Matt Yglesias

51 Responses to “Clinton-Obama: The Policy Substance”

1. pacer521 Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   I agree.

   http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/the-expectation-of-change/

2. Bruce Wilder Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm

   Maybe, it indicates a desire to move the Clintonian wing of the Party toward the course he outlined.

   Obama outlined an extraordinary agenda of actually changing the terms of debate.

   American foreign policy has always moved by consensus — at least until the bitter divisions introduced by Bush II — and quite a few Democrats went off, unwisely, to support Bush on crucial issues. They were wrong. As we all know. But, the task, now, is to bring them back to support the Obama course. No?

   Making Hilary Clinton Secretary of State seems rather unlikely to be a foundation for continuing a Bush foreign policy everyone now rejects. And, a rather good way to unite Democrats and centrists around a much better Obama foreign policy.

3. Steven Attewell Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm

   I think people tend to over-emphasize the individual cabinet secretary and under-emphasize some of the process details.

   For example:
   1. We don’t know who’s going to be picking the Under and Assistant Secretaries, where a lot of the real work gets done. There’s no reason to assume that Obama traded that to Clinton.
   2. We don’t know who Obama’s going to pick for his NSC staff. It’s more than likely that he will pick a lot of his younger foreign policy people for that role.

   In either case, I don’t think we have to worry about Clinton setting the foreign policy agenda. Foreign policy can be run in many ways, some SoS-heavy, others NSC-heavy; in any case, the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the president, and is supposed to follow the president’s agenda.

4. mo Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm

   I appreciate the measured nature of your assessment here. You’ve balanced a healthy, substantive skepticism from which to evaluate the incoming administration without falling into shrill, reactionary criticism. And it feels like it’s appropriately calibrated to not jump to conclusions, neither unjustifiably fawning nor disillusioned.

   I don’t think much of the left blogosphere, or people on the ground, has found this balance. We should be willing to criticize positions and not follow blind optimism or relief, but we should also not immediately jump to the worst conclusions without much evidence. I don’t think infighting that isn’t substantive or thoughtfully articulated does much help to a progressive agenda. It just creates the seeds for nasty dissension that crumbles the coalition we need.

   I tend to think of myself on the left side of the Democratic coalition but have gotten turned off by the tenor of some of the progressive wing. I think an oppositional wariness can be healthy - I probably need it a bit more with Obama - but when it feels kneejerk or ad hominem, it just alienates.

5. Jason Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 1:41 pm

   “…in any case, the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the president, and is supposed to follow the president’s agenda.”

   That’s true, but what concerns some of us about Clinton as SoS is that she’s not giving up a safe Senate seat to devotedly follow Obama’s lead for the next four years. There are good reasons to expect that she will be more independent then your average SoS, and will use tactics like leaking to the press to get her way.

   I’m worried about this because one of the main reasons I like Obama is that his foreign policy judgment is much better than Clinton’s or McCain’s. I want Obama to hire someone who is on the same page as him, and I don’t think Clinton fits the bill.

   I suspect others feel the same way. Almost everyone who praises the choice is praising the politics of it, not the substance.

6. John Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm

   It is doubtless true that Clinton will be a relatively independent Secretary of State. What I doubt she will be is a very influential one. My guess would be that she is given some major project over which she will get to preside (perhaps the Palestinian/Israeli peace process), and that she’ll have authority over things like relations with Latin America and other low priority foreign policy issues, but that most of the stuff relating to other major foreign policy priorities will be handled by the White House.

7. daniel Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   I think that Clinton’s primary position on Cuba had everything to do with the Florida election and nothing to do with any strong feelings that she actually has. Re Israel/Palestine, I think that Obama’s “undivided Jesrusalem” statement was at least as refelxively pro-Israel as anything that Clinton said, though he did sort of backtrack from it later. I’d say that both of them are centrist/pragmatist/opportunist on most foreign policy issue and agree that we should try to get out of Iraq fairly soon, get along better with Europe, generally appease Israel and its US partisans, and sound belligerent towards Al Qaeda and the Taliban. And I’d say that neither of them has a clear idea of what to do regarding Iran and North Korea (not that I have any great ideas myself…)

8. novakant Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm

   I don’t think infighting that isn’t substantive or thoughtfully articulated does much help to a progressive agenda. It just creates the seeds for nasty dissension that crumbles the coalition we need.

