When little kids call you out this hard, you have
to know, on some level, just how wrong you are

Last week it was students at Stanford giving Condi a hard time over being a torture maven and goading her into channeling Nixon - "by definition if it was authorized by the president" torture is fine and dandy and perfectly legal.  

This weekend it was Misha Lerner, a fourth grader from the Jewish Primary Day School in Washington D.C. making her squirm as she practiced the defense she will hopefully be using some day soon in front of a panel of judges at The Hague.  

Rice, in her first appearance in Washington since leaving government, was at the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital before giving an evening lecture at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue. She held forth amiably before a few dozen students about her love of Israel, travel abroad and the importance of learning languages, then opened the floor to their questions.

The questions had been developed beforehand by students with their teachers and had not been screened by Rice. At first, they were innocuous: What was it like growing up in segregated Birmingham, Ala.? What skill did she want to be best known for?

Then Misha Lerner, a student from Bethesda, asked: What did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?

Rice took the question in stride. saying that she was reluctant to criticize Obama, then getting to the heart of the matter.

"Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."

She added: "I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country."

Misha's mom, Inna Lerner, told the Post that her son had originally wanted to ask an even tougher question - "If you would work for Obama's administration, would you push for torture?" - but that the school wanted him to "soften it" and omit the word "torture" but that the essence of what he asked had remained intact.  

And again, she confirms that they were utterly unprepared to cope with what happened on September 11, 2001 and they panicked.  They were scared spitless.  They were over their heads and they degenerated into a "Lord of the Flies" type reasoning process that threatened to rend the fabric of our society into rags.  

I feel encouraged when ten year olds who are not old enough to remember that horrible day take members of the former administration to task for being a bunch of pants-pissing cowards and embarrassments to their station and their nation; and are not amenable to being bullshitted by mental midgets the likes of Condi Rice.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/wxZiX5784sE/when-
little-kids-call-you-out-this-hard-you-have-to-know-on-some-level-just-how-wrong-you-are

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Fox & Friends advanced disputed allegation
against Obama "auto czar"

During the May 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, guest co-host Dave Briggs and co-hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy repeatedly touted, in Briggs' words, "an accusation by a lawyer, who represents ... one of those [hedge fund] lenders who says that" Steven Rattner, the Obama administration's choice to lead its Auto Task Force, "threatened to ruin their reputation, and by using the White House press corps." It was not until a subsequent discussion, approximately two hours later, that anyone on Fox & Friends mentioned that the Obama administration and the investment firm that allegedly came under pressure -- Perella Weinberg Partners -- have denied the allegation, made by lawyer Thomas E. Lauria, a partner at the White & Case law firm.

Indeed, even when Doocy stated during the initial discussion that Perella Weinberg "apparently, according to ABC News, was singled out by Rattner," he did not mention that ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper, who was reportedly the first national figure to report Lauria's allegation, also reported on May 2 that "[t]he White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story."

During the initial Fox & Friends discussion, Briggs, Carlson, and Doocy had the following exchange:

BRIGGS: [T]here's an accusation by a lawyer, who represents one of those creditors who you're talking about, one of those lenders who says that the administration -- the auto czar, if you will -- threatened to ruin their reputation, and by using --

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: -- the White House press corps even. And this becomes an issue because there is basically a handful of lenders that held out for a better deal in bankruptcy.

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: But with GM, which could go bankrupt in the future, they have tens of thousands of lenders, not a dozen or so.

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: And there are people all over this country, pensioners, not just hedge funds, that could hold out for a better deal in bankruptcy, as well. So this could have a lot more to come.

CARLSON: I don't think the story is going away, though, about this alleged threat with regard to Rattner, who, of course, is the guy who's been heading up the whole task force for the Obama administration with the auto industry. Remember, he's also potentially in trouble for his own dealings with his own investment firm -- an investigation underway there.

Now, allegations that he did strong-arm some of these hedge funds saying, "Look, you know, we're going to come after you if you don't take this deal." That's illegal. You can't do that. I got a little chuckle out of the fact that he was going to send the White House press corps after them.

