Clinton's Attacks on Obama Patriotism Have Nothing to Do With "What the Republicans Will Say in November" - Everything to Do with Her Own Strategy
For the last several weeks we have been inundated with statements from the Clinton Campaign (and some media pundits) arguing that their incessant attacks on Obama's patriotism, their use of McCarthyite "guilt by association", and attempts to make Obama look like a "cultural elitist" are all justified because "the Republicans will do it in the fall".
They justify lifting whole chapters from Karl Rove's Republican playbook as an attempt to demonstrate to Democratic voters and superdelegates that these kinds of charges will make Obama "unelectable" in the general election.
Many Clinton surrogates pick up the refrain with statements like: "Well I know Obama doesn't agree with those video clips of Rev. Wright, but that's what the Republicans will say about him." Or: "I know Obama's not really an elitist, but the Republicans will make him sound that way." Or: "They'll trot out all of his past associations, so it's important that we examine them now."
There are two things to say about this line of argument.
First, Clinton knows that her keyhole-sized chance of winning the nomination hasn't got a prayer if all she can do is make an argument to superdelegates for the "possibility" of what Republicans can say about Obama. The bottom has to fall out of the Obama candidacy. That requires a lot more than showing superdelegates that Obama might be vulnerable to Republican attack. They have to convince the voters that the charges they are raising are true -- that Obama is an unpatriotic elitist.
Clinton needs a stampede of superdelegates in order to win. That requires that Obama loses the final primaries by big numbers, and that his numbers in the national polls tank.
The problem for Clinton, of course, is that Obama is the furthest thing from an unpatriotic elitist, and that by relentlessly making these charges she has been raising her own negatives to dizzying heights.
The next time you hear the old "we're just bringing this up because the Republicans will say it", remember the kids in high school who used to go up to you and say, "I don't believe this about your friend Amy, but I'm telling you what other people are saying for your own good." Neither justification is true. In both cases they want you to believe the content of the personal attack.
Second, the general election will not be decided based on narratives constructed about past associations and old friends of the various candidates. And if it were the Republican slander machine would be equally well supplied by the Clinton's stable of past political and business connections (think pardon recipient Marc Rich).
To succeed in this year's general election, the Democratic nominee must convince voters that he or she is better equipped than John McCain to change Washington and lead America into the future.
Both Clinton and Obama bring some negatives to the general election fight. But Barack has a pretty short stack when compared to Clinton's 60% negatives, her difficulty making an emotional connection with the voters, and her positioning as an "experienced insider" in an election where the voters want change.
There is voter fatigue with the two-decade run of the Bush-Clinton show that has defined American politics since 1988. It's possible to imagine that even though McCain's election would, in fact usher in a Bush third term, many swing voters could be convinced that McCain is more about change and fresh approaches to future than Hillary Clinton.
The contrast of past and future, of change and the status quo, is crystal clear in a match up between the 46-year-old newcomer Obama and 72-year-old insider McCain.
Obama's ability to inspire enables him to reach out to independent voters that otherwise find McCain very attractive. It also gives him the ability to mobilize millions of young and African American voters that will change the electorate.
Most importantly, Obama's proven ability to mobilize at the grass roots gives him the credibility to convince voters that he can accomplish what they want most -- that he can lead a movement to change the way things are done in Washington.
The narrative that over incredible odds, a young African American Senator has challenged the conventional wisdom, won the Democratic nomination for president, and found 1.3 million grass roots donors to finance his candidacy gives him enormous credibility to argue that he can take on the special interests and force members of Congress to guarantee health care for everyone. It gives him credibility that he can lead a movement to remake our economy to benefit everyone and not just the wealthiest among us.
And, of course, Obama's judgment in opposing the War in Iraq from the first day, contrasts sharply with McCain's commitment to four more years of Bush foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's early support for that War does not.
To win the 2008 election, Democrats don't need to worry so much about all of the charges the Republicans will make about them and their pasts. The election depends upon what we say about the voters and their futures. In the end, that is why Barack Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate for president.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Just like the public was controlled by the Bushies hyping fear, fear and more fear, the terrorists are out to get you, the democrats have been also controlled by fear. The boogeyman republicans are going to get you and destroy your nominees. They are so paralized they are no longer a party with a spine.
