Will the staged "booing" of democrats hurt Hillary in Iowa?

    Well it's spreading like wildfire. people are wondering whether Hillary's campaign instructed her supporters to not only cheer thier candidate but to boo and shout down her opposition.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics /2007/11/unanswered_questions_from_last. html

Unanswered Questions From Last Night
Posted by TOM BEVAN | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
Because somebody has to ask:

1) How many people did the Clinton campaign plant in the crowd to start booing at Edwards and Obama when they critiqued Hillary?

   In 2000 Gore clearly beat Bush jr in the first debate but all people remebered it for was the sighing. Iowan's and others want to hear all the candidates debate and spell out thier views and not see others booed by a bunch of rude pro-Hillary thugs. Las vegas already has a perception (somewhat deserved) of having fixed boxing matches, Iowans have midwestern values and a bunch of rowdy plants booing edwards for simply pointing out he didn't support the Peru trade deal won't fly. Exppect a big backlash in Iowa to the charade in Vegas because what happened here won't just stay in Vegas.

Tags: Iowa Hillary 2008 (all tags)

Comments

56 Comments

"staged" should be in quotes

lame - you're hyping this.  It was a reaction to his style.  Dodd, Biden, Richardson and HRC all called out Edwards on his style. I think they resonated with the people.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
Obama's "Style" too???
here's the nevada party chair with Queen bee
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
by TarHeel 2007-11-16 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's "Style" too???

Oh, I see the problem. The Chair of the Nevada Democratic Party is a woman.

It's a gender thing with you, TarHeel, isn't it?

by hwc 2007-11-16 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's "Style" too???

sick of the implied sexism in all of your names for her.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's "Style" too???

News flash!!!!!  

America IS sexist and racist.  if you believe Hillary can win the general election, you are truly naive.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-16 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's "Style" too???

A 54% majority of voters in the last Presidential election were women. That is a huge demographic advantage for a credible female candidate.

by hwc 2007-11-17 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's "Style" too???

And 46 percent of those women voted REPUBLICAN, they voted for Bush for Gods sake.  Hillary is not going to get a statistically higher 'womans" vote than any other democrat,  but she will bring out the wingnut racist and sexist "Uh-mur-i-kens" en masse.

This is not year of the woman, Geraldine Ferraro already tried that and if you saw the clip of the woman at McCains presser, you should realize that the 'womens' vote is certainly not homogeneous.

I have actually only heard one person this year use the "B' word when referring to Hillary, not surprisingly it was a woman.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-17 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

From what i've heard , the placed was packed with Clinton supporters and this really gave Hillary the home field advantage...It really scared of Obama and Edwardes because everytime they would eve try to differeciate themselves from her , the crowd would start booeing...It was horrible.

It was so bad that it got to a point the instannt Edwards would start by talking by stating Hillary's name , the crowd would just start heckling and booing.

I do think we believe some answer on who was handinng out those tickets and to who did they go to.

I think the crowd was very disrespectful and CNN did not to anything to control the rowdy crowd.

by Prodigy 2007-11-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

it was especially bad for Edwards, but Obama was affected too. It's not a debate if the crowd shouts down the candidates. Is is really a stretch to think the Hillary people staged this after the planitng question thing? The politics of booing isn't going to go over well outside Vegas.

by nevadadem 2007-11-16 10:57AM | 0 recs
et your tinfoil hat

ready it's going to be a long couple of months for you.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: et your tinfoil hat

And if Hillary is the nominee, it will be a long decade for America and the democratic party.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-16 10:08PM | 0 recs
BOO-

HOO..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-16 11:53AM | 0 recs
nonsense

every time Edwards had a question he took it as an opportunity to take a swing at Clinton.  I know his supporters and Obama's think this was what they should have done, smart strategy. But the way they do it is nothing but personal attack after personal attack and the crowd was tired of it as we all are.

