The Watch

  • All opinions expressed on Obama Watch are those of the authors only. Any disputes, factual or otherwise, must be addressed to the authors or commentors themselves, who are solely responsible for their opinions and posts.

The Review

  • All posts, comments and
    statements made on IR are those of the authors only. Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts, comments and statements. We reserve the right to deny or remove comments. Content may not be used without permission of the author.

Subscribe



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins - International Herald Tribune | Main | Obama depicted as Jesus in Chicago art school exhibit »

March 29, 2007

Comments

John

As long as telling the Truth and educating the public to think for themselves doesn't fit the hidden agenda of the press that works to manufacture consent then the Truth will always go begging and engineered ignorance will be exploited. Shame on the press for ignoring what no first year law student could miss. If an African-American, Harvard educated, civil rights lawyer can actually get away with such inane legal rubbish then Churchill was absolutely correct. Using religion as an excuse to deny civil rights is classic Dixiecrat separate but [not] equal' jim crow politics.


When an African-American Harvard educated civil rights lawyer preaches righteous sermons about respecting the doctrine of separation of church and state but then offers only a religious rationale for denying 'fundamental' civil rights the cognitive dissonance should assail the ears of anyone with even a mere thimble full of legal knowledge. Enough is enough. This sham and travesty have gone too far.

"If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical religious reasons [religion] one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama's position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!"

To read the entire article see "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006 at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73 .

david

What nonsense! This is the kind of egotistical rant that tore the Democratic Party apart in the 1970s. It's a melodramatic, scenery-chewing tantrum.

Calm down. There's nothing "separate but equal" about this. If there are people who get their knickers in a knot over marriage being anything other than a man and woman spliced in a church, leave them be. Drop the word 'marriage' from all civil codes. Every law should deal with 'civil unions'. It's time we took the 'holy' out of 'matrimony' and used a less loaded term.

Obama does, in fact, sound like a brilliant Harvard lawyer. He's immediately spotted that it's the word 'marriage' that's divisive. I know. Even my most homophobic relatives admit that a same-sex couple should not suffer financial and legal indignities because the State doesn't recognize their kinship. It's that word that unsettles them. Change the word and they have no objections.

But to compare it to the Jim Crow laws is just an insult to every African-American. That's just nonsense.

Scott

Christians act like "marriage" is a special province of the Christian faith, alone. Even though it has been a worldwide cultural practice through many cultures, and may even predate Christianity.

It should be up to individual states and religious institutions to come up with their own decision on whether homosexuals can "marry". It should not be banned, in any way, shape or form, though.

As long as Obama doesn't support the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages, to my knowledge.

Scott

EDIT: AT LEAST Obama doesn't support the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages, to my knowledge.

Lionel

What is striking here is how liberals which at times will evoke their belief system whether it sides with morality or not, they get miffed at the mention of someone disagreeing with them as though the person hates them. I am a Christian and I love all people gay or straight, it doesn't matter to me what you are. There are laws God has instituted that manny people could care less about because of their own agenda. Now mind you that is their right but don't force feed me your propaganda while trying to convince me that marriage for gays is the right thing to do. I wholeheartedly disagree with your mindset and hope to God that society is not brainwashed by the rhetoric that is spewed as though gay people are the only victims on the face of the earth. I believe everyone should have healthcare and certain benefits across the board but do not agree that gay marriage should be accepted and condoned by the state or the goverment. I don't say that with ill will or hatred but it is my conviction that those that support such are misguided, lack spiritual insight and understanding.

Bud Evans

“There is Room Enough at the Marriage Table for All of Us" by Bud Evans

If marriage means "to honor and to hold…for richer or poorer…in sickness and in health…till death do us part" – then my partner-in-life and I are married, and no one on Earth can change that fact. For nearly thirty years we have endured good times and bad times together; we have shared, in equal parts, our sadness and our joyfulness; we have celebrated good health and, nursed each other in poor health. By all reasoned virtue -- due to the mutual commitment and love we have for one another, which defines the ideal in any marriage -- we are, in every way, married. But, alas, we are not recognized as such legally in our home country. And now there are fearful, and yes, even spiteful, people who desire to make that a permanent condition of alienation; that is, to make us strangers to the protections of law, in our own country of birth; pushed legally outside of the very laws which protect every other loving couple in America.