   But it is substantive: why should someone who voted for the biggest FP disaster since Vietnam, didn’t bother to read the Iraq NIE and only half-heartedly acknowledged that it was a mistake - why on earth should someone like that be the new Secretary of State?

   Oh, and she also publicly speculated on “obliterating” Iran with nuclear weapons …

9. Lynn Says:
   November 23rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm

   Jason — Well said, but I see this kind of the same way DTM does. Like many of us, the primary reason I heavily favored Obama over Clinton (and Dean over Kerry in 2004) was the foreign policy stance & the Iraq war vote.

   I, however, suspect that Clinton doesn’t really BELIEVE any of the pro-Iraq-war or sabre-rattling in Iran or “gosh, he’s so naive” or Pakistan-is-our-friend crap that she was spouting. Her stance is, was and always will be “political.” She said what she said (I think) to make herself electable in the GE. (She failed to calculate that a combination of the youth, African Americans & anti-war progressives was enough to bring her down.) I had a Clinton supporter argue that I shouldn’t worry about Clinton’s Iraq war vote because she only did that because she thought she had to politically & once in office, blah de blah. Sure, I said, but once in office, she’ll be positioning for re-election in 2012, and feel the need to act all “tough” again. And on it goes.

   But I’m not worried about Clinton at State. I’m just not. It might even be a shrewd move (maybe I’ve read too much Andrew Sullivan lately, but he seems to think it makes more sense to coopt Clinton rather than set up a chief underminer).

   Obama’s foreign policy stance is fairly clear — and I don’t think Clinton has any reason for not following his directive. She’s perhaps chastened from her defeat (perhaps she realizes that the Iraq war vote did her in?); she’s also not a true believer (unlike, say, McCain? Somewhere her ’60s self lurks), & she’ll work hard & I think do her best to follow Obama’s lead. Why wouldn’t she? Heck, she’s at State & State only matters if there is significant diplomatic engagement, right? I think Obama’s choice of Clinton and maybe Emanuel signals that he wants to push Israel, and he needs cover. It needs to be done. And one place where Bill Clinton tried like the dickens was on the Israel/Palestine issue — and if she manages to make headway there, I’ll stand and applaud (& even smile if she gets the nobel peace prize). You know it kills Bill that he didn’t get a peace prize, so let the Clintons redouble their efforts there. Let’s wait & see. I may be wrong, but if she acts out or inappropriately, I’m sure President Obama will clip her wings.

10. AlanC9 Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Someone on one of the Sunday talk shows — I was still half-asleep, so I don’t remember who — said that the real story about putting Clinton in at State is that this is how Obama signals that foreign policy just isn’t very important right now; he’s going to hand that off to Clinton because the economy is the really important thing, and he shouldn’t be wasting his time on trivia right now.

    I’m not sure I buy that, but it’s an interesting take.

11. novakant Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    This is as funny as it is scary:

    One distinguished foreign policy expert predicted that “she’s going to be the mother-in-law you can’t get out of the house”.
    

    I really have no idea why Obama is putting up with this.

12. mo Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    novakant,

    I wasn’t trying to say that the arguments around Hillary can’t be substantive or that all of them haven’t been. I just think it’s important to keep it at that level, and much of the hand-wringing hasn’t been - on Hillary or otherwise.

    Also, I think we should recognize that there are a lot of important factors going into personnel appointments and ideological agreement is just one of them. What I personally hope shakes out is that we’ll see a healthy diversity and divergence of opinions.

13. mo Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    One distinguished foreign policy expert predicted that “she’s going to be the mother-in-law you can’t get out of the house”.
    
    I really have no idea why Obama is putting up with this.

    For all his idealistic rhetoric, Obama has not shown a naivete around politics. He wasn’t afraid in Illinois to engage in some hard-nosed political maneuvering. I think the MSM has propogated the Hillary as over-bearing and back-biting and unable to move past her sense of entitlement for the presidency. But I think Obama feels comfortable enough with how she came around through the campaign and with her work-horse, team player, knowledgeable characteristics to think this meme is very shallow. He clearly seemed to be calling the shots throughout the campaign and the transition and believes he’ll be able to continue to do so. Whether he’s right or not is anybody’s guess at this point…

14. Jarrett Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    The Clinton positions that you cite were all taken at very different historical moments — ranging from the full-on hysteria of 2002 to the early phases of her presidential run. They were ill-judged attempts to center her political position for the sake of her presidential prospects. None of them strikes me as especially close to the foundations of her world view, so I doubt they will be significant barriers to rapprochement now. If any of the Clinton-Obama disagreements do involve deeply held views on Hillary’s part, she will have negotiated these with him by now, but I doubt it’s an issue.