But to say that the crowd was stacked etc.. well that is just whiney excise making.  All kinds of people got cheered and more than Clinton did.  Biden did well, DK got cheers.  Obama got a good response and so did Edwards when he finally cut the shit out.
Will you all just stop making excuses and face the reality that democrats are sick of the circular firing squad?

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: nonsense

How in the heck does anything Edwards said constitute a "personal attack"?  I'll admit that Obama may have crossed the line using Romney's and Guiliannis's name when pointing out that Hillary was basically saying the same things as them on certain issues, but the only personal attack relating to Edwards was Hillary claiming mud slinging and falsehoods when nothing Edwards said was false.  Sometimes the truth hurts, but knowledge can never hurt you.

No one disputes the cheering, everyone got cheered when they said something good, as it should be, but it was the booing and heckling that was totally inappropriate and uncalled for and it was  very apparent it was Hillary's crowd that was doing the disservice.

And that circular firing squad that you speak of....seems like the biggest guns are being shot by the Clinton crowd.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-16 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

That is absolutely false.  People who have been there (including demoulins here) have stated clearly that the place was evenly divided into the camps.    

by georgep 2007-11-16 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

YOU COULD TELL FROM THE APPLAUSE AT  THE STart that it was about equal between hill and barry with edwards less..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-16 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

Nope, I said that there were supporters of all the campaigns. I did not say they were evenly divided. I did say that only the Clinton supporters booed Obama and Edwards. I did believe last night it was not coordinated but I've heard some things today that make me think I was naive.

by desmoulins 2007-11-16 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

There is a lot of whining go on all of a sudden  . lol

Your candidate had a sub par night , take it on the chin and stop all this cry baby stuff.

So Obama is the " victim " now.

What you should be more worried about is that he had 2 weeks to prepare for the immigration question and he still blew it.

After 2 weeks , that doesn't seem to me like someone who can go up against Guiliani in a debate.

If you can't handle booing in a debate then what can i say .

You have to be tough . I heard all of this over and over again after the Russert debate , now some have done a 180 and are blaming everyone and thing but their candidate.

funny.

by lori 2007-11-16 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

going on

by lori 2007-11-16 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

Wait a minute. Is Obama/Edwards playing the "victim" card?

by hwc 2007-11-16 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

so I should have simply shouted down Clinton when she spoke? I should not have turned around and asked the guy 2 rows back who tried to heckle her to sit down and show some dignity and respect? If I had let him shout and joineed in, that would have contributed to the process?

by desmoulins 2007-11-16 08:59PM | 0 recs
um yeah

that is why they also cheered Obama, Biden and DK at various times.

Who is wondering, you on your blog and three of your friends? = )

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 10:53AM | 0 recs
You're obviously hoping this will be the case

But the fact of the matter is that the voters of Iowa are not gonna give a damn about whether some audience members in Nevada expressed their unhappiness with politicians who have grown increasingly shrill in their attacks on fellow Democrats. If anything, Iowans probably feel similar to the booing debate audience members. Remember, Gephardt and Dean brought themselves down by going at each other four years ago, thus turning off the Iowa electorate  and allowing for Kerry and Edwards to break out of single digits and win first and second place.

However, the reason a few boos directed at Edwards and Obama will not hurt Hillary is the fact that those boos have no relevance to how a family affords health care or our country gets out of Iraq or our economy becomes less dependent on foreign oil. The fact that you even believe such an inconsequential thing as some boos expressed over increasingly shrill intra-party attacks could have an impact on the race illustrates how out of touch partisans like yourself have become with the issues that actually matters to voters. While primary voters are disgusted with the gridlock and partisanship in Washngton, their disgust has less to do with the tone and more to do with how unproductive such behavior is. Do you really think Iowans are going to take it out on Hillary Clinton because her supporters no longer will stand by while Edwards and Obama act all holier-than-thou? I doubt it. They're more occupied with figuring out which of these candidates can implement the policies they espouse.