The U. S. Constitution is an enduring legal instrument which has been altered only on rare occasions, and then primarily to expand citizens’ rights -- certainly not rewritten or amended to limit American citizen’s rights. Under our constitutional republic we are not obligated to conform, or even give deference, to the questionable moral dictum of another citizen’s particular religious beliefs. We are only required to bend to secular law, with the right to redress if laws are not administered fairly and impartially. The proposed federal constitutional amendment -- the so-called "Marriage Protection" Amendment -- would eliminate that right to redress.

This blatantly discriminatory and improperly named amendment does not protect the marriages of thousands of same-sex couples already legally married in the United States and abroad. In fact, it decrees that not only are those legally entered into marriage not protected, but it tries to pretend that they don't even exist. That would be as if the freedom of speech clause of First Amendment to the United States Constitution declared that only the ruling majority had "freedom of speech" and that right did not exist for anyone who did not belong to a favored class. The very concept of this "Marriage Amendment" would be laughable in its absurdity if it weren't so poisonous in its intent. Its sole intention is to do grievous harm by being an impediment to the well-being and to security of tens of millions of same-sex oriented American citizens for generations to come.

In the meanwhile, most of our individual states, whipped up into a hysterical frenzy by right-wing politicians, are rapidly amending their own state constitutions in order to imbed homophobic bigotry into every judicial and administrative branch, on every level, of each state's governmental structure. The false veneer of a "Bill of Rights" in the United States is rapidly becoming a synonym for hypocrisy and injustice in the eyes of all civilized nations of the world. This abuse of the constitutional process for political advantage is un-American at its very core. Yet its proponents are rushing to push through the codification of second-class citizenship upon tens of millions of fellow Americans. They do this horrible deed knowing full well that when the typically reactionary American public comes lumbering back to its senses, in the ensuing years, it will see that this great "threat" to the American family of the early 21st century was not only very much exaggerated, but entirely false. Instead we shall have again a new legacy of self-deceit and group-hate as shamefully as racism was in American's recent past.

The truth of the matter is that the only American families which are threatened by this hysteria are the millions of disenfranchised same-sex families who are constantly under attack in the United States of America. What future generations will pay the price for this wrong-headed and politically exploitive populous gesture of the worst kind? The US Supreme Court -- perhaps in the future, in a more enlightened age -- should be left alone to exercise its constitutional power to undo rash state constitutional decisions (such as Romer v Evans -- Colorado Amendment 2). But to hamstring federal courts and state courts with ill-conceived, group-specific constitutional amendments, that do not expand but rather contract civil rights, shall set a dangerous precedent that will inevitably put all of our constitutional rights in jeopardy.

How does one square a "heterosexuals only" marriage amendment without conflicting with the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees "Equality under the law" for each citizen regardless of distinction? Some say that "activist" judges shouldn’t decide these matters, but if it weren’t for so-called "activist" judges, black children may still be going to segregated schools; inter-racial couples prevented from getting married; women forced into back-alley abortions, and loving, committed same-sex couples hauled off by police officers in the middle of the night to jail from the sanctity of their very own bedrooms where they lie in each others arms -- as in the case of Lawrence -v- Texas. Yes, tampering with the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to amend it to reflect popular prejudices truly is the real "slippery slope" -- certainly not marriage equality.

The last debacle of this kind was the Volstead Act, resulting in the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1919, which imposed prohibition nationwide mainly due to the disproportionate political influence of the self-styled "moralists" of the time. But people still drank alcohol, they just did it illegally. The affect of prohibition was simply to make a mockery of individual rights and to provoke wide-spread disrespect for the law. That "mistake" resulted in fourteen years of the federal government invading people’s personal lives and habits with heavy-handed liquor raids on homes and "speak-easys" with the affect of only driving more and more law-abiding citizens into the hands of organized crime. This, one of the most divisive and irrational acts of the early twentieth century, was finally overturned with the passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933.

