comment #1

George Prager says ...

If this Hockey mom and the feeble old man she's running with win the election, the world is going to be laughing its ass off.

comment #2

Chicago48 says ...

Roger summed it up nicely, but if this last president ("C" average) is any indication, the public doesn't care about smarts.

Every time I see Palin I think: Gena Davis, commander-in-chief ABC. It could happen. McCain could have a heart attack before taking office and she's the one to fill in.

I betcha ABC brings that show back big-time!

comment #3

actionman says ...

It will be an utter disgrace if McCain/Palin wins and we all have to suffer through another Republican term. I don't normally comment on the political posts here because I like to keep my opinions to myself, but the more I hear and read about Palin, there more disgusted I become. Something tells me, rather sadly, that the Maverick and the Hockey Mom are going to win in November. And that will truly suck.

comment #4

actionman says ...

And this piece by Ebert is yet another reminder of how invaluable a writer he is. No matter what he writes about, there is passion shooting out from every word, every sentence, every idea he communicates. I absolutely love reading his work and when the day comes that he's no longer in print, well, that will also truly suck.

comment #5

roanokemaroon says ...

[Deleted due to my inability to tolerate conservative neg-head troll posts any more, and the writer purged as part of the ongoing Stalinist sweep of all HE commenters.]

comment #6

Catman says ...

Ebert is wrong, but Actionman is right - the day he's no longer in print will suck. (I miss Siskel too.)

As to the world "laughing its ass off", the last time I looked, this is an American election, not an election designed to placate the corrupt Eurocrats and dictators of the world like Obama would do.

Enjoy the Oballoon while you can - the air's leaking fast and should be completely flat in about fifty more days...

comment #7

drbob says ...

I am an Obama supporter, but I have an ominous feeling that McCain/Palin are going to win in November for one reason. I made the mistake of mentioning to a senior citizen that I thought McCain was too old to be President. Black people may get mad that some people won't vote for a black man merely because he is black. Women may get mad that some people won't vote for a woman because she is a woman. But hell hath no fury like a senior citizen being told McCain is too old. Senior citizens vote; young people do not.

comment #8

snackyx says ...

Exactly at what point did it becomes as political disadvantage to be smart? After eight years of Bush—never the sharpest knife in the drawer—wouldn’t it be a good idea to elect someone for the most powerful job on the planet to be intellectual acute and perhaps even curious? Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law—graduated magna cum laude from the later. That’s pretty damn impressive. McCain? Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Magna cum laude? Not quite. Out of 899 graduates, McCain graduated 894. How did a guy like this get in? His father and grandfather both attended the Academy. Sound familiar? Sarah Palin appears to have attended five colleges in six years, eventually getting a degree from the University of Idaho. Can’t we really set the bar higher than that for the highest office in the land?

comment #9

FunkDaddy J says ...

Catman wrote: As to the world "laughing its ass off", the last time I looked, this is an American election, not an election designed to placate the corrupt Eurocrats and dictators of the world like Obama would do.

I'm so tired of this sarcastic argument. Yes, the world matters. And no, Obama is not an "appeaser," as our dunce prez has suggested. Obama's foreign policy is far smarter and more cool-headed than that of the Republicans.

If McCain/Palin prevail, the world will shake its head in disbelief/disgust, and by "world," I'm including millions upon millions of people in the United States--which, "last time I checked," is also part of the world.

comment #10

SaveFarris says ...

What defines an American Idol finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented. Why, they're darned near the real thing.

So I guess Roger's voting against Barack?

comment #11

Chicago48 says ...

Dr.Bob: So true!

comment #12

a1 says ...

In this diseased, decadent culture, the foremost concern in this election isn't that the President actaully do anything. It's that it makes you feel good to see President Mary Tyler Moore or President Cliff Huxtable showing up on the TV screen.

That's all, folks -

comment #13

AuggieBenDoggie says ...

[Deleted due to my inability to tolerate conservative neg-head troll posts any more, and the writer purged as part of the ongoing Stalinist sweep of all HE commenters.]

comment #14

Catman says ...

Snackyx brings up an interesting point, but I would say its not how intelligent you are, but what you do with it. Carter and Clinton were both highly intelligent men; but Carter made one poor decision after another, while Bubba settled for banging interns. Nixon, on the other hand, changed the world by making peace with China, and Reagan ended the Soviet Union.

Obama is, by all accounts, a very smart guy, but nothing he's done suggests boldness or think-on-your-feet smarts like JFK and Clinton both possessed in spades. So far, Obama just sounds like a wonk, which is not going to trump guts, instinct, and action with (most of) the American people.

comment #15

jeromejohn says ...