Why we keep losing is because the nominee for the past 30 years are clones of the Mondale prototype.
The wooden, stiff, boring and droning types we think the rest of America will elect because they lack personality. For some reason democrats feel the rest of America wants some boring bureaucrat who gives long dull policy lessons.
When we win it's because we nominated smart and savvy politicians who connected to people and made them feel unafraid and empowered. FDR and Kennedy. People with some zip.
Of course the republicans will try to define our nominee, regardless of who they are, and go after them. That is what they do.
But, if the candidate brings more than dullness and droning boredom to the table the people are more likely to see through the smoke to the person because that candidate makes them want to care enough to do so.
I see you conveniently left out the most recent Democratic presidential success story.
Don't let history cloud your love for Obama now.
BC did so wonderfully well, schilling to the right and screwing the party over. I forgot how great that was.
The question is can Obama overcome what she has created? I believe he can, the grass roots organizing he has put together is impressive. It is amazing he has survived this campaign against Clinton, a former President, the old Democratic Party Machine, corporate media, dirty American politics of personal destruction, division and deceit, ingrained and alive racism and at the bottom of the pile-Republicans. At the end of the day -they are the lest of his worries.
He has accomplished a lot in a short period of time. If anyone can do it Obama can. It would be great to se this country move out of fear into hope for the future. If the country continues to cower in fear-fear of an attack, fear of others, fear of failure, fear of something new, fear of people that don't look like them or pray like them or think like them-it will never grow. Nothing grows out of fear other than bitterness.
Obama knows this all too well. His courage and patriotism goes way beyond wanting to be president. He wants the best for all of us and the best requires us to be courageous and to leave fear behind and begin the hard task of hoping for the future.
Obama 2008
What has Clinton created? Obama's mistakes are his own damn fault - is it Hillary's fault that Obama's close personal spiritual advisor is a crazy racist? Is it her fault Obama said poor people cling to guns and god? Is it Hillary's fault Obama is linked to Rezko? Ummm, no, it ain't.
Obama is spending three times as much money in Pennsylvania as Hillary, he's gone totally negative (so much for his message of hope, inspiration and an end to 'politics as usual') and he's still probably going to lose the primary. Even his grassroots support is less impressive when you realize 40% of new young voters are supporting Hillary.
His mistakes have been minor and accidental.
Not dealing with Rezco soon enough. After all was said and done the Chicago papers pushing the story gave him a clean bill of health.
Not completely separating himself from Rev. Wright earlier by not allowing him a place in the campaign, even ceremonially.
And a gaffe in San Fran that was ostensibly true and acknowledged as such by the very people he was talking about.
Hers have been intentional.
Saying she was against NAFTA from the beginning. Even though she promoted it and spoke out for it for over 10 years. If she was against it then she was a liar then. If she is really for it now she is a liar now. She is either a liar then or now. Does it really matter which?
Saying she was part of SCHIP passage (kids health care.) Everyone involved pointed out she had nothing at all to do with it and the entire administration that she was a part of said not word one about it. How then can she take credit. Because she just does.
The Bosnia sniper fire incident. She has admitted and apologized finally saying, "I said things I knew to be untrue." Those are her words. Not really any other way to interpret that.
The difference between intentional mistakes and purposefully ones is intent. I'd rather have a human being with good intent than a political machine whose only mistake is getting caught in lies.
"Even his grassroots support is less impressive when you realize 40% of new young voters are supporting Hillary."
Contest after contest young voters have overwhelmingly gone for Obama.
Wasn't it this same "crazy racist," the Reverend Dr. Wright, who was invited to the White House to counsel the Clintons during their marital crisis?
I give you hillary-hangers credit - you aren't just ignorant, you're zealously and hyperactively ignorant.
She knew that bubba used Wright as a spiritual adviser in the past, yet she helped fan the flames of his "issue." She knew that Rezko was a contributor to past clinton campaigns, but sought to defame Obama's connections to the man. She also knew (unless she is a complete, unadulterated moron) Obama's San Francisco comments were an accurate reflection of many single-issue voters, but decided to create and run ads featuring the 'words,' contorted to fit an inaccurate projection of Obama as condescending to working people.
