July 31, 2009
Categories: Obama
58 percent of GOP not sure/doubt Obama born in US
Shocker poll from Kos/Research2000 today.
A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn't born in the US (28 percent) or aren't sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was.
That means a majority of Republicans polled either don't know about -- or don't believe the seemingly incontrovertible evidence Obama's camp has presented over and over and over that he was born in Hawaii in '61.
It also explains why Republicans, including Roy Blunt, are playing footsie with the Birther fringe.
Surprise, surprise: Birther sentiment was strongest in the South and among the 60-plus crowd - presumably because seniors can't log on to the Internet and rely on rumor, word of mouth and right-wing talk radio.
When do we start a serious dialog about the Birther movement being a proxy for racism that is unacceptable to articulate in more direct terms?
In all 77 percent of Americans overall think the president is actually an American.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 7/27-30. All adults. MoE 2% (No trend lines)
Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?
Yes 77
No 11
Not sure 12
How do those numbers break down?
Yes No Not sure
Dem 93 4 3
Rep 42 28 30
Ind 83 8 9
Northeast 93 4 3
South 47 23 30
Midwest 90 6 4
West 87 7 6
18-29 88 4 8
30-44 72 14 14
45-59 82 8 10
60+ 69 17 14
By Glenn Thrush 08:14 AM
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
DOBBS RATINGS TAKE A BIG HIT
Backing the "Birthers" may be a good way to gain notoriety and attract criticism, but it's proving to be ratings poison for Lou Dobbs. The New York Observer's Felix Gillette crunches the numbers, and the bottom line is Dobbs is bottoming out:
Mr. Dobbs' first began reporting on Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories on the night of Wednesday, July 15. In the roughly two weeks since then, from July 15 through July 28, Mr. Dobbs' 7 p.m. show on CNN has averaged 653,000 total viewers and 157,000 in the 25-54 demo.
By contrast, during the first two weeks of the month (July 1 to July 14) Mr. Dobbs averaged 771,000 total viewers and 218,000 in the 25-54 demo. In other words, Mr. Dobbs' audience has decreased 15 percent in total viewers and 27 percent in the demo since the start of the controversy.
Maybe this will get CNN President Jon Klein's attention. After initially attempting to put Dobbs' birther madness to bed in an email that read, "It seems this story is dead- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," Klein has had to go on the defensive as Dobbs continued to merrily dig himself a hole. This past week, Klein, on a panel discussion at the Television Critics Association press tour, argued that Dobbs was beyond his control so long as he was using the forum of his radio show:
We have no control over what he says on his radio show. It's not a CNN radio program so he does what he does on the radio separate from what he does on our air. So we ask you and anyone writing about this, to look at what he says on CNN. It's the only thing we control.
Dobbs' radio ravings may be beyond Klein's reach, but now that CNN's ratings are trending ditchward, it's Klein's problem now.
Mr. Dobbs' first began reporting on Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories on the night of Wednesday, July 15. In the roughly two weeks since then, from July 15 through July 28, Mr. Dobbs' 7 p.m. show on CNN has averaged 653,000 total viewers and 157,000 in the 25-54 demo.
By contrast, during the first two weeks of the month (July 1 to July 14) Mr. Dobbs averaged 771,000 total viewers and 218,000 in the 25-54 demo. In other words, Mr. Dobbs' audience has decreased 15 percent in total viewers and 27 percent in the demo since the start of the controversy.
Maybe this will get CNN President Jon Klein's attention. After initially attempting to put Dobbs' birther madness to bed in an email that read, "It seems this story is dead- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef," Klein has had to go on the defensive as Dobbs continued to merrily dig himself a hole. This past week, Klein, on a panel discussion at the Television Critics Association press tour, argued that Dobbs was beyond his control so long as he was using the forum of his radio show:
We have no control over what he says on his radio show. It's not a CNN radio program so he does what he does on the radio separate from what he does on our air. So we ask you and anyone writing about this, to look at what he says on CNN. It's the only thing we control.