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/asmussen/

comment #16

George Prager says ...

Our enemies will not be intimidated by this pair. They'll just wait around until 2012. They won't take us seriously. The "Axis of Evil" will still be going strong.

comment #17

Chapman Carruthers says ...

Catman,

When can we expect your book on gross over-generalizations about former US Presidents to be published?

Here's a suggested title: All Balls, No Brains: Or the Story of McCain, Catman, and the majority of the American Public.

comment #18

nlu says ...

Catman or anybody else

Can you describe in clear specific terms without using slogans or gross generalizations how a Mccain presidency will help the people of this country?

Because I have no idea. I have not heard or seen a single thing from Mccain that would lead me to believe otherwise.

If you know of something that I don't I would love to hear it.

comment #19

Markj74 says ...

The McCain/Palin ticket is insane. And so is anybody that votes for them. Absolutely insane.

But hey, Geroge Bush was voted in twice. So anything goes.

comment #20

snackyx says ...

Catman: My point is at the very least have the pool of candidates meet a standard that is becoming of the U.S. Presidency. Obama meets that standard, argue if you will about whether you think he would make a great leader. Judging from the academic credentials of John McCain, I would question whether he should even be in the pool.

comment #21

shermy says ...

The problem with criticizing Obama is really...what's the worst that could happen?

What? He could be a bad president, with historians (and ultimately, history) regarding him as one of our weakest ever?

Well, most people don't seem to have a problem with that type of scenario.

comment #22

mutinyco says ...

Nixon opened talks with China. But he also committed high crimes in the US and had to resign.

Reagan did not end the Soviet Union, the USSR ended years after Reagan was out of office. Reagan's real legacy is instituting the economic policies that have created a $10-trillion debt that will ultimately bankrupt the nation.

comment #23

Catman says ...

Snackyx: are you honestly telling me that someone who went to Annapolis, served in the military, survived five years in a prison camp, and has served in the Senate a couple of decades, is somehow less qualified than Obama simply because Obama got good grades at Harvard? I'm not arguing Obama isn't smart enough to be president - he is - but that his economic and socio/political beliefs would lead to policies that would not lead to economic growth or military security.

comment #24

storymark says ...

Catman - So, you're arguing that graduating from Annapolis at the bottom of his class, and crashing over and over, makes him qualified?

comment #25

mutinyco says ...

Obama's economic policies will mirror Clinton's -- and the last time I checked, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion in the nation's history.

Furthermore, with regards to the military, how much worse could he be than Bush, who went to war on false pretenses and blatant lies?

comment #26

bents75 says ...

"Snackyx: are you honestly telling me that someone who went to Annapolis, served in the military, survived five years in a prison camp, and has served in the Senate a couple of decades, is somehow less qualified than Obama simply because Obama got good grades at Harvard? "

Well put. That's exactly what I'm saying. What's wrong with wanting someone smart to lead the country? Oh, the travesty! What will we do with intelligence leaders who base their decisions off of logic and facts rather than rhetoric, phony idealism, and God.

And you can take your economic / military security views and shove them up your hairy feline ass, Catman. If Obama's approach is differen than the current one, then there's a pretty good chance it will work, because the current one doesn't.

Case closed.

comment #27

Mark G. says ...

"If this Hockey mom and the feeble old man she's running with win the election, the world is going to be laughing its ass off."

Actually, the world is going to cry a lot...
Before Bush the U.S.A. at least pretended to treat its allies like allies. For the last 7 years the world watched as Bush made decision after decision without consulting the world.
And just remember: 7 years ago to this day the U.S. had the sympathy of the whole world, even Muslim countries and their peoples were in shock over 9/11 and cried with the victims and their families. Within one year Bush has wiped out all the sympathies the U.S.A. enjoyed after 9/11 on the whole planet...
And John McCain won't be any help to repair the relations between the U.S.A./rest of the world...

comment #28

Josh Massey says ...

"She's the American Idol candidate. Consider. What defines an American Idol finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented. Why, they're darned near the real thing."

God, Roger should be sued for plagiarism. This is exactly what people have written about Obama for months.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

And yet all those same people rally to and love Palin, which proves that even they knew they didn't mean it.

comment #30

iamwhoiam says ...

I'm so scared of these elections. For the sake of the world, please don't let it happen.

comment #31

Richardson says ...

"are you honestly telling me that someone who went to Annapolis, served in the military, survived five years in a prison camp, and has served in the Senate a couple of decades, is somehow less qualified than Obama simply because Obama got good grades at Harvard?"

First off, he said that good grades in Harvard was more of a qualification than abyssmal grades at Annapolis. You added the rest.