15. Hopefully Anonymous Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    I can’t escape the simple fact we’re paying SoS’s salary, not Obama, and there’s a long list of people who have demonstrated the resumes and judgment to be more qualified for the job. Richard Holbrooke and Bill Richardson are signficantly more qualified AND want the job. Is Hillary even fluent in a second language? This is Palinesque in that there are women more qualified to be SoS than Hillary and yet she’s being offered the job.

16. anonymiss Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    I’m sorry, but is no one going to come out and state the obvious?

    Clinton thought Iraq was a shit idea, but she thought it was politically impossible to oppose the President in the wake of 9/11.

    For fuck’s sake, haven’t you people spoken with her staff? They’ll tell you she thought invading Iraq was stupid! Seriously, she’s not stupid. She knew odds were this thing was going to be a fucking quagmire, but she figured it was better politically to be on the losing side of “hawkish” than the winning side of “dovish”. And, of course, given the 5% chance Iraq could really hace spontaneously resolved itself…it was a politically easy call. And, frankly, it’s an eminently defensible political call–the American people were just way smarter (and Bush way more incompetent) than anyone in the beltway anticipated.

    If HRC had been President in 2002, she never would have fucking invaded Iraq. Everyone knows this. That’s why Obama is fine with her as SOS–he recognizes she made a political calculation, and probably realizes that in her shoes he might have made the same one. But, of course, if either of them were in charge in 2002, the post 9/11 shit would have played out totally differently than it did under Bush, and probably pretty fucking similarly.

17. Greentitan Says:
    November 23rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    Receive $130 Paid to You Immediately

    The LWS Freedom program makes it possible!
    Click here to discover how
    http://www.lwsfreedom.com/id/greentitan

18. washerdreyer Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am

    Somewhat shorter anonymiss:

    Sen. Clinton made a horrific decision to support a war which she expected would result in disaster, killing hundreds of thousands, because she thought it would be good for her to do so, not because she believed that it would have good results for the U.S. or the world as a whole. This judgment indicates that she is a good pick for Secretary of State.

    Do you know how insane that sounds?

19. novakant Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 2:09 am

    What washerdreyer said - this is totally insane, but then large parts of the US public have exhibited a rather warped sense of logic combined with questionable ethics since 9/11. so I guess they get the politician they deserve.

20. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 4:42 am

    Gee, Matt Yglesias and Jamie Kirchick are on the same page!

    Obama’s Foreign Policy:
    The Case for Pessimism
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13807

    We know the sellout is a reality when we listen to Jamie Kirchick praise Barack Obama’s national security appointments: “Barack Obama isn’t even president yet, and he’s already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party’s left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency,” he snarks.

    Kirchick, in his role as Marty Peretz’s alter ego, is pleased as punch with the incoming Obama-ites, who appear to have abandoned their “netroots” early on and ceded the foreign policy realm to the pro-war Clinton wing of the party. He is mostly concerned with gloating over the fact that Joe Lieberman wasn’t expelled from the Democratic caucus, but
    the larger issue is the party’s foreign policy stance in general, which looks to be shaping up as distinctly right-of-center. (”Right,” in this sense, means neocon, rather than authentically conservative, but then you knew that.)

    As the last surviving representative of the Scoop Jackson Democrats, who have long been on the politically endangered species list, Lieberman has a special place in the hearts of neocons everywhere, but especially in the editorial offices of The New Republic, which, in spite of unconvincing efforts to suck up to the “new politics” wing, exists to hold high the banner of that hoary tradition.