Dobbs' radio ravings may be beyond Klein's reach, but now that CNN's ratings are trending ditchward, it's Klein's problem now.
RAIDERS NO 1 PICK SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED
I know this is a little late, practice ran all morning followed by an hour of interviews.
So before lunch is served, No. 7 overall pick Darrius Heyward-Bey has signed a five-year contract, as first reported by Adam Schefter and confirmed by a Raiders official.
Sports agent Alvin Keels tweeted the deal had $23.5 million guaranteed and $38.25 million in base salary with a maximum value of $54 million, according to his league source. Why does Keels care if he doesn't represent DHB? Because he's got the No. 6 pick, Andre Smith of the Bengals.
Raiders coach Tom Cable would not confirm the signing, saying he did not know because he was at the first practice of training camp. DHB wasn't because the deal was still being worked out at team headquarters in Oakland.
In other quick-hit news ...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/indexn?blogid=11#ixzz0MnhWJnP5
NICE READ
Thursday July 30, 2009 19:31 EDT
"Beer summit" won't stop racists like Limbaugh
Reuters/Jim Young
President Obama (right) sits down for a beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. (left), police Sgt. James Crowley (2nd right) and Vice President Joe Biden in the Rose Garden at the White House Thursday.
Never before have so many cared about three guys having a beer. When the three are President Obama, his friend Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley, who jumped into the headlines when he arrested Gates at his home two weeks ago, well, the hype was unavoidable; in fact, the attention was the point. We were all invited to watch these guys try to drink 400 years of conflict away with a Bud Light, a Sam Adams Light and a Blue Moon (Joe Biden, a late addition to the guest list, had a Buckler, a non-alcoholic beer).
Did the "beer summit" provide us with one of those coveted "teachable moments"? Probably not, because many people seemed to be watching from behind their own racial barricades. Crowley defenders were angry their guy agreed to have a beer with two black men who accused him of at best acting stupidly, and at worst, being a racist. Gates defenders couldn't believe Crowley's being rewarded for what they considered racial profiling: When was the last time you screwed up on the job and got invited to have a beer at the White House?
Me, I didn't change the way I thought about the Gates-Crowley-Obama mess, because I always thought it was incredibly complicated, and a happy-face beer summit couldn't make the situation any less so. But I'm glad they did it. As I said last week, I wish Obama had refrained from directly commenting on the case, especially before he knew all the facts. I understood why Gates was angry, and assuming I now know the facts -- still a big if -- I don't understand why he'd be arrested in his own home, even if he did give Crowley a hard time. Yet I wasn't sure Crowley was being treated fairly, either; cops are on the front lines of all of our intractable race and class conflicts, and without knowing everything, I couldn't say for sure he wrongly arrested Gates. (I also thought, and think, class played an under-examined role in the story of the working-class cop vs. the Harvard professor.)
So I was proud of Obama for admitting his words made a bad situation worse, not better, and happy the three found time to gather for a beer. Would that many other situations fraught with misunderstanding and the potential for real tragedy -- guns, cops and black men have rarely led to a happy beer garden party -- could end this way.
Now today I found myself labeled "the Magic Honky" by Rush Limbaugh, of all people, for what he imagines are my thoughts on the Gates case. (He didn't read my blog post, of course.) Here's what he said:
Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief, Salon.com, also known as The Magic Honky. The real racist is Ms. Joan Walsh, with her race-based materialistic -- or maternalistic attitude toward black people, who have, in her small, little mind, no responsibility for their own actions. This flap over Gates and the cop, Sergeant Walsh [sic], happened as a direct result of actions and words, both Gates' actions and Obama's words. But that doesn't matter a hill of beans to The Magic Honky, Joan Walsh, who sees blacks as perpetual victims in need of her white protections. She sees black people as needing to constantly be reassured by her that she understands that they understand that she is trying real hard not to be a racist.
Wait, am I "Sergeant Walsh," or the Magic Honky? Is Rush confusing me with James Crowley because we're both Irish? Silly of me to try to parse Limbaugh's words as if they have meaning. In his addled mind, I am a liberal; therefore I'm a race traitor, and the complexity of my actual views on race and class don't matter. I'm tempted to suggest that the president invite me and Rush over for some beer-garden diplomacy, but I like Obama, I wouldn't wish that on him or me.