BRIGGS: Right.

DOOCY: Yeah. Well --

CARLSON: The last time I checked, they were pretty much in the camp for Barack Obama.

DOOCY: Sure.

CARLSON: Maybe they would turn on hedge funds instead. I'm not sure.

Moments later, Doocy said: "I think -- look, if somebody is standing in the way of a publicly traded company from a government bailout, why not go ahead and say, 'OK, this is who is holding out.' For them to say -- but for this Steven Rattner guy to use these behind-the-scenes strong-arm tactics, is that so bad to say, 'Well, that company is holding out.' " Doocy later added, "It was this particular [hedge fund], though, that apparently, according to ABC News, was singled out by Rattner, and said, 'OK, I'm going to get -- come after you.' "

It was only during the subsequent Fox & Friends discussion, approximately two hours later, that Doocy noted, "The White House says that didn't happen. This hedge fund says it didn't happen."

Tapper reported on May 2 -- two days before Fox & Friends discussed the allegation -- that the administration and a spokesman for Perella Weinberg denied Lauria's account. From Tapper's May 2 entry on his Political Punch blog:

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

A May 3 post on The New York Times DealBook blog reported that Lauria first made the charges in a Detroit radio interview, then did a follow-up interview with Tapper, during which he "identified Mr. Rattner":

In an interview with a Detroit radio host, Frank Beckmann, Mr. Lauria said that Perella Weinberg "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight."

In a follow-up interview with ABC News's Jake Tapper, he identified Mr. Rattner, the head of the auto task force, as having told a Perella Weinberg official that the White House "would embarrass the firm."

Blogs like Clusterstock, Zero Hedge and Finem Respice have picked up on the reports, raising questions about whether the Obama administration acted improperly in negotiating with the debtholders.

But people briefed on the matter told DealBook that Mr. Rattner has never spoken to Mr. Lauria, and that participants on the conference call Mr. Lauria describes have denied his account.

The DealBook post further reported that "Perella Weinberg said in a statement that the firm decided to back the government-proposed settlement Thursday afternoon, after Mr. Obama criticized the lenders in harsh terms," and included the following "full statement by Perella Weinberg":

Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler's bankruptcy filing. In considering the President's words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.

We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors' money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.

While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.

From the May 4 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Four minutes after the top of the hour. If you are a Chrysler employee, you probably have today off. That's because, of course, they have -- ever since they declared bankruptcy last week, they are shuttering all of the factories. And here's what is happening now behind the scenes.

By -- it sounds like May 22nd -- they are going to have an auction of all the assets. And those stakeholders who drove it right up to the brink, it sounds like they're going to have to settle for between 9 cents on the dollar and 38 cents. So when you look at the fact that the government was saying, maybe you should take this 33 cents on the dollar thing, that could have been the best deal they were going to get.

DAVE BRIGGS (guest co-host): Could be. And that's at the center of this right now, because there's an accusation by a lawyer, who represents one of those creditors who you're talking about, one of those lenders who says that the administration -- the auto czar, if you will -- threatened to ruin their reputation, and by using --

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: -- the White House press corps even. And this becomes an issue because there is basically a handful of lenders that held out for a better deal in bankruptcy.

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: But with GM, which could go bankrupt in the future, they have tens of thousands of lenders, not a dozen or so.

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: And there are people all over this country, pensioners, not just hedge funds, that could hold out for a better deal in bankruptcy, as well. So this could have a lot more to come.

CARLSON: I don't think the story is going away, though, about this alleged threat with regard to Rattner, who, of course, is the guy who's been heading up the whole task force for the Obama administration with the auto industry. Remember, he's also potentially in trouble for his own dealings with his own investment firm -- an investigation underway there.

Now, allegations that he did strong-arm some of these hedge funds saying, "Look, you know, we're going to come after you if you don't take this deal." That's illegal. You can't do that. I got a little chuckle out of the fact that he was going to send the White House press corps after them.

BRIGGS: Right.

DOOCY: Yeah. Well --

CARLSON: The last time I checked, they were pretty much in the camp for Barack Obama.