Second off, only one of those things you ascribe to McCain has *anything* to do with qualifications for president. Went to school? doesn't matter. Prisoner of war? Has NOTHING to do with ability to lead and could, potentially, be a huge negative if it had an impact on his mental state.

Served in the Senate for decades? Sure, that is a qualification. However, it's a pretty lousy qualification to run as a change candidate planning to shake things up in Washington.

comment #32

nlu says ...

"but that his economic and socio/political beliefs would lead to policies that would not lead to economic growth or military security."

Why do you say this? What are you reading that would make you say this. Last I checked Obama's economic policies would benefit 90%+ of the people in this country.

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

This is from a nonpartisan source.

So unless you're making $250,000+ a year you're going to get more money with Obama.

As far as military security, what about Mccain's credentials make it seem like he can do better than Barack? He didn't support the GI bill so right off the bat I don't think he should be in charge. If we're going to fight needless wars at least we can do is take care of the people who are made to fight in them.

comment #33

Josh Massey says ...

"So unless you're making $250,000+ a year you're going to get more money with Obama."

Of course, you might lose your job because your bosses - those bastards making more than $250K - will have to cut back. But don't worry about economics! Just give me my government check!

God, and really - "get more money?" Do you really think that's the government's job to decide who gets other people's money?

comment #34

nlu says ...

Josh, what exactly are you arguing? Maybe you know alot more than me about economics, but all I see is the worst economy in 8 years brought about by failed policy which Mccain wants to continue.

Under Bush's economic plan we've had the most unemployment in 8 years. How does your argument make any sense with that information? It seems the "bosses" are cutting more jobs now than they were before.

It seems most of the people who want to vote for Mccain claim that he will cut taxes for them and therefore get them more money. Which is factually untrue. If you make under 250K.

And I don't think that's government's job to decide who gets other people's money. Where in my post did I say that? Actually I don't even know what you're talking about.

But I do think that people who have money should pay a fair amount of taxes and not get breaks from the government. Which is what the wealthy were given under Bush and what Mccain wants to continue.

I make around 60k/year. So by voting for Mccain, you are hurting my well being because I will get back less at the end of the year in tax returns than I would under Obama. Since most of the people in this country make under $100,000 a year, by voting for Mccain you are hurting a whole bunch of folks.

Are you ok with that?

comment #35

George Prager says ...

If Palin lived in Atlanta, she would definitely be in the running for one of Jezebel Magazine's 25 Most Beautiful people!

comment #36

Richardson says ...

"Of course, you might lose your job because your bosses - those bastards making more than $250K - will have to cut back."

Given the utter and repeated failure of trickle-down economics, you should probably stop falling back on it as an argument in ecomonic discussion. It makes you sound stupid.

If the lower and middle class have more disposable income, they spend more money at businesses, and business make more money. They then have *more* money to pay their employees, not less.

"Do you really think that's the government's job to decide who gets other people's money?"

Funny how tax breaks for the rich are "giving people back their money" but tax breaks for the lower and middle classes are "redistribution of wealth".

Do you have to staple your lips in the middle to talk so effectively out of both sides of your mouth, or is it a ventriloquism type trick?

comment #37

corey3rd says ...

Wonder if one of Rupert Murdoch's stooges will attack Ebert for daring to not fall for Princess Palin? Imagine if some goof at the NY Post decided to just hit him.

comment #38

Josh Massey says ...

Nlu, you clearly said: "... you're going to get more money with Obama."

Where do you think that money comes from? Obama's own pockets? No, that money comes from taxpayers, so right there you're saying it's Obama's is going to take other people's money and decide who it goes to. What about that isn't clear?

Prager, you're a self-loathing, lonely twat, and no amount of message board blustering will ever change that.

comment #39

Richardson says ...

"What about that isn't clear?"

The part where, when Bush, or even McCain, gives tax breaks to rich people, it's "giving them their money back" *or* (most accurate description, I might add) not taking their money in the first place.

But if Obama wants to give tax breaks to lower and middle class voters, suddenly that's taxpayer money he's taking and giving to them!

comment #40

Richardson says ...

Actually, I take it back; that is perfectly clear. It's perfectly clear that you're talking nonsense.

comment #41

George Prager says ...

Apparently you nominate yourself! You go here and apply to become one of JEZEBEL's Most Beautiful Atlantans.
http://www.jezebelmagazine.com/50MostBeautiful_Enter.aspx

Now that's fucked up.

comment #42

Josh Massey says ...

Richardson: When you give so-called "tax breaks" to people who don't pay income taxes in the first place, then you are absolutely taking other people's money and giving it to them. That's the difference you're not grasping.

comment #43

George Prager says ...