The fact is, nothing Obama says or does, about the Gates controversy or healthcare reform or the economy, will mute the racist haters. Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are using race to try to scare people -- NPR featured a white man complaining that he heard Obama wanted to take his healthcare away and give it to minorities; I've even heard Obama's reform plans described as reparations for slavery (an impractical idea now, but would that we'd done something meaningful 140 years ago). Clearly the beer summit won't reassure racists, but I hope it showed some doubters Obama's basic good nature when it comes to race. (It does sort of kill me that only six months in, Obama's already having to remind people, "Wait! Remember, I'm the black guy you'd like to have a beer with! And Joe's here too, so Skip and I won't outnumber the white guys!") But racial progress in this country is two beers forward, one beer back, so to speak. Obama's racial views represent the future; Limbaugh's are the past. I'm sure Jim Crowley would rather have a beer with Obama than with the radio blowhard.
-- Joan Walsh
Buzz up!Share
Email
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Print
"Beer summit" won't stop racists like Limbaugh
Reuters/Jim Young
President Obama (right) sits down for a beer with Henry Louis Gates Jr. (left), police Sgt. James Crowley (2nd right) and Vice President Joe Biden in the Rose Garden at the White House Thursday.
Never before have so many cared about three guys having a beer. When the three are President Obama, his friend Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley, who jumped into the headlines when he arrested Gates at his home two weeks ago, well, the hype was unavoidable; in fact, the attention was the point. We were all invited to watch these guys try to drink 400 years of conflict away with a Bud Light, a Sam Adams Light and a Blue Moon (Joe Biden, a late addition to the guest list, had a Buckler, a non-alcoholic beer).
Did the "beer summit" provide us with one of those coveted "teachable moments"? Probably not, because many people seemed to be watching from behind their own racial barricades. Crowley defenders were angry their guy agreed to have a beer with two black men who accused him of at best acting stupidly, and at worst, being a racist. Gates defenders couldn't believe Crowley's being rewarded for what they considered racial profiling: When was the last time you screwed up on the job and got invited to have a beer at the White House?
Me, I didn't change the way I thought about the Gates-Crowley-Obama mess, because I always thought it was incredibly complicated, and a happy-face beer summit couldn't make the situation any less so. But I'm glad they did it. As I said last week, I wish Obama had refrained from directly commenting on the case, especially before he knew all the facts. I understood why Gates was angry, and assuming I now know the facts -- still a big if -- I don't understand why he'd be arrested in his own home, even if he did give Crowley a hard time. Yet I wasn't sure Crowley was being treated fairly, either; cops are on the front lines of all of our intractable race and class conflicts, and without knowing everything, I couldn't say for sure he wrongly arrested Gates. (I also thought, and think, class played an under-examined role in the story of the working-class cop vs. the Harvard professor.)
So I was proud of Obama for admitting his words made a bad situation worse, not better, and happy the three found time to gather for a beer. Would that many other situations fraught with misunderstanding and the potential for real tragedy -- guns, cops and black men have rarely led to a happy beer garden party -- could end this way.
Now today I found myself labeled "the Magic Honky" by Rush Limbaugh, of all people, for what he imagines are my thoughts on the Gates case. (He didn't read my blog post, of course.) Here's what he said:
Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief, Salon.com, also known as The Magic Honky. The real racist is Ms. Joan Walsh, with her race-based materialistic -- or maternalistic attitude toward black people, who have, in her small, little mind, no responsibility for their own actions. This flap over Gates and the cop, Sergeant Walsh [sic], happened as a direct result of actions and words, both Gates' actions and Obama's words. But that doesn't matter a hill of beans to The Magic Honky, Joan Walsh, who sees blacks as perpetual victims in need of her white protections. She sees black people as needing to constantly be reassured by her that she understands that they understand that she is trying real hard not to be a racist.