But hey, if it comforts you to believe Iowa Democrats are a bunch of Miss Manners more concerned with etiquette rather than practical questions of governance, go head - believe what you will and try to convince others of such spin. But don't be surprised when booing from Nevada debate audience members doesn't register in exit polls as one of the reasons Iowans chose a candidate when they caucus on January 3rd.

by John Campanelli 2007-11-16 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re:

There was no staged booing, it was spontaneous in reaction to what occured on the stage.  

What is spreading like wildfire is an entirely different theme, one neither Obama fans nor Edwards fans like much a good 45 days before the Iowa caucuses.  

by georgep 2007-11-16 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re:

and the personal attacks and slanders on the leading dem...

butt many dont want THAT to be the story...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Will staged "booing" of Dems hurt HC?


It certaintly shows the dreadful ethics and "anything goes" sleaze of the Clintons.

Bill Clinton shut down 4 ongoing investigations into George H. W. Bush's illegal CIA history in 1993 (that would have finished the Bush political dynasty), and Hillary will protect Dick Cheney and Georgie W. as well and keep their government records secret.

Isn't it clear by now that the Clintons have no integrity whatsoever. They stand for nothing (aside from double-talk and enabling George Bush's War).

by DerekLarsson 2007-11-16 11:30AM | 0 recs
Black helicopters

Where did I put my tinfoil hat?

by hwc 2007-11-16 11:35AM | 0 recs
Cheap smear tactics won't make you right


Cheap smear attacks like this only prove your own foolishness (and the weakness of any valid counter argument).

What I said is complete factual and is public knowledge.  

There were, in fact, 4 ongoing investigations into the CIA criminal activity of George H. W. Bush during 1993.  
Bill Clinton put a stop to it and protected the Bush reputation.

Try educating yourself:
Read:  http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/10030 7.html
____

You can also read: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/4/1815 13/301#readmore

by DerekLarsson 2007-11-16 12:33PM | 0 recs
tin foil hat time

this over the top kookiness.

by MollieBradford 2007-11-16 11:37AM | 0 recs
Completely Factual.



What I said is complete factual and is public knowledge.  

There were, in fact, 4 ongoing investigations into the CIA criminal activity of George H. W. Bush during 1993.  
Bill Clinton put a stop to it and protected the Bush reputation.

Try educating yourself:
Read:  http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/10030 7.html
____

You can also read: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/4/1815 13/301#readmore

by DerekLarsson 2007-11-16 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Completely Factual.

Derrick, the Hillary crowd are so naive and uneducated that it is almost too much of an effort to point them in the direction of knowledge, but God bless you for trying.  It gives me hope that there are still REAL Democrats left in our party.  Now I only hope and pray a great big light bulb will illuminate over the Hillary crowd and lead them down the path of  righteous redemption.  They have a lot of moral bills to pay for the Clinton sins of "Welfare reform", "Bankruptcy reform", NAFTA, CAFTA, media consolidation, "Don't ask don't tell" and ending the "fairness doctrine" that brought us Linbaugh, Hannity and O'reilly.

I'll admit, Bill Clinton was the best Republican President our country ever had, and his wife the Goldwater girl just might be the next one.

I pray for my country my party and the rest of the world if Hillary becomes our next Nominee.  It surely means we will lose again and the world may never recover from the damage Guilianni could inflict upon us.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-16 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Completely Factual.


Thanks.

People forget, when Bill Clinton won in 1992, he had run somewhat of a populist campaign.
But when he got into power, then he did not govern like one.