Do we now want enshrined in the U. S. Constitution that Gay and Lesbian Americans are to be forever exempt from equal treatment under the law? Is apartheid to be proscribed by a hetero-centric constitutional amendment which codifies marriage as a "heterosexuals only" legal contract and then robs millions of same-sex couples, in life-long committed relationships too, of their hopes and dreams as well as denying them basic legal protections and recognition of their relationships? Do countless numbers of same-sex couples have to flee to Canada, or some other progressive democracy, in order to avoid constitutionally mandated oppression in their home country, the United States of America? What kind of stabilizing force in society is that which legally disadvantages the millions who exist in one type of family so that another, more common form of family can retain its purely symbolic supremacy at the expense of the other? Is that the legacy this country is going to leave to her children – her multi-racial, multi-cultural, and affectionally diverse children? Have we not already learned the lessons of social destruction from biased and the self-styled, wrong-headed "moralists" who once divided this great nation? We can only hope that people of goodwill may recall the painful lessons of our reactionary past before we repeat those very same mistakes at the expense of tens of millions of fellow Americans present today.

We trust that fair-minded people will not support this blatantly biased and bigoted attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law. Robbing one group of their rights in this nation is an unconscionable act made even more reprehensible when it is motivated by preserving the status quo of a larger group whose own civil rights are by no means limited by the expansion of those very same rights to other Americans. In this case, it is American same-sex couples in intimate, loving and mutually supportive monogamous relationships who are in jeopardy of being forever consigned to second class citizenship; relegated to a lower caste; perpetually stigmatized as being less than fully American. Today, law abiding same-sex oriented Americans are accorded fewer relationship rights than convicted mass murders and unrepentant child-rapists who can join in legally recognized heterosexual marriages, and who are often entitled to conjugal rights as well during their incarceration in prison. There is something very, very wrong and morally unjustifiable about this kind of inequity.

As to the "sky is falling" Chicken Little crowd out there -- this isn’t about opening the floodgates to "whatever goes". If one was to follow that logic, then when black slaves were finally freed in America’s shameful past, some opposed to it could have irrationally claimed then that all convicts should be set free as well since, in essence, they too were held in bondage by the state. No, same-sex civil marriage does not open the proverbial Pandora’s Box and confer the same right to marry one’s sister or one’s poodle or to have two or three sets of spouses. It changes nothing in regard to the numerical structure or the relationship requirements of those who wish to enter into marriage. It conforms in every way possible to the existing definition of two non-related adult human beings who desire to be legally bound to one another and united in monogamous civil marriage.

To compare same-sex civil marriage to bestiality and to incest is simply an invidious ploy shamefully exploited by self-absorbed bigots in order to obfuscate the issue of equality. Apparently growing public acceptance towards any minority, not under their direct control, tends to threat their strangle-hold on the status quo. This same tactic was used by their kind in similar arguments against legalizing inter-racial marriage not too many decades ago. Eventually, people of good will found the courage to stand up to them and a new generation grew up mostly uncontaminated by their predecessor’s twisted assumptions on race. So, if anyone can justify those problematic assertions made by contemporary opponents of Gay and Lesbian equality, with their self-serving and exaggerated "slippery slope" arguments, then let them petition the courts with both law and reason as to how it can be so. Until then, I would say that "herring" is very red indeed and not worthy of rational discourse. Hyperbole is always the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Same-sex oriented Americans have for decades fought long and hard for recognition of their birth-right of equality. Ours is not a racial distinction, ours difference lies in the shading of our hearts. It is an emotional attribute that is just as innate and clings just as close to us as skin color does to others. What could be more natural than romantic attraction, followed by idealistically mapping out a future together with the object of one’s affection? What could be more intrinsic than the need for life-long companionship with those of our own kind? Nothing in Heaven or on Earth can be more rewarding or more enduring than true love. Nothing.

Yes, contrary to the presuppositions of inculcated hate and politically whipped-up hysteria, there really is room enough at the marriage table for everyone. And not just an apartheid-like system of separate tables (i.e. Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, etc) but room at the same table of marriage for each of us who wish to take on all the responsibility which it demands -- as well as reap its rewards. And as tempestuous as marriage sometimes is, it most often provides for couples pledged to one another for life, be they heterosexual or same-sex couples, the only real promise of a safe harbor in which to lay anchor and to protect their most precious cargo -- each other.