Wait, am I "Sergeant Walsh," or the Magic Honky? Is Rush confusing me with James Crowley because we're both Irish? Silly of me to try to parse Limbaugh's words as if they have meaning. In his addled mind, I am a liberal; therefore I'm a race traitor, and the complexity of my actual views on race and class don't matter. I'm tempted to suggest that the president invite me and Rush over for some beer-garden diplomacy, but I like Obama, I wouldn't wish that on him or me.
The fact is, nothing Obama says or does, about the Gates controversy or healthcare reform or the economy, will mute the racist haters. Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are using race to try to scare people -- NPR featured a white man complaining that he heard Obama wanted to take his healthcare away and give it to minorities; I've even heard Obama's reform plans described as reparations for slavery (an impractical idea now, but would that we'd done something meaningful 140 years ago). Clearly the beer summit won't reassure racists, but I hope it showed some doubters Obama's basic good nature when it comes to race. (It does sort of kill me that only six months in, Obama's already having to remind people, "Wait! Remember, I'm the black guy you'd like to have a beer with! And Joe's here too, so Skip and I won't outnumber the white guys!") But racial progress in this country is two beers forward, one beer back, so to speak. Obama's racial views represent the future; Limbaugh's are the past. I'm sure Jim Crowley would rather have a beer with Obama than with the radio blowhard.
-- Joan Walsh
Buzz up!Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
JOAN WALSH SPEAKS THE TRUTH
Thursday July 30, 2009 08:30 EDT
Is GOP using race to block Obama agenda? Ya think?
Maybe I was feeling guilty for spending so much time on wingnut issues lately -- Birthers, Sarah Palin, the Gates controversy, whether President Obama is a "racist" -- when I know I should be writing about the political stakes around healthcare reform. Whatever the reason, I was driven to go all meta on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" today, linking the racist garbage being thrown at Obama to the forces that are trying to block his social and economic agenda, particularly healthcare reform.
Matthews led into our segment, mainly focusing on Glenn Beck's nutty claim that Obama is racist, by noting that Obama's poll numbers are dropping on healthcare, and I took the opportunity to point our that there's a connection between the organized campaign to label him some kind of racist alien socialist who's ineligible to be president, and his difficulties getting his social and economic agenda passed. I did it with a history lesson, never terribly welcome on news shows (anywhere but PBS), but it couldn't be avoided. You can watch Matthews and me argue about it here (text continues below):
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
There is one main reason the U.S. doesn't have the social democratic traditions and programs enjoyed by most Western democracies -- we are the only such nation without some kind of universal healthcare -- and that reason is our history of ethnic, racial and class strife. (The bounty of the eternal frontier and American exceptionalism fit in there too, but I'd pick our fractious and well-manipulated heterogeneity as the top reason.)
The history of the 19th century and early 20th century is the history of labor and political coalitions splintered by divisions between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, between middle-class Germans and less well off German Jews, between the Irish and everyone else, and, increasingly after blacks won something akin to freedom, between all white ethnic groups and African-Americans. Latinos and Asians came with their own demands and baggage and relations got more complicated still. Barriers of language, culture, class and skin color thwarted many efforts to grow labor unions and build a social-democratic majority.
Meanwhile, the one constant for at least 150 years has been a savvy cadre of political operatives who used those racial and ethnic divisions to advance their pro-business agenda. Go back to Karl Rove's idol Mark Hanna, who made turn-of-the-19th-century Republican politics safe for whites-only organizing in the South, to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, to Lee Atwater's Willie Horton strategy to Rove's own neo-Southern, pander-to-the-base strategy that has driven the GOP into its current ditch. Where in other Western nations, those years saw the fairly steady advance of basic conceptions of human rights, labor rights and an expanded social safety net, in the U.S. such social progress -- and especially such programs -- was more sporadic and limited.