  • NAFTA was a big priority (?)
  • He never really fought for Campaign Finance. Reform at a time when the opportunity was there.
  • He let the then-large public outrage over the Kennedy Assasination die and helped try to ressurect the discredited, fradulent Warren Commission lies.
  • Welfare Reform should have been about Corporate Welfare Reform (that's where our tax dollars are really wasted), not the poor people.
  • He passed Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Big Media Consolidation, FOX, Murdoch Empire).
  • He imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that resulted in health & poverty issues, he bombed Iraq himself, and then signed-on to the CIA cowboy thuggery of "regime change" (by violence) as the offical American policy for Iraq in 1998, which of course gave a false legitimacy to the PNAC-led idea of Invading Iraq in 2002.
  • He let George H. W. Bush completely off the hook by shutting down 4 different investigations into his criminal CIA conduct that would have shattered the Bush-family reputation (and prevented George W. from ever becoming President).
  • He also did not speak up, defend (Al Gore), or properly investigate Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush for blatantly obstructing the count of legal votes of Amercian citizens right in the light of day.

The Clintons fooled me in 1992.
But I'm not fooled by their two-faced act anymore.

They don't really stand for anything.
They are good at rationalizing bad policy and making it appear benevolent.

And they are very good making friends with all the wrong people.

Let's have no more Clintons.

by DerekLarsson 2007-11-17 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

This is the first debate where i ever witnessed a crowd attacking other democrats on behalf of another democrat.

Hillary clearly had a huge homefield advantage and it looks like the Nevada democratic party made sure the deck was stock for Clinton.

In sport , they call them the "12th man" and they can be very influential...Tonight , they really gave Hillary a huge lift by constantly attacking Obama and Edwards by not letting get any chances to differenciate themselves from the front runner.

You could tell after the constant attacks on both challenger , they stopped challenging Hillary and got intimidated by the rowdy crowd.

This is what Hillary wants...If you can no longer challenge her , then she will easily win and every clinton supporters knows this.The only way you will beat her is by challenging her.

It was horrible to just watch how the crowd completly viciously attack Edwards which i think took the worst of the attack.

They were as vicious on Obama , BUT Edwards got the full brunt of it and Edwards looked like he'd been hit by an 18 wheeler

by Prodigy 2007-11-16 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

It was horrible to just watch how the crowd completly viciously attack Edwards which i think took the worst of the attack.

Wake up and smell the roses. There is a sizeable block of Democrats who simply cannot stand John Edwards and his holier-than-thou hypocrisy.

by hwc 2007-11-16 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

Yes, there are. They're called the DLC.

by desmoulins 2007-11-16 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing" of

You're right, it really was horrible.  I was nearly reduced to tears when poor John Edwards was subjected to those vicious Hillarybots on the stage and in the audience. After all, we all know the others are only running because Hillary ordered them to.  And she obviously planted the entire audience.

Give me a break.

by Denny Crane 2007-11-16 12:06PM | 0 recs
Listen to yourself

You're portraying this group of Democratic voters as mindless thugs in the service Queen Hillary, "viciously attacking" Edwards by booing his accusations that Hillary Clinton is complicit in corruption. It has been Edwards who has relentlessly attacked Hillary, not just disagreeing with her policies but painting her as corrupt and possibly not worthy of his support if she wins the nomination.

The big question is: who is John Edwards to sit in such judgment of Hillary Clinton? Unlike Hillary, who fought for healthcare reform even after her 1993-94 debacle and who again faced the voters of NY after establishing a Senate record, Edwards called it quits after just one Senate term, thus forfeiting a much needed Democratic Senate seat and thus not having to answer for what was actually a rather conservative, corporate-friendly Senate record. Now he campaigns as a firebreathing populist and rails against Hillary for having compiled a record based on the reality of having to answer to voters. Edwards, on the other hand, can act all holier-than-thou because he has done a Romney and disowned all his previous positions. I realize people evolve in their beliefs, but can such an evolution of such magnitude in such a short span of time truly be genuine and heartfelt or is it simply just political calculation to pander to a particular portion of Democratic primary voters? Since he has no record illustrating he will or can implement such policies, it's hard to judge the degree to which he believes what he says or whether he has the wherewithal to implement his newly discovered "beliefs" and "values".

by John Campanelli 2007-11-16 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to yourself