DOOCY: Sure.

CARLSON: Maybe they would turn on hedge funds instead. I'm not sure.

DOOCY: I know, and see, keep in mind the big banks said, OK, we'll take the deal. But it was those hedge funds, and in fact on -- I think it was Thursday -- Thursday, we gave the name of the three -- the names of the three hedge funds that were holding out, and this was one of them. The outfit was --

CARLSON: Perella Weinberg Partners.

BRIGGS: Perella Weinberg Partners.

DOOCY: That's it exactly. I had to look --

CARLSON: I'm not so sure that they shouldn't hold out. I mean --

DOOCY: I think -- look, if somebody is standing in the way of a publicly traded company from a government bailout, why not go ahead and say, "OK, this is who is holding out." For them to say -- but for this Steven Rattner guy --

BRIGGS: OK.

DOOCY: -- to use these behind-the-scenes strong-arm tactics, is that so bad to say --

CARLSON: But why shouldn't they hold out?

DOOCY: -- "Well, that company is holding out."

CARLSON: 'Cause the union --

BRIGGS: See, I agree with you.

CARLSON: You know, the union, pretty much, I'm not sure --

BRIGGS: Well, they can -- no, they can --

CARLSON: -- that they had to take 50 cents on the dollar.

BRIGGS: You get pulled out -- if you're getting a better deal --

DOOCY: Oh, go ahead and hold out.

BRIGGS: The government --

DOOCY: Go ahead and hold out. Sure.

BRIGGS: -- was getting a much better deal --

DOOCY: Yeah.

BRIGGS: -- than these lenders were offered. The UAW is getting far better deal than these lenders were offered.

DOOCY: Right.

BRIGGS: Why not hold out? It's their own self-interest.

DOOCY: They can hold out, but --

BRIGGS: That's what capitalism is all about.

DOOCY: -- but why not go ahead and say, look, we had a deal except for this one company. This great, big hedge fund said they weren't going to take the money.

CARLSON: I don't think it was just one though.

BRIGGS: It wasn't just them.

CARLSON: There was 20 hedge funds.

BRIGGS: It was Oppenheimer --

CARLSON: The four largest creditors: J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs. But then there's up to 20 hedge funds who made up the rest of the difference.

DOOCY: Right. It was this particular one, though, that apparently, according to ABC News, was singled out by Rattner, and said, "OK, I'm going to get -- come after you."

BRIGGS: Well, Oppenheimer was also a holdout. Stairway Capital Management was also a holdout, among --

DOOCY: There were four.

BRIGGS: -- among the few.

DOOCY: Four big ones.

[...]

BRIGGS: Let's talk the latest about the big three. Plants for Chrysler begin shutting down today for the next 30 to 60 days. All but four, at this point, will reopen. Four of those expected to shut down by September in Ohio, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Michigan.

Also some controversy, guys, as you know, about some of the lenders that may have been strong-armed before Chrysler went into bankruptcy.

DOOCY: That's right. This story came from ABC News that suggested that the car czar, Steven Rattner, apparently had threatened one particular hedge fund. And remember, hedge funds were the stakeholders. Hedge funds and big banks owed a lot of money by Chrysler.

Anyway, this one, Perella Weinberg Partners, apparently and reportedly the White House, in the form of Rattner said, unless you take this deal where we're offering 33 cents on the dollar, we're going to embarrass you. We're going to just drag you through the mud and make you look bad with the press corps and stuff like that.

The White House says that didn't happen. This hedge fund says it didn't happen. But, nonetheless, it is interesting to think that, that story was circulating, that they felt that they were being pressured by the White House to take the deal.

CARLSON: I believe it was an attorney for this particular hedge fund that went on the record saying that this, in fact, did happen. If this happened, folks, this is huge news. This is huge news, because a lot of people already concerned about government involvement in general in the car companies, in the banks, in other businesses.

And now, if there are strong-arm tactics being used -- I got a chuckle at least out of the fact that they were going to sic the White House press corps --

BRIGGS: Who is clearly in the tank.