© "Bud" E. Lewis Evans (Original version published in "The Liberty Press" and excerpts published in the Kansas City Star)

Bill Garnett

A close friend who is a psychology major at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) lent me several of his college psychology books. I found a few sentences from the topic “Why Do People Marry” from a heavy text called ‘Human Sexuality’ quite interesting, and I share this passage:

“Not until the nineteenth century did the notion of love as a basis of marriage become widespread in Western society.”

“Marriage provides a sense of emotional and psychological security, however, and opportunities to share feelings, experiences, and ideas with someone with whom one forms a special attachment. Desires for companionship and intimacy are key goals in marriage today”.

“Broadly speaking, those people who want to get married do so because they believe they will be happier if they get married.”

As long as homosexuals, despite the best science and medicine that concurs that homosexuality is NOT a moral choice but is a state of being, are treated differently by their government, there will be a societal cloud of bias, discrimination, and prejudice that will insinuate itself into our families, communities, and workplaces.

JanieD

Please help some of us to understand something:

The plight of the "Gay Marriage" extended rights issue has become an extreme sore spot among many in recent years. After extensive research due to the attacks BY gays on a young innocent man who self-identifies as straight I and thousands have done a 180. What we have witnessed does not bode well for garnering further support as those of us who avidly insist on equal rights for everyone have had our stomachs turned inside out.

We have witnessed a gang mentality when maliciously militant gays target someone. A fabricated story shows up in tabloids and then the internet is saturated with these lies. False MySpace and Manhunt type accounts are set up in the name of the innocent and the wheels spin wildly to add character assassination.

Over a period of time and a few incidents involving politicians being "scandalized" the research led us even further into the abyss. If you type "Republican Gay Scandals" into the browser a list will pop up and those politicians who have disagreed with extended rights for Gay Marriages/Civil Unions are and were targets. Much of the public will believe these lies but a collective "we" recognize some of the same patterns used to discredit a certain entertainer.

"We've" seen the patience of gays who take years to develop a "gay scandal" against someone. Fake email/fake IMs and fake bathroom stall fabrications are all too familiar methods used against the politicians but it wouldn't have been zeroed in on had "we" not seen some of the same patterns used against someone who would never even think to exclude anyone from acceptance in his world.

What is it that this straight innocent young male has done to warrant such attacks? He turned out to be straight which was a low enough blow but then he chose his passion for inclusion for all over advocating gay rights. What I and many others have seen in the way of attempted blackmail, extortion and character assassination coming from the gay community makes some wonder what the hell "we" were advocating. The right for gays to slander, libel, blackmail and scandalize anyone who doesn't bend to their will?

NOW! Most of us who have witnessed all this and pretty much figured out this horrid game realize that not all gays are this vicious BUT NOBODY from the gay community speaks out against these travesties thereby causing the "ole paint them with the same broad brush" mentality.

I don't know what the solution is to turn our stomachs inward again but if the rest of the public were exposed more to your 30 year loving commitment instead of attacks launched against innocent people because of a difference in belief THEN maybe progress can be made toward acceptance.

I truly believed, at one time, that gay couples deserved the same feeling of completion that their commitment to each other warranted. Now I have to wonder at what cost to innocent people's lives.

I regret the anger that I feel but.....

JanieD

I did leave out one important thing which is on topic with your article. Sometimes I'm a forgetful dumbass. My point is that I have recently seen the same attack on Obama whereby a male comes forward admitting to a "tryst" with others who will come forward. This is all too familiar and I will take it with the same huge saltlick and not believe one iota of what's being said about a "gay scandal". Here they go again and how predictable!