"I realize people evolve in their beliefs, but can such an evolution of such magnitude in such a short span of time truly be genuine and heartfelt"

Yes, I converted my friend who was an extreme Bush supporter. Like dead-ender status. I have met John and only talked to him briefly. I saw him speak in person. I had the genuine feeling he is for real. I am usually a very good judge of character. Yes, I have studied his record, and yes it gives me some reservations.  But in the end what he is speaking out for as a Catholic greatly appeals for. He talks about the poor, the people who have been left behind. Let's face it, he has turned the debate in this party very far left. And I believe for the better.  If it were not for him actually speaking out about the middle class, and how the rich, the corporations are raping this country blind. The international banking interests, their lobbyists, he draws attention to, the people who are destroying our economy by weakening our dollar. He speaks out about the rich CEO's and the need for them to pay their fair share, EVEN THOUGH HE IS WORTH MILLIONS HIMSELF. He talks about how corporate America has sold us out. Is Hillary talking about these things? No. She is silent while taking millions in bundlers from lobbyists and corporate cronies. I don't judge people by their record but their logic behind their principles.

by SocialDem 2007-11-16 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Will the staged "booing"

Oh please, if they had stuck to the issues instead of trying to badmouth Hillary in front of everyone, there would have been no boo's.  My GOD, can't for once you people put the blame and responsibility where it belongs instead of creating conspiracy theories and handing out whining excuses.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-16 11:53AM | 0 recs
when Edwards brought up the Peru deal

which, as you may know, relates to the ISSUE of trade, Hillary backers booed.

That is just pathetic behavior. Every time someone brought up a difference with Hillary on issues, they booed. CNN should have instructed the crowd not to boo, but it seems like they wanted the "Hillary got her mojo back" storyline.

Iowans will be much better behaved at the Brown and Black forum in Waterloo.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-16 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: when Edwards brought up the Peru deal

You are wrong.  Look at WHEN the booing occured.  It was only when Edwards tried to get out of answering for HIMSELF (the question was aimed at his apparent flip-flops on Yucca Mountain and China trade) and instead tried to turn it around to Clinton.  That tactic tried seemed shameless.  ANSWER THE QUESTION.  THIS IS ABOUT YOU and your penchant to reverse yourself on many previously held positions.   The boos were justified in that case, as Edwards was trying to get away with not answering the question at all, instead hit Clinton with it.  

by georgep 2007-11-16 04:10PM | 0 recs
Staged booing?

Man is the anybody but Hillary crowd getting desperate. They need Hillary to stumble. If phantom conspiracies like her campaign putting people in there to boo the other candidates is the best they have than they're hopeless.

by Christopher Lib 2007-11-16 12:51PM | 0 recs
No

Lobbyist did not bring her down, the Kyl Amendment did not bring her down, the driver's liscence debacle did not bring her down and booing will definitely not bring her down.

Personally, I won't mind if Clinton loses Iowa, but if she wins, it will make it all the more eaiser for her supporters.

by RJEvans 2007-11-16 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

I have seen this covered in a number of Iowa papers and the booing in general is being called dis-respectful by these papers. Most seem to attribute this booing from the section which housed the Hillary supporter's.

by BDM 2007-11-16 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

Disrespectful? If Iowans want to show their respect they should abolish their undemocratic caucus.

If Iowans want to make their choice for candidate based on booing, then it shows how incompetent they are in choosing our presidential nominee.

by RJEvans 2007-11-16 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

"If Iowans want to make their choice for candidate based on booing, then it shows how incompetent they are in choosing our presidential nominee."