    Obama’s personal intervention on Lieberman’s behalf hints at where the Democrats are going as a governing party, and his appointments are rapidly confirming this trend: not only Hillary Clinton at State and Robert Gates at Defense, but also retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as national security adviser. The former commander of U.S. forces in Europe and military head of NATO was described last year as a political “hot
    commodity” by the Wall Street Journal. In a piece that detailed the courting of the general by both political parties, Hillary is cited as saying she’d put him in her Cabinet, perhaps as defense secretary, although her campaign qualified this by saying that “it’s way premature” to speculate about such matters, as indeed it was. Jones is best buddies with John McCain, and, although he assiduously avoided a formal endorsement, he made an appearance with his old friend during the campaign. When Jones served on a commission evaluating our military operations in Iraq, he concluded that we ought to stay the course: “Understand the fact that regardless how you got there, there is a strategic price of enormous consequence for failure in Iraq.” His point of agreement with President-elect Obama is that he believes we’ve been grievously amiss in not escalating the fighting on the Afghan front sooner.

    The argument for Gen. Jones as national security chieftain echoes the case for Hillary at State: “If Obama engages Iran,” avers The New Republic, “it’ll be harder to dismiss his overtures as soft-headed or naïve with Jones coordinating foreign policy.” The same malarkey is being uttered with a straight face by defenders of the Clinton appointment, such as Obamacon-in-chief Andrew Sullivan, who claim it will somehow give Obama the credibility to pull off a settlement of the
    Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This assumes, however, that his “team of rivals,” as the pundits have deemed it, won’t mutiny. It assumes presidential omnipotence, when the reality is that without the cooperation of the vast and powerful national security bureaucracy, the White House will find it difficult to carry out its program. It also assumes Clinton and her menagerie won’t actively sabotage the policies she attacked during the primaries as “naïve” and “dangerous.”

    On the key question of withdrawal from Iraq, Jones is a mixed bag. The Jones commission set up to evaluate Iraq’s move toward creating its own military and police forces praised the Iraqi army but dissed the police as sectarian bullies and recommended they be disbanded. Of course, the police are run by the ruling Shi’ite parties, each of which has its own
    militia, and these will never be disbanded. The Jones plan is to reorient the U.S. mission in Iraq to protect the borders and leave internal security to the Iraqi military. At the congressional hearings held to present the commission’s findings, Jones was questioned by Sen. Carl Levin:

    “You say that significant reductions, consolidations and realignments would appear to be possible and prudent – is that your finding?”

    “That’s correct,” was Jones’ reply. However, when it came John McCain’s turn to question his old bud, Jones told the Arizona senator what he no doubt wanted to hear. Asked if it would be in our interest to set a definite timetable for U.S. withdrawal, Jones said:

    “Senator, I’ll speak for myself on this, but I think deadlines can work against us, and I think a deadline of this magnitude would be against our national interest.”

    Is it really possible that a candidate for president elevated to front-runner status by antiwar voters in the primaries – and elected over a rival who made support for the war the leitmotif of his losing campaign – is enabling the hijacking of American foreign policy by a new cabal of warmongers?

    The idea that by surrounding himself with advisers who have a long history of opposing any change in our bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy Obama can somehow immunize himself from criticism is logical only in a Bizarro World kind of way. In that alternate universe, where up is down and black is white, it makes perfect “sense” for a president to appoint people to key posts who oppose his policies. In our own world, however, such an approach would be crazy – yet it seems to be happening right before our eyes.

    Another disturbing aspect of the Jones appointment is that it
    underscores the rebirth of NATO as an engine of American aggression. No doubt the Bushian-neocon campaign to enlarge the archaic alliance and extend the Euro-American military umbrella into the Caucasus will be taken up by the Obama administration with fresh enthusiasm. The “unilateralist” approach attacked by Bush’s Democratic critics as a strategic mistake is now about to be corrected, with a renewed NATO as
    its symbol. While the ostensible enemy is, at present, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, NATO is, first and foremost, a challenge to Russia. Founded as the Western shield against the Soviet empire, now it is a sword pointed straight at Putin’s throat, as the Alliance moves inexorably eastward. If a new confrontation with the Russians is in the making, then it makes sense to put a former NATO military chieftain in
    as national security adviser.