Those are all clear and factual events that prove there was nothing that was Obama's fault - other than running against a repulsive, old-school, under-handed, dishonest pig who is comfortable with lying and misleading her way to wherever she wants to go. She has no morals nor principle - yet she and bubba and her surrogates work tirelessly to disparage everyone else's. She is truly a disgusting poster child for all that is wrong in national politics today. Period.
I suppose it's Obama's fault she lied about the sniper fire too. I question your 40% for Clinton figures for new voters, but even if it's so, that's 60% for Obama, a 20% lead. 20% is a landslide in national politics. As for going totally negative, making fun of Hillary is not even close to her questioning his patriotism. I think your grip is slipping.
She didn't do anything. Every scandalous thing that is surrounding Sen. Obama was done by his own choices in life. She is no more responsible for his past ,than he is for hers. Instead of only looking at how things can be spun and are tarnishing Sen. Obama, look a step further and see that MAYBE this is what happened to Hillary too. It's easy for people hate, when the media keeps telling you to. You guys are going to piss all of us Hillary supporters off so much that some may not get up to vote come November should she lose the nomination. You need those Hillary supporters, because she was the preferred candidate in the states that we as Democrats will NEED in the general election. Smarten up people.
What Hillary Clinton says about Obama will absolutely have something to do with what the Republicans will say and already are saying.
Mccain and the rest of the pack are already quoting both Clintons. They are doing it NOW and they will do it then.
What will Hillary say to fix the damage she has done to the party to date?
'Fellow Democrats, I was just kidding. That inexperienced, Muslim that hates God and America and is in cahoots with crooks and former 60's terrorists will make a great president. The elite empty suit that looks down his nose at blue collar workers is the right guy for the job. He's no Jesse Jackson and this ain't no Fairy Tale. Vote for Obama!'
Her destruction to the party and its chances in the General are measurable by GE pols numbers now. Her 'supporters' know this and want a Bush 3rd term more than a Democrat as President.
Republicans may be Evil, but they're not stupid. If you believe Hillary is telling the Repubulicans something they don't know about Obama, you are clearly delusional. Republicans pay well for information like this. I bet they knew all this stuff (and more) the week after he said he'd run for the nomination.
In fact, I'd say the Republican machine is pissed off at her. I'm sure they were hoping to pop Ayers out, then Khalidi and then his mess with Excelon during the general election, not before he got the nomination just to keep him off balance.
People are saying that ABC tried to do a Republican hatchet job, or it's equivalent, favours for the Clintons, when it could have been the exact opposite. This early on, it can almost be considered old news by the time election day comes around. Obama's inadequate and, quite frankly, stupid response may have somewhat diminished future impact, but the Republicans can spin Obama as someone who can't think on his feet and easily knocked off balance, hardly the image of a stalwart national leader.
Know that for many of you Obamacons you just can't believe that there are folks, voters, out there who don't like the man, consider him a phony, "wet behind the ears" was one I heard a lot, "snooty". His pretense that those are charges coming from the Clinton campaign are just plain lies. He knew he was going to run for president. That is when you fix some of your problems, especially those with associates. But it is almost defiantly that he continued in Wright's church, downplayed Rezko's relationship with him as well as Ayers. That just ain't smart politics.
You meaning mind-boggling "depths," don't you? Still, McCain's drift to the far right has cost him this white man's vote. I would vote for Hillary over McCain (though Obama is my first choice) - then hold on while the media yap dogs finish taking apart the monstrous bill KKK-linton
In your Bio it states that you fought hard against the privatization of social security...no concern that one of Obama's top advisors is Jeffrey Liebman who favors doing just that? In this regard Obama himself has stated that everything is still on the table. Obama is electable but do we want to?
Obama believes in working with people of all political stripes for the greater good.
I'm sick of the guilt by association attacks.
And the schizo personality assassination attempts are completely over the top now. To some people Obama is a black radical Marxist terror- but you are convinced he wants to do away with Social Security?