CARLSON: -- on this hedge fund, who's -- yeah, who hasn't necessarily been siced on the Obama administration --

BRIGGS: Yeah.

CARLSON: -- that wholeheartedly, but it will be interesting to see what they could do to a hedge fund.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/V2FaHMeACqs/200905040015

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO HOUSING BUBBLE

James Surowiecki does a nice job making a point I've been hearing occasionally. Most bubbles leave the country with something of worth. The tech bubble, say, gave the country the tech sector. The initial enthusiasm leaves the country with a bit of a[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name
=what_if_there_had_been_no_hous

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Gonzales And Ashcroft Disagree With Rice: Just
Because A President Says It Does Not Make It Legal

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently tried to defend the Bush administration’s torture program in a discussion with a group of Stanford students on April 27. Channeling Richard Nixon, Rice said that “by definition,” once the president authorized “enhanced interrogations,” they were automatically legal:

Q: Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?

RICE: I just said, the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

Today, Dan Abrams released the transcript of a panel discussion he conducted with former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales that same day. When Abrams asks them a question similar to the one posed to Rice, Ashcroft and Gonzales come to a very conclusion — Nixon is wrong:

ASHCROFT: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means it’s not a crime.

ABRAMS: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was ?When the President does it, that means its not illegal.?

ASHCROFT: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things ? [Applause] that are illegal. [...]

ABRAMS: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well? [...]

GONZALES: I think that?s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.

Also in the interview, when asked how about the job President Obama is doing, Gonzales replied, “I tend to follow President Bush’s model in terms of saying less — as opposed to Vice President Cheney’s [Laughter]. I?m often asked the same question.”

Transcript:

DA: Let me ask you ? I want to read a famous quote, Attorney General Ashcroft. Richard Nixon. . .when he said ?The President does it ? [Laughter] that means it?s not illegal.? And the follow up was, ?If the President for example approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of the threat of internal peace and the order of significant magnitude, then the President?s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out without violating the law, otherwise, they?re in an impossible position.? Do you agree with Richard Nixon?

JA: There are ?

AG: I?m glad he asked you that ? [Laughter]

DA: Well, you?re getting it too. [Laughter]

AG: I want to see how he answers that.

JA: There are things that a President only has the authority to do. And no one else has the authority to do.

DA: But when the President does it ?

JA: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means its not a crime.

DA: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was ?When the President does it, that means its not illegal.?

JA: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things ? [Applause] that are illegal. And the law ?

DA: Even because of national security?

JA: That?s correct, there are certain things the President doesn?t have the right to do, even in national security. But there are significant powers that the President has in national security, and I believe that there are some powers that are ?inherent? in the presidency that come to him in the constitutional designation as Commander In Chief.

DA [to AG]: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well?

AG: I think that the President can make the decision for the executive branch. But the courts have the final say. The framers envisioned a system of checks and balances, and the checks on the executive branch are the decisions by the court. And so if the courts tell President Nixon that he?s done something that?s unlawful ?

DA: But if the courts haven?t ruled on it yet. There?ll be times when the President will have to make a decision. President Nixon was saying — if the President approves something because of national security, or because of the threat to internal peace and order, than the President?s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.

AG: I think that?s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/gonzales-and-ashcroft-disagree-with-rice-just
-because-a-president-says-it-does-not-make-it-legal/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

A Sestak Constituent Responds

A Sestak constituent responds to my post from last night ...Sestak is my rep. Nate might be an electoral-poll god, but he is way off on this. He cites silly ratings in his piece that don't reflect reality. There is NO WAY Joe Sestak, had he been a[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/o4wkywk_1jA/a_sestak_consti
tuent_responds.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Republicans are Not the Other Party We Need

The Beltway media has accepted without question that the Republicans are the missing "opposition party" a healthy democracy needs to remain vibrant. Hence, we should worry about how the Republicans Party will revive. This is wrong; the debates our[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/5114

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

DOES BEING HEALTHIER LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS

I'm a little bit loathe to enter this subject because I'm finishing up an article on a related topic. But suffice to say that even though the data on whether being healthier would make health care cheaper is pretty mixed, we can still be pretty sure it's[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name
=does_being_healthier_lower_hea

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

TYT: Jay Severin Is An Unapologetic Racist And
Should Be Fired

video details and more

This really needs to be heard to be believed. Boston-area radio talk show host Jay Severin was suspended this week for making highly inflammatory and racist remarks on his talk show about Mexicans. TYT's Cenk Uygur thinks the station didn't go far enough and Severin should lose his job:

As you heard in the video above, Severin has been suspended by WTKK-FM in Boston. But that is not nearly enough. If you don't get fired for this, what do you get fired for?