    The new president’s appointments resound like slaps in the faces of his liberal supporters: Rahm Emanuel (a fierce opponent of the antiwar wing of the party), Hillary, Robert Gates (they’re trying to persuade him to stay on), and now Gen. Jones. It looks like antiwar voters voted for one thing, but are getting quite another – although it won’t be the first
    time that’s happened. From “he kept us out of war” in Woodrow Wilson’s day to George W. Bush’s pledge of “a more humble foreign policy,” presidents seem to have a penchant for inverting their campaign promises in the foreign policy realm, and Obama’s appointments could presage a lot of surprises – and bitter disappointments – for his supporters.

    Just how docile is the rank-and-file of the Obama “movement” – will they take this lying down? We’re about to find out. So far, the outrage of the “netroots” and the Rachel Maddow crowd seems limited to the triumph of Lieberman over the attempt to purge the evil spirit of Scoop Jackson from party precincts once and for all. And even this has nothing to do with Lieberman’s rabidly pro-war views, per se, only with the
    Connecticut senator’s endorsement of McCain.

    As it slowly dawns on the netroots that they’ve been had, however, don’t expect “netroots” entrepreneur Arianna Huffington to start asking uncomfortable questions. After all, she has a lot to lose. As the Times of London reports:

    “Arianna Huffington looks set to cement her position as the Queen of Capitol Hill in the next few days.

    “The Times has learnt that the Huffington Post, her influential political Web site, will confirm within the next week that it has completed a $15 million (£10 million) fundraising from investors.

    “The money will finance the expansion of HuffPo, as it is known, into the provision of local news across the United States and into more investigative journalism. And it will ensure that Ms. Huffington’s influence continues to spread across the U.S. political scene.

    “She is a close friend of Barack Obama, the president-elect – who, with Hillary Clinton, has posted on her site – and, at a dinner in London on Wednesday night, joked: ‘I only text three people – my two teenage children and Barack Obama.’”

    Arianna criticize the Dear Leader’s appointments? That might get her blocked from the presidential cell, not to mention alienate those generous investors whose interest in her money-losing, aesthetically disastrous, and painstakingly trite Web site might lessen considerably. Which just goes to show that no matter how high the price, a whore is still a whore – and what better occupation for the Queen of Capitol Hill?

    The circus aspect of all this may be amusing, if you take your humor black, but the joke is on the rest of us when the Obama-ites take office, because that’s when our real problems will begin.

    Obama’s appointments on the foreign policy front prefigure a policy of paralyzing caution and indecision. Just look at the cast of characters who will be major players on the national security field: not only Hillary and Gen. Jones, but also Joe Biden, who fancies himself a foreign policy maven and will no doubt want to play a major role in the decision-making process. This has all the makings of a three-way bureaucratic turf war, and the result is bound to be paralysis, rather
    than change of any desirable sort. Obama’s first concern, as he takes office, will be facing America’s economic crisis, and his full attention will be required for an extended period – plenty of time for the built-in rivalry in the foreign policy apparatus to take root and fester.

    The outlook for the foreign policy of the new administration is not good. I foresee a protracted period of confusion and internal struggle, punctuated by periodic foreign crises in which Team Obama will be all too eager to prove their “toughness.” Diverted by trouble on the home front, President Obama is likely to let the tremendous opportunities opened up by his international popularity and stature go to waste.
    Putting Hillary Clinton to work on forging a Middle East peace agreement is another example of Bizarro World logic in action: Obama might as well assign the task to Norman Podhoretz.

21. Armando Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 8:25 am

    Matthew:

    You seem extremely invested in your idea that there were in fact actual differences on foreign policy between Clinton and Obama . The reality is simply the reverse. Let’s take your points:

    “But they had a related, and more clear-cut, disagreement about Cuba policy with Obama indicating a desire to soften the hard line that prevailed through the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations while Clinton indicated a desire to stick with the status quo. ”

    This is news to me and I would love to see what you base that statement on. I deny it. Here is Obama in Miami in MAY ( I guarantee you he became more strident later on):

    “Sen. Barack Obama told Florida’s Cuban-American community Friday that his Cuba policy would be based on “libertad” and freedom for the island nation’s people. My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad,’ ” he said, using the Spanish word for liberty at an event celebrating Cuban Independence Day in Miami, Florida. The road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba’s political prisoners, the right of free speech, a free press, freedom of assembly, and it must lead to elections that are free and fair,” Obama said. “That is my commitment. “I won’t stand for this injustice; you will not stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba. That will be my commitment as president of the United States of America,” he said.”