Give me a break.
He might believe that but he certainly does not or cannot actually do it. At least he has not shown he can thus far.
At this time it appears that Obama's enemies are trying to make his image as a suspect "exotic" stick. His left activist past in Chicago is coming back to haunt him. Among progressives this may be no great concern. But among the "mainstream" it is most perilous: or at least has been seen as such by Democratic presidential candidates in the past. Hence a display of Hillary snorting back a shot and a beer. Obama doing some bowling.
There isn't enough time for Obama to "educate" the American people on what he did in Chicago, or what the Reverend Wright is all about. Had Hillary displayed decency rather than self-interest she could have helped open up a national dialogue on race in America. No civil rights activist is unfamiliar with the Reverend Wright's rhetoric. That race relations are normal in the US is a myth. If Hillary had gone to Obama's side on this issue it could have had enormous importance. Instead, she adopted the rightwing line: that Wright is a "reverse racist" who "hates" America. And by implication, so does Obama.
All this mud plays upon the picture of Obama as an exotic. I hope his basic message comes through once again and puts him on top.
I quite agree. Obama is the grown-up, comfortable in his own skin, willing to negotiate with others and listen to contrary opinions. Hillary would make a dreadful President - - she knows it all and cannot delegate. Nor can she fund-raise and run a campaign. A great disappointment.
From Wane.com
"A question from the audience about how the country can reverse the trend of fear over freedom led the senator to recall being able to walk straight up to White House in 1985. Quite a change today, considering all the security barriers. He said, "we need to reverse the climate of fear in dominating politics. We went into Iraq because of fear...bad decisions are made because of fear. This is not when America is at its best. As president, I will look at every executive order undermining civil liberties and reverse them all. We also need to treat our troops properly and give them proper rotation, equipment and treatment when they get home. Something this administration has failed to do."
I do not hear this kind of talk from McCain or Hillary.
I do not see them even caring about our cival liberties .If you ask me Obama is the only Patriotic one running,Other than Ron Paul.
Obama has also signed a presidential oath of Transparency.Obama helped introduce "The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 "
How can anyone claim with a straight face that this man is not Patriotic ? I didn't see Hillary's name on this list of patriots calling for restoring of cival liberties or for Government transparency.
I've been harping on this for weeks. No one seems to care. And to me, it's of the utmost importance.
Obama talks about restoring civil liberties, the Constitution, ridding us of signing statements that give unitary executive power. He talks about objectively looking into the acts of the Bush Administration, and will follow where that information leads.
Hillary can't wait to be the unitary executive. With either McCain or Hillary, these ideas will become entrenched and destroy our democracy.
Hillary is silent on these issues. She's no longer Republican-lite. She's neocon-lite. And dangerous.
57andfemale
I totally agree. She supported and enabled every one of Bush's illegal and destructive moves against America and has built quite a warmongering history for herself.
57, I have also said these things.
What amazes me is how many democrats cannot see that the Clintons are not real democrats and what the DLC stands for is to move our party to right of center. To make no longer democrats.
The Clintons took away what made us democrats and made what we believe in something to be ashamed of.
They turned the party into spineless corporate shills embracing republican ideas.
Clinton was asked the question of imperial power of presidents and she has hedged and danced around it. that is something many need to worry about.
You know..I went to see the movie "Horton Hears a Who" this weekend with my hubby and kids..and in the end of the movie the little people whom many didn't hear see or believe even exist ,have to make a great noise in order to be heard.I feel like that.If we want cival liberties to be a major issue that the media focuses on,rather than,who bowls best and who can drink a beer..we have to make a great noise and keep making it until that final voice pops through the sound bubble and we are all clearly heard.
Go Horton( Obama) and Mayor or whosville ( Ron Paul.Keep making our case.wait a minute Horton is an elephant..ah nevermind :)
I think you are absolutely right. Hillary wants that unbridled power; she thinks she's entitled to it somehow. Obama has said he'll examine all of Bush's attacks on the constitution, she has been silent on the matter. Of course she knows what's good for the people better than the people do.