Matthews didn't buy my analysis; in fact, he called it "Marxist" -- I challenged him, as it's not that simple, and he changed it to an "economic analysis" -- and he put former Rep. Kweisi Mfume on the hot seat asking if he agreed with me. Mfume started off by saying he's not a conspiracy theorist -- for the record, neither am I -- but then he added with a smile, "I don't believe Humpty Dumpty just fell; I believe he was pushed. And there are people who are pushing buttons to try to hold back the progress we are making in this country as one nation. And when you push those buttons, it causes the progress to slow down ... This is anti-American."
There is no question in my mind, and I doubt there's much in Mfume's either, that these divide-and-conquer tactics stay in use because, well, they still work. Beck and Limbaugh won't convince a majority of Americans that Obama is either racist or Kenyan, but the dirty fog of their constant smears has to tarnish Obama at least a little. The irony is the last 50 years have seen brutal class warfare in which the forces behind the wealthy transferred income and privilege consistently upward. Yet now the forces of reaction are claiming Obama is the class warrior, and the race warrior, declaring war on whites, and trying to snatch the status-quo privileges -- like healthcare, allegedly -- from the haves, to provide for unworthy have nots.
It's a noxious strategy, and we can't let it succeed. Obama likewise can't let Blue Dogs and allegedly "moderate" Republicans derail his agenda, either. Democrats lose because they fail to deliver on their promises to constituents. Bill Clinton delivered welfare reform, beloved by the right, but almost none of the social supports that were supposed to go along with it, and maybe most important, no healthcare reform that would have made middle-class lives easier. Obama can't make that mistake; he doesn't just need a bill, any old bill, to pass. He needs reforms that will expand healthcare to those who don't have it, bring costs down for those who do (and for the government), and reduce the incentives for profiteers to greenlight unnecessary coverage, and block needed care, all in the interest of big profits. A bad bill might be better than none.
But Beck and Limbaugh don't want us thinking about the intricacies of what might work -- the public plan vs. a co-op, how to reduce costs, whether Big Pharma and the insurance industry is happy with the current push because they're going to come out fatter and happier. Instead they want us debating whether Obama hates white people and whether he was born here and whether he's even legally fit to be our president.
One last word on Beck: Matthews read a statement from Fox saying the news network doesn't support Beck's views on Obama as "racist." Again I have to say: Mighty white of you, Fox! It's so cynical; they can disavow his words, but they're still cashing the checks from Pfizer, Campbell Soup and other advertisers for his hateful show. If Fox wants to separate itself from Beck's garbage, it needs to separate itself from Beck himself. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
-- Joan Walsh
Buzz up!Share
Email
Digg
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Reddit
PrintPermalink
Is GOP using race to block Obama agenda? Ya think?
Maybe I was feeling guilty for spending so much time on wingnut issues lately -- Birthers, Sarah Palin, the Gates controversy, whether President Obama is a "racist" -- when I know I should be writing about the political stakes around healthcare reform. Whatever the reason, I was driven to go all meta on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" today, linking the racist garbage being thrown at Obama to the forces that are trying to block his social and economic agenda, particularly healthcare reform.
Matthews led into our segment, mainly focusing on Glenn Beck's nutty claim that Obama is racist, by noting that Obama's poll numbers are dropping on healthcare, and I took the opportunity to point our that there's a connection between the organized campaign to label him some kind of racist alien socialist who's ineligible to be president, and his difficulties getting his social and economic agenda passed. I did it with a history lesson, never terribly welcome on news shows (anywhere but PBS), but it couldn't be avoided. You can watch Matthews and me argue about it here (text continues below):
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
There is one main reason the U.S. doesn't have the social democratic traditions and programs enjoyed by most Western democracies -- we are the only such nation without some kind of universal healthcare -- and that reason is our history of ethnic, racial and class strife. (The bounty of the eternal frontier and American exceptionalism fit in there too, but I'd pick our fractious and well-manipulated heterogeneity as the top reason.)
The history of the 19th century and early 20th century is the history of labor and political coalitions splintered by divisions between Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans, between middle-class Germans and less well off German Jews, between the Irish and everyone else, and, increasingly after blacks won something akin to freedom, between all white ethnic groups and African-Americans. Latinos and Asians came with their own demands and baggage and relations got more complicated still. Barriers of language, culture, class and skin color thwarted many efforts to grow labor unions and build a social-democratic majority.