    Excuse me, this is boiler plate Miami talk. If you think Hillary Clinton can not say those exact words, hell, it would shock me if she did not, then you are not as familiar with Cuba politics as I assume you are.

    Next you write “Obama wholeheartedly embraced the Shultz/Perry/Kissinger/Nunn nuclear disarmament agenda while Clinton was more equivocal.”

    You cite to their WSJ piece but not to “Obama’s wholehearted embrace” because I missed that one. I also missed your cite to Clinton’s “equivocation.” I doubt your assessment here. It seems wishful thinking to me.

    Next you write “Obama implicitly criticized the Clinton administration for waiting until its waning days to really buckle down on the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

    I doubt SOS Clinton will have any problems being placed in the middle of “buckling down on the Arab-Israeli” conflict. But then, you argue there is some policy difference here. Your argument seems the reverse frankly. It seems they are on the same page on this issue.

    Next you write “They disagreed about whether the US should join the international treaty to ban cluster bombs.” I’ll take your word for it. Which is the correct position in your view? More importantly, is that REALLY all you got?

22. Mandy Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am

    It shows, yet again, how incrementally The Ameican government moves; also, that the so-called “left” deluded itself about Obama. Which is not such a bad thing.

23. rosalala, chapel hill nc Says:
    November 27th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    When I look at how both Clinton and Obama actually voted on things while in the Senate, they are virtually the same. These campaign blatherings are hypothetical and there’s no proof to back up that he’s so willing to go out on a limb and be so different. In fact, there seems to be evidence that he’s quick to come back to center on his thinking. I hope that he will follow through on his campaign promises, but, at the same time, feel as though Obama, himself said many things that people wanted to hear at the time because it was advantageous to do so. I’m glad that he’s picking Clinton and that she will be a fine Secretary of State. If she isn’t, she can always be fired.

24. Hopefully Anonymous Says:
    December 1st, 2008 at 5:39 am

    DTM: It’s celebrity vs. technocracy here. Does Hillary Clinton even speak a second language? There are many better qualified for the job, and one of them should have the Secretary of State position. I think this is about Obama’s desire to have a clear path in 2012 should he lose popularity, not about picking the best Secretary of State for the United States. That I’m pretty much the only person pointing this out has lowered my opinion of the the rest of you 300 million.

    http://www.hopeanon.typepad.com

25. Penis Enlargement Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    Well deserve penis enlargement device review and pills review. Visit now http://www.penizenlargement.com

26. Lillilan Miller Says:
    January 24th, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Regarding the blog titled: “Obama’s Foreign Policy. The Case for Pessimism.” What this writer says amounts to calling everybody from Gen. Jones to Arianna Huffington neo-cons.
    After reading through his way-too-many words, I conclude that he is a neo-nut.

27. penis enlargement Says:
    March 8th, 2009 at 5:30 am

    By using natural penis enlargement exercises, your penis will fills with more blood that can increase its length and girth. Its length can increase by up to 3 inches. How can it happen? Your penis has 3 main chambers. The two large on the top are the Corpora Cavernosa and the one on the bottom is Corpus Spongisum. These three chambers, important factors that can affect your penis size, will fills with blood when you gain an erection. The Corpora Cavernosa is the main chamber to hold the blood.

28. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am

    I want to say - thank you for this!

29. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

30. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am

    tramadol
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

31. buy viagra online Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am

    buy viagra online
    It is the coolest site,keep so!

32. John1474 Says:
    March 24th, 2009 at 4:08 am

    Very nice site! [url=http://aixopey.com/qqaxrt/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

33. John1474 Says:
    March 24th, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Very nice site! cheap viagra

34. John1474 Says:
    March 24th, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Very nice site! cheap cialis http://aixopey.com/qqaxrt/4.html

35. John1474 Says:
    March 24th, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Very nice site!

36. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am

    Great site. Good info
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

37. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 8:20 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra

38. John973 Says:
    April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Very nice site! cheap viagra

39. John973 Says:
    April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Very nice site! cheap cialis http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/4.html

40. John973 Says:
    April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Very nice site! [url=http://apxoiey.com/aoxrxx/2.html]cheap cialis[/url]

41. John973 Says:
    April 10th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Very nice site!