Here's what HIlary dont seem to get and why she is the nonminee she is going to split the party. Obama supporters 19% say they are not going to vote for her nowt hey are also not going to vote for McCain and will likely stay home. That is a shocking number when taken into account that he is ahead. In other words because he is a head his supporters will say Oh I'll vote for her because they know there is vitrually no chance of her being the nominee. Well guess what will happen if she is and its taken away frm him by superdelegates that 19% is going to increase and she is going to lose because it its NOT legtimate. If it is legitimate and 28% of her supporters say they wont vote for Obama then he can win many of them over because it was done fairly. So they will calm down and see well you know HIlary lost she didnt have the pledge delegates popular votes and number of states. He can bring them in because its legitimate. She cannot bring his in because it is illegitimate. Thats what she is NOT taking into account rather she is pushing forward to burn down and divide the party. That tells me she has NO democratic party loyalty.
Carol
If anyone has been "inundating", it's Obama who's been relentlessly drowning voters by a huge ad campaign. He has already done this in Ohio and LOST! With the kind of advertising money he's been throwing around, he's the one who should be winning by double digits!
But some votes evidently can't be bought.
Ah...stop a minute an reconsider. When it comes to name recognition who do you think leads the dem nominees? Clinton doesn't have to pour money to get her name out there - but Obama, being a relatively new comer has to spend the money to make himself a familiar name and voice. His showings have been admirable considering that 2 years ago the majority of the population hadn't heard of him. His spending is justified and I think he's received good value for his investment - he's whoopin' the tail of an ex first lady. It's not about buying votes - it's all about making his name a household name.
He won Texas, though.
Loss in Ohio was due to Clinton lies about NAFTA and "uppity n....r" comments behind the scenes. Meanwhile she was spinning about sniper fire in Bosnia and being the one who actually was giving Canada the "wink and nod" about NAFTA. Unfortunately some folks just won't see the truth no matter what.
The Constitution..it's what makes us Americans,so when I read what Bush has said about it,it frightens me.
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a %%#$&^%$& piece of paper!
This is not Patriotism,this is not American.
On the other hand Obama say's “When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
Obama is a TRUE Patriot
Obama’s exposure on the patriot issue will be like a piñata in front of an unblindfolded Barry Bonds.
She labeled him an elitist then said, “People who ate seen as elitists can’t get elected”.
I will never vote for that woman.
excellent post...right on...big business ala corporate america does not want Obama elected...add this to Bushie being investigated for war crimes along with his cronies has motivated Rove and of course sore loser Billary lapped that up
The corporations have been getting a free ride since Reagan with zero accountablity.
They will fight tooth and nail to stay that way.
The flag pins are just the beginning....
That's what makes Obama so amazing- he is brave.
Clinton's argument is valid. This is exactly what the Republicans are going to do. When you stand around and say that Obama isn't an elitist you are preaching to the choir here.
You know he's not an elitist. I know that as well. The problem isn't the choir, is those outside the church, and the Republicans will frame things anyway they see fit and play to their seeming unbounded desire for anti-intellectualism. They've only been doing this for twenty years and nothing Obama has done or said has shown to me that things will be different in 2008.
The only thing I see is yet another in a long series of attempts by Obama supporters who are "preblaming" Hillary for Obama's November loss.
Barack Obama is a catylyst for change. Look at what he's accomplished. He is beating Billary the inevitable.
This is exactly the type of petty, braindead politics we need to get rid of. It is a cancer. Democrats are always second guessing themselves about "electibility" It gave us such "competent" candidates like John Kerry, Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale. Kerry's argument was electability as well. It's as if they think if we pick the most colorless wooden unappealing candidate,at least we won't OFFEND anyone.
I am sick and tired of nominating wooden candidates. A machiavellian shrew (Billary) would be even worse. No candidate with 60% negatives has a chance. Even if Obama loses, he could be our Goldwater, the catalyst for 40 years of political domination.
Just a note: Even Bill Clinton with all his skill and luck never got 50% of the vote. Without Ross Perot, he never would have been elected.