Pastor-Ronald King

Read Romans chapter one and you have a clear answer to the question of right or wrong. God has certain fixed laws of righteousness that are set in stone. That will never change. When a society turns from those laws of righteousness we are in trouble. Pastor Roanld King

debra shorts

In the beginning God created man and woman for each other's satisfaction. Read Genesis 2:18. To say that being gay is a state of being and not a choice is being misguided, its exchanging the truth for a lie. What ever choice we make will have control over us. So, if we choose God's laws and commandments, then God is the ruler of our lives and he is in control, when we choose to do other than what God says then we have allowed the God of this world to control our lives which is living in rebellion against a Holy God who created us all and loves us so much that He sent Jesus to die for our sins so we don't need to stay in the sin. We have to constantly renew our minds everyday, telling ourselves that we belong to God and he wants the best for us. WE are free from the law of sin and death.

Marage

I think barack obama will be a great president, and i agree with him but if you love someone you should be abl to marry them!!!!
:)
Marage Simpson

whintie

I LOVE BARACK

SjP

With California lifting the ban on gay marriage, I am very interested in your opionion as to whether or not the right for gays to marry is a fight that should be part of the African-American agenda. Please feel free to comment at: http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-gay-marriage-right-fight-for-african.html

Much Obliged, SjP

Bud Evans

Slick Willie Move Over, Here Comes Obama

By the way, did you see how Obama sold us out again to that lynch-mob of Bible-Nazis at the so-called “Faith Forum“ Saturday night August 16th, 2008?

Obama begins: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

He is interrupted by the crowd's thunderous applause and pig-like squeals.

Obama continues: “For me as a Christian it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

He should have taken the opportunity to add: “...oh, and by the way, I am not a Muslim and I did not sleep with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

Wow! So Obama thinks that “God’s in the mix” at the “sacred union” of every hetero multiple-divorced and remarried wedding farce, but God must be out to lunch at same-sex nuptial ceremonies. Or maybe God just passed out in the punch bowl there and forgot about us, or was buggering in the bushes at the park across the street with Mother Nature and lost track of the time so He couldn’t make our wedding.

God: “Oops! I missed your unholy wedding. Sorry, I couldn’t be in the “mix” at your non-sacred union. I got “mixed” up. Was it at two O’clock or three O’clock? My bad. Me damn me.”

So, in other words (Obama’s that is), God likes Straights. God not so fond of Homos. Our nuptials are not “sacred“, therefore they must be pagan or something. Hmmm…where’s a Wiccan priest when you need one?


Hard to believe Obama went to law school and doesn’t grasp the concept of Religious Marriages versus Civil Marriages -- oh, and by the way, Obama’s own church supports the “sacred union” of same-sex marriages. So how does that jive with Obama’s “deeply held religious beliefs”? It certainly doesn’t come from his own denomination, the very liberal United Church of Christ. Gosh, I smell another slick Willie here.

Obama then says: "I am not someone who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. . . . I don't think [they] inhibit in any way what my core beliefs are." He says he can afford (some) civil rights to gay couples without compromising his faith.

ObamOz translation: My core beliefs (political strategy) that they (homos) are entitled to some civil rights (morally inferior) and that I must allow them to exist somewhere (civil unions - separate lunch counters, etc,), as long as it is not in our neighborhoods (marriage - equal rights - fairness). Therefore, fellow Bible Bigots, I’m just like you (opportunistic self-serving hypocrites). So, please don’t look at the Black man behind the curtain. This is Emerald City (the mass media) where all wicked witches wear the same fine Christian patriotic flag-penned clothing. Vote for me. I’m one of you. Really I am. I’ll even waterboard a transsexual while wiretapping their mother if it will convince the media that I’m not another liberal from Chi town with a mocca tan and pretty words; instead, I’m just one of the gang.

Oddly, the “Cretin Right“…oops!…I mean the Christian Right overwhelmingly supports McCain over Obama (imagine that) and yet here Obama is throwing raw meat to the very same wolves who would have our bones (and his) for breakfast. And there are still those who would support this hypocrite because Obama doesn’t have a problem with them sitting at the back of the bus -- as long as they know their place. Jeeeze!

While I am concerned about the federal courts -- the arena where our Constitutional rights will ultimately be re-discovered -- I am convinced that Obama will do nothing for us while in office; neither will a Democratic-controlled congress -- which almost immediately after election goes into a re-election mode.