So lower middle class people don't pay income taxes? I had to pay income tax the year I was unemployed for six months (2003) because I didn't do witholding on my unemployment checks. I ended up owing the government $1000. Meanwhile Josh Massey's parents and everyone else at their Country Club got a tax cut.
Now THAT'S fucked up!

comment #44

Indeed says ...

Richardson: "But if Obama wants to give tax breaks to lower and middle class voters, suddenly that's taxpayer money he's taking and giving to them!"

He is when he is raising taxes on some people for the sole purpose of giving the profits* to others. Thats the difference, and its simple to see.

*I use the term "profits" loosely as no matter what happens the country would still be falling further and further into debt.

I despise McCain as much as Obama, but the lack of understand by you pro-Obama folk regarding his tax plan is just sad.

Obama wants to institute tax credits that would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in Federal income taxes. What he does is make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000 but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, Uncle Sam would write a check to said taxpayer in the amount of $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing, Uncle Sam would pay him the whole $1,000.

It should be obvious to folks with an IQ higher than that of a microwave, but these are not tax "cuts."

Whether you believe in supply-side economics or not, the one FACT that you cannot argue against is that the only surefire way to fix the economy and at least put a dent in our national debt is to.............wait for it...........cut spending.

Although I work in finance, maybe Im not smart enough to see how cutting a $1,000 check to someone who pays you nothing in return makes any sort of sense.

comment #45

nlu says ...

Josh you didn't answer my question. Are you ok with me getting less taxes back at the end of the year when you vote for Mccain?

And that's not other people's money. I pay MY taxes throughout the year and I get MY money back at the end of the year. I don't get anybody else's.

And if Obama raises taxes on a very small few to support this country, I really don't see what the problem is.

Indeed, you make some valid points. Do you have a link to the information that you are referring to? And if you hate both the candidates equally who are you going to vote for? Obama's plans seem like they would drastically reduce government spending at the very least by ending this wasteful war. And the debt would be helped by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of this country.

So the person paying no taxes would get $1000. Who are these people who are not paying taxes? How much are these people making a year? Why aren't they paying taxes? This is a very complicated issue but it seems to me, Obama's tax cut helps people who could use the help.

comment #46

Indeed says ...

nlu: "And if Obama raises taxes on a very small few to support this country, I really don't see what the problem is."

And people that make and spend a lot more money than you do (who therefore help the economy more than you do) will have no problem moving their assets overseas. Happens all the time.

But anyway, all the info I described is detailed in his tax plan. I dont have a direct link but Im sure if you google it then it will come up. Most people who are voting for Obama dont know any of this simply because George Clooney hasnt outlined it recently.

Ill probably end up voting for Bob Barr.

Low taxes for everybody? Check.
Less spending? Check.
Troops out of Iraq and less bases abroad? Check.
Repeal Patriot Act? Check.
No government influence in abortion, gay marriage, etc? Check.

Regarding Obama "drastically reducing government spending" by withdrawing from Iraq...what good is it if he spends just as much if not more on various entitlement programs?

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that tax revenues actually did increase after his cuts were put into place.

There are a lot of people who pay little to no taxes. Its either the very poor or the very rich.

Yes, the very rich have lots of ways to pay no taxes either. We help them do it every day.

comment #47

George Prager says ...

I say let's punish Hollywood for their liberal bias by cutting their taxes by voting Republican.

comment #48

Josh Massey says ...

"Are you ok with me getting less taxes back at the end of the year when you vote for Mccain?"

I'm ok with everybody paying taxes evenly based on their income. I'm not ok with the government arbitrarily shifting the entire tax burden to the supposedly "rich" just so Democrats (and many Republicans) can buy votes.

Ask most Democrats who they think of when they picture a "rich person," and they'll say something like Paris Hilton. However, the vast majority of people that make $250,000 or above is like my boss, who is quite wealthy but works 7 to 7 every day to make himself that way. And I am putting in years in education and working up the ladder to get there myself. So after all those years of work and struggle, I'm expected to give a huge chunk of my money away because "I can afford it?"

As for McCain, I'm not voting for him anyway because of his big-government history. Like Indeed above, I will be casting my vote for Bob Barr because the Libertarians seem to be the only party that still has a clue of what the founding fathers originally intended.

Interesting reading from The Wall Street Journal: "...(In 2007) the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%."

And yet Obama wants to shift the burden even more. How long do you think those "rich" are going to take it before they shift their money elsewhere?

comment #49

bfm says ...

You know, I disagree with almost everything that Palin stands up for. When she sneered at Obama for wanting to read terrorist suspects their rights, I got chills. And yet despite myself, I am fascinated by her. I