If Obama loses, it will be four more years of McBush. Get someone in that could actually win the electoral college against McCain. Even a unity ticket. Stupid rationalizations like it would be ok for the Dem to lose means many are completely misguided on how important the President of the United States is.
I am not convinced that he is not an elitist. When Michelle said "if we don't win this time we won't run again". Obama explained it with this comment,"what she meant was in another eight years we will be making a lot more money and will be traveling in different circles". An elitist remark if I ever heard one. He was speaking to a group he greatly admires because they had accumulated great amounts of money and was explaining how the white working class got religion or guns.
Problem is that most people think he is and they are correct.
wtf does this have to do with elitist?
and wtf...did you want your BOWLING BUDDY for president?
Get real.
The Michelle quote is true. The Barack quote is your invention.
Please take a minute to focus on all the stuff the Repubs will pull out about Hillary. Got it? Now, that's a parade of horrors. BTW google "Paul v. Clinton"
Patrick, your argument bolster Creamer's argument that personal attacks and those who make them shouldn't be tolerated. Just because Republicans will make them in the general is no reason democrats should make them. Democrats and all progressives should criticize gotcha politics, guilt-by-association tactics, sexist innuendo, racist hit-job debates and any inferences of lack of patriotism leveled at any of the candidates (Republican or Democrat). And they should demand that the corporate media stick to debating the candidate's policy proposals.
For the most part, Sen. Obama is doing this. On the other hand, Sen. Clinton and her staff have joined in this style of debasing, swiftboating politics. But by doing so, she has only increased her own negatives, lessened her chance of winning over superdelegates. But, more importantly, she has decreased Obama's chance to win in November.
With little money, and even less principles, the Clintons are betting they can smear Obama all the way to the convention, making him unelectable and Clinton the only viable candidate to go against McCain. By this time, her own negatives would be so high that no one would vote for her but old white women and a fe young white women feminists who see her as a woman, but not the pro-NAFTA, anti-working class, divisive, right of center politician she really is.
If the dems are smart, they'll send the leaky, creepy ship CLINTON out to sea, never to be seen again.
Pretty much everyone knows that a vital tactic in politics is to define your opponent in the public eye. It takes time, money , and repetition. Every day, word, and dollar that Senator Clinton spends doling this to Obama makes McCain's task easier. I honestly begin to wonder if she's working for a McCain victory over Obama so she can run in 2012. I really don't see any other way her tactics make sense, because she just isn't going to get this nomination. She is a brilliant person, and I think she has to have known this for some weeks.
Meanwhile, with Obama and Clinton battling each other, McCain gets a months-long free pass as the Republican nominee to define himself and woo every group in his party that previously opposed him.
I still think Obama will win in November. But Senator Clinton appears to be focused on preventing that at all costs.
Can someone explain to me what there is to be patriotic about anymore in this country? Wars? Death? Poverty? Greed? Theft? Murder? Erosion of civil rights? Erosion of human rights? A lack of care for our environment? Religious bigotry and hatred? Drug crisis? Illegal immigrant crisis? A government that is corrupt and cares nothing about the common man? Please, can someone explain just what there is to be patriotic about anymore in America?
We still have a relatively free press and relatively free and fair elections. That gives America the chance to reform itself. It's something that most other nations do not have. If a guy like Barack Obama, who came from nothing, can win the presidency, it will speak volumes to the rest of the world about what kind of country this is. Don't fret, once we get rid of the neo cons, things will get better.
And torture.
Here's a contrast Clinton can make: Obama can't pass the I've-been-under-federal-investigation-test.
He's the only candidate who fails that one.
Whether you realize it or not, we are all under federal investigation every day.
You've heard of the Keating 5? Whitewater?
I think the point was that both Clinton and McCain have been under federal investigation. =)
Ahhhh. It's a dark and dreary night here in the sagging middle of Pennsylvania, but I'm warmed by the flames of Clinton's Republican straw man, reduced to glowering embers in the aftermath of Mr. Creamer's attentions with elixir of Sunoco and lighter of BIC.
You know you're deep in the juiceless Land of Lies when simple truth becomes incendiary. Thank you, Mr. Creamer.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