Meanwhile, the one constant for at least 150 years has been a savvy cadre of political operatives who used those racial and ethnic divisions to advance their pro-business agenda. Go back to Karl Rove's idol Mark Hanna, who made turn-of-the-19th-century Republican politics safe for whites-only organizing in the South, to Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, to Lee Atwater's Willie Horton strategy to Rove's own neo-Southern, pander-to-the-base strategy that has driven the GOP into its current ditch. Where in other Western nations, those years saw the fairly steady advance of basic conceptions of human rights, labor rights and an expanded social safety net, in the U.S. such social progress -- and especially such programs -- was more sporadic and limited.
Matthews didn't buy my analysis; in fact, he called it "Marxist" -- I challenged him, as it's not that simple, and he changed it to an "economic analysis" -- and he put former Rep. Kweisi Mfume on the hot seat asking if he agreed with me. Mfume started off by saying he's not a conspiracy theorist -- for the record, neither am I -- but then he added with a smile, "I don't believe Humpty Dumpty just fell; I believe he was pushed. And there are people who are pushing buttons to try to hold back the progress we are making in this country as one nation. And when you push those buttons, it causes the progress to slow down ... This is anti-American."
There is no question in my mind, and I doubt there's much in Mfume's either, that these divide-and-conquer tactics stay in use because, well, they still work. Beck and Limbaugh won't convince a majority of Americans that Obama is either racist or Kenyan, but the dirty fog of their constant smears has to tarnish Obama at least a little. The irony is the last 50 years have seen brutal class warfare in which the forces behind the wealthy transferred income and privilege consistently upward. Yet now the forces of reaction are claiming Obama is the class warrior, and the race warrior, declaring war on whites, and trying to snatch the status-quo privileges -- like healthcare, allegedly -- from the haves, to provide for unworthy have nots.
It's a noxious strategy, and we can't let it succeed. Obama likewise can't let Blue Dogs and allegedly "moderate" Republicans derail his agenda, either. Democrats lose because they fail to deliver on their promises to constituents. Bill Clinton delivered welfare reform, beloved by the right, but almost none of the social supports that were supposed to go along with it, and maybe most important, no healthcare reform that would have made middle-class lives easier. Obama can't make that mistake; he doesn't just need a bill, any old bill, to pass. He needs reforms that will expand healthcare to those who don't have it, bring costs down for those who do (and for the government), and reduce the incentives for profiteers to greenlight unnecessary coverage, and block needed care, all in the interest of big profits. A bad bill might be better than none.
But Beck and Limbaugh don't want us thinking about the intricacies of what might work -- the public plan vs. a co-op, how to reduce costs, whether Big Pharma and the insurance industry is happy with the current push because they're going to come out fatter and happier. Instead they want us debating whether Obama hates white people and whether he was born here and whether he's even legally fit to be our president.
One last word on Beck: Matthews read a statement from Fox saying the news network doesn't support Beck's views on Obama as "racist." Again I have to say: Mighty white of you, Fox! It's so cynical; they can disavow his words, but they're still cashing the checks from Pfizer, Campbell Soup and other advertisers for his hateful show. If Fox wants to separate itself from Beck's garbage, it needs to separate itself from Beck himself. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
-- Joan Walsh
Buzz up!Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
PrintPermalink
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
SOME MUCH NEEDED GOOD NEWS
. Public Option Passes CBO's Test
The Senate Finance Committee may be set to kill a public option as part of health care reform, but a new report from the CBO proves incorrect the basis of their opposition. The Associated Press reports that a new report by the CBO says that “the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers.” The House has included a public option as part of its plan.
Read it at Associated Press
Posted at 11:35 AM, Jul 28, 2009
The Senate Finance Committee may be set to kill a public option as part of health care reform, but a new report from the CBO proves incorrect the basis of their opposition. The Associated Press reports that a new report by the CBO says that “the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers.” The House has included a public option as part of its plan.
Read it at Associated Press
Posted at 11:35 AM, Jul 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
