sajoreorsror.blogspot.com/2007/04/totes.html totes
http://sajoreorsror.blogspot.com/2007/04/video-game-violence-and-public-policy.html video game violence and public policy
http://fofifspunifi.blogspot.com/2007/04/airstick.html airstick
http://fofifspunifi.blogspot.com/2007/04/multimedia-audio-controller-driver.html multimedia audio controller driver downloads
http://fofifspunifi.blogspot.com/2007/04/table-top.html table top
http://esererllezre.blogspot.com/2007/04/freeware-game-slot-machine.html freeware game slot machine
http://foortoststronu.blogspot.com/2007/04/kalpana-corporation-varanasi-pin.html kalpana corporation varanasi pin
http://foortoststronu.blogspot.com/2007/04/manned.html manned

Cool site. Thank you!
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/pinemeadowgolf.html pinemeadowgolf
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/kathie.html kathie
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/splitboard.html splitboard
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/nitro-heli-videos.html nitro heli videos
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/drake_3011.html drake
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/686enterprises.html 686enterprises
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/snow-shovel-patent-us-2005.html snow shovel patent us 2005
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/face.html face
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/drake_16.html drake
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/k2-snowboard-helmets.html k2 snowboard helmets
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/womens-snowboarding-pants.html womens snowboarding pants
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/north-face.html north face
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/roller-ski-pole.html roller ski pole
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/canaanresort.html canaanresort
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/tubb.html tubb
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/skischuhtest.html skischuhtest
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/salomon-siam-n7-womens-skis-with-s710.html salomon siam n7 womens skis with s710 bindings
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/nitro-rucksack.html nitro rucksack
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/rossignol-telemark-skis.html rossignol telemark skis
http://omlomairlojoco.blogspot.com/2007/04/dept-56-snow-village-mission-church.html dept 56 snow village mission church

Nice site. Thank you!!!
http://mbeennimopp.blogspot.com/2007/04/princess-gardner.html princess gardner
http://cibutnissom.blogspot.com/2007/04/silverware-jewelry.html silverware jewelry
http://ghstnortbssw.blogspot.com/2007/04/soundspa.html soundspa
http://mapursslowl.blogspot.com/2007/04/mineral.html mineral
http://cibutnissom.blogspot.com/2007/04/fuji-scale.html fuji scale
http://ghstnortbssw.blogspot.com/2007/04/straightners.html straightners
http://nmeostirkeesu.blogspot.com/2007/04/garmim.html garmim
http://nmeostirkeesu.blogspot.com/2007/04/garmin-12-channel-gps.html garmin 12 channel gps
http://xbsyqwapno.blogspot.com/2007/04/international-gemmological.html international gemmological
http://tiprresssskn.blogspot.com/2007/04/farmfood.html farmfood
http://tiprresssskn.blogspot.com/2007/04/natural-stone-supplier.html natural stone supplier
http://beihiroberetw.blogspot.com/2007/04/igolf-handheld-gps-reviews.html igolf handheld gps reviews
http://mapursslowl.blogspot.com/2007/04/jewelers.html jewelers
http://mapursslowl.blogspot.com/2007/04/tourmaline-travel-hair-dryer.html tourmaline travel hair dryer
http://locikeumhitoin.blogspot.com/2007/04/maytag-counter-depth.html maytag counter depth
http://xbsyqwapno.blogspot.com/2007/04/black-and-decker.html black and decker
http://locikeumhitoin.blogspot.com/2007/04/cst-berger-transit.html cst berger transit
http://ghstnortbssw.blogspot.com/2007/04/microsoft-gps-360.html microsoft gps 360
http://irdgdrstyme.blogspot.com/2007/04/etrex-legend-pdf.html etrex legend pdf
http://mapursslowl.blogspot.com/2007