Here are just some of his prize quotes from the show:

"So now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico - women with mustaches and VD - now we have swine flu."

He described Mexicans as "the world's lowest of primitives."

"When we are the magnet for primitives around the world - and it's not the primitives' fault by the way, I'm not blaming them for being primitives - I'm merely observing they're primitive."

"It's millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you and, with it, they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America."

"We should be, if anything, surprised that Mexico has not visited upon us poxes of more various and serious types already, considering the number of criminaliens already here."

He also said that emergency rooms had "become essentially condos for Mexicans."

And on a 2004 broadcast, he compared Muslims to a fifth column in this country and said in response to a caller who thought people should reach out to Muslims: "You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them."

But unfortunately calling for the murder of Muslim-Americans has become so commonplace and acceptable these days that he didn't even come close to getting fired for those comments. So, I guess he figured he had free reign to attack the other half of M&Ms.

Now before some of you start making a "Free Speech" martyr of Severin, be clear what free speech means. It does NOT mean that you have the right to spew any kind of ugly thought you have on public airwaves. It means that the government cannot curtail your right to speak your mind. It doesn't mean that you do not have to deal with the repercussions of what you say. In this case, Severin's boss is not the government and they must assume the responsibility for allowing such unmitigated hate on the air. Avoiding Godwin references, how similar was Severin's rant to Radio Rwanda? Is that the kind of allusions with which WTKK wants to be associated?

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/tyt-jay-severin-unapologetic-racist-a

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

SHOCKER: Parkinson to Allow Construction of Coal
Plant in Holcomb

At a just concluded press conference, Governor Mark Parkinson announced he has reached an agreement[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://kansasjackass.blogspot.com/2009/05/shocker-parkinson-to-allow-construction
.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

WILL.I.AM TO CAMPAIGN WITH TERRY MCAULIFFE

On Monday, May 11, Grammy award-winning hip-hop artist, producer, and actor
will.i.am will campaign with gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe at events in Portsmouth, Hampton, Richmond, and Arlington.

"Terry is my good friend and my closest political mentor," said will.i.am. "He will be a great governor because of his passion to help people and his understanding of the grassroots community. I look forward to joining him on the campaign trail."

As Chairman of the DNC, McAuliffe partnered with the long-time Democratic activist to encourage youth voters to register, volunteer, and go to the polls. In 2005, McAuliffe served as chair of the Rock the Vote Awards in Washington, DC, where he honored both will.i.am and Barack Obama. Last year, will.i.am was a dedicated supporter of President Obama, producing the internet sensations "Yes We Can" and "We are the Ones," and advocating for his campaign.

Monday, May 11

11:15 am Terry McAuliffe holds Portsmouth event with will.i.am
Event details TBD

12:45 pm Terry McAuliffe holds Hampton event with will.i.am
Friends of Terry McAuliffe Hampton Office
197 W Queens Way
Hampton, VA 23669

5:00 pm Terry McAuliffe holds Richmond event with will.i.am
The Camel
1621 W. Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23220

8:00 pm Terry McAuliffe holds Arlington event with will.i.am
The Clarendon Ballroom
3185 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201

O.K. why does this just stike me as hilarious? On February 19, 2009, The Washington Post ran a story where RNC chair Michael Steele spoke of his plans for an, ?off the hook? public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to ?urban-suburban hip-hop settings.?

Read The Full Article:
http://southeastvirginia.blogspot.com/2009/05/william-to-campaign-with-terry.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!