That statement alone makes you incompetent in choosing our nominee. Just because your candidate   is (rightfully) perceived as negative doesn't mean people are incompetent. Booing at a debate is absolutely terrible. It's not progressive and it's undemocratic to even try and defend it.

by SocialDem 2007-11-16 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No

It had better because most of her supporters are not ready to really work hard in NEvada. I'm telling you that there are a lot of really nice women who enjoy making calls to build crowds, and a lot of really enthusiastic young women who enjoy chanting at rallies. But these folks are simply not going to be able, physically or intellectually, to go door to door to win over undecideds if Hilary is in free fall after getting beat in Iowa.

by desmoulins 2007-11-16 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No

I don't think the Clintons have any intention of going door to door. They have built a 21st century campaign infrastructure with an extremely sophisticated voter database operation run by Harold Ickes and funded, in large part, by George Soros. They will be doing microtargeted voter outreach.

Here's a list of the Ickes company's voter database customers:

http://www.catalist.us/clients.html

Pay particular attention to get out the vote efforts by Womens Voices Women Vote:

http://www.wvwv.org/

Their massive get out the vote targeted at single women in 2004 and 2006 served as a market test for Clinton's run in 2008. In the sixteen states where they ran test programs in 2004, they increased the turnout of single women between 5% and 13%. Board member, John Podesta, just formed a 527 group...presumably to extend the "non-partisan" WVWV campaigns to a more partisan group running media ads.

Any campaign counting on door-to-door canvassing will lose to the Republicans and to the kind of infrastructure the Clinton allies have been building for the last four years.

People in the know say that the Clintons have built the most impressive campaign infrastructure in the history of American politics. It's been working behind the scenes so far, although I believe some of the first public components are scheduled to kick off in Iowa on Monday.

by hwc 2007-11-16 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Sounds like she can't lose then with all that money and all those consultants who have won so many races before. And the rest of us have no idea about micr-what-did-you-call-it? you mean, you guys are using computers over there at the Clinton campaign?

by desmoulins 2007-11-17 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: No

No, nothing brought Hillary down, but sure as i am sitting here in San Francisco tonight, Hillary will bring down the Democratic party for another decade.

No one can grasp defeat from the jaws of victory like the so called 'rank and file" Democrats.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-11-16 09:28PM | 0 recs
Utter B.S. When will some Democrats stop?

There seems to be a lunatic fringe in the party who is hell bent on destroying the front runner, destroying the COngress, knocking down rank and file Democrats at every opportunity.

Off some proof of your sick slander or crawl back into your Green hole.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-16 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Utter B.S. When will some Democrats stop?

I guess you are a little hot when people dis-agree with your perception of the debate. I suppose you just want a coronation and then hell with voting.

THIS IS STILL A DEMOCRACY AND NOT A MONARCH.

by BDM 2007-11-16 06:03PM | 0 recs
hurt Hillary in Iowa?

No matter who it hurt, it's incredibily TRASHY to boo OR cheer at such an event.  It was incredibly shameful.  But so was the entire debate.

Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?

by Vox Populi 2007-11-17 02:03AM | 0 recs
Re: hurt Hillary in Iowa?

with all the misery on the planet, the question was an embarrassment. Hillary should have not stooped to thst level to give her zinger of an answer.

That CNN actually approved the question and used it to wrap up the debate speaks volumes. And that poor lil girl is just covering her a$$. She followed up Hillary's answer by saying the question was just for Hillary because she "shone" on the stage or something along those lines. Give me a break.

The staged booing hurt everyone. And if there is evidence of anyone booing Hillary in other debates, which I have seen several posters allude to, my answer is show me the links. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I'm tired of hearing excuses. Her supporters were rude and disrespectful. If they were my students, I would write them all referrals.

by misscee 2007-11-17 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: hurt Hillary in Iowa?

I take it you didn't watch the Chicago debate, held outdoors at Soldier Field, just a couple of miles from Obama's house near the University of Chicago and stacked with local Chicago unions?

by hwc 2007-11-17 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: hurt Hillary in Iowa?

I watched "part 1" last night on youtube. It was a raucus crowd, but I didn't catch the booing part yet. Now that you said that there was booing, I'll watch the rest of the videos.

by misscee 2007-11-17 10:03AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------