Historically, the Congress has rarely passed any pro-civil rights legislation until well after the courts have struck down the last vestiges of discrimination. So don’t look to congress. But I do want my congressman/woman and my presidential candidate to go on record as fully supporting my constitutional birthright of full equality as an American citizen or they can pucker up to my posterior. Is that too much to ask? Or is that a betrayal of our community?

Now, before any argument is made concerning Republican versus Democratic judicial appointees, just remember a Republican nominated U.S. Supreme Court Justice (Anthony Kennedy - appointed by Ronald Regan) wrote the majority opinion in the pro-gay ruling in Romer -v- Evans and wrote the majority decision in striking down the sodomy laws nationwide in the Lawrence -v- Texas. And a Republican Chief Justice on the California Supreme Court wrote the deciding opinion decreeing same-sex marriage in that state.

And no, I am not a Republican. I have generally voted with the Democrats in most elections -- although I am an Independent. But I will not allow my vote to be taken for granted and neither should any of you. If you demand to be heard, you just might be -- if you don’t, then you make yourself even more irrelevant than you are now. That’s the real choice.

(c) Bud Evans, August 20th, 2008

kodi monster & Noma Jean

I belive that Obama is correct in what he saying about gay marriage. It is right to allow gay people to marry even though some people are against it. Alot of people think gay marriage is wrong but it also can be right if it is what they really want. There are a majority of religous groups that oppose these same sex couples being married

kodi monster & Noma Jean

I belive that Obama is correct in what he saying about gay marriage. It is right to allow gay people to marry even though some people are against it. Alot of people think gay marriage is wrong but it also can be right if it is what they really want. There are a majority of religous groups that oppose these same sex couples being married

Alex

First of all, I will identify myself as a gay man who believes in god and who believes in jesus. However, I do not identify myself as a christian. For many in our society christians have become a symbol of fear and hatred. I find this to be very disturbing, as this attitude is what I believe to be against all of the teachings of Christ. If I may (which fortunately in this country I may say ALMOST anything I please), I would compare many of our christian groups with Taliban suicide bombers. They truly believe that they are doing the right thing for their religion, but in the process they hurt others and kill themselves. What I mean to say is this: certain christian groups are only trying to protect their religion and do their duties to God, but in their manner of executing these duties they sin themselves by judging and condemning others to hell. I may go to hell for being gay, but please, save yourselves. Let God judge me for being gay and not judge you for juging me. All sins are equal in gods eyes, and when you judge someone and say hateful things IN THE NAME OF GOD, what kind of image are you portraying of God? I believe that we all worship the same God, the one God, but I fear that many of you have gotten his message wrong. It was once stated in some religious document that the pharrohs of egypt should "let my people go". This was not becaause the rulers at the time had forbidden monotheistic teachings, but because God loves all of his chilren and wants us to believe in him and try to adhere to his teachings as much as possible. We all cannot achieve perfection, but what we can achieve is happiness. All I want right now is to marry my partner. God knows the love that I have for my partner, so why can't anyone else accept this and stop the mindless persecution... Nazis(I mean this only in a sarcastic comic relief type way, and my opinions that have been written above do not apply to all of christianity. There are still truly good christians out there and many that I am happy and proud to be friends with)

NH

More people are going to come foreward and talk of Obama's gay sex trysts.

To me there is nothing more dangerous than a Marxist, openly racist, crack-smoking bi-sexual lying madman like Obama in our government.

They are all egotists of the worst kind.

lisha

He rite so fuk all dem hatin ppl on gay ppl y b so mean dey dont do shet 2 us dey mind der own bussiness and we mind our own.we cant stop dem from bein lesbian n gays so why not aceept them how they are!well NO ON PROP.8 Jen<3
{[10-14-08]}

bob

he is gay

bob

jack horsewood

bob

jack horsewood love barack obama

wake up world

I will repeat what Pastor Ronald King (above)
had to say:
Read Romans chapter one and you have a clear answer to the question of right or wrong. God has certain fixed laws of righteousness that are set in stone. That will never change. When a society turns from those laws of righteousness we are in trouble.

john mccain

i should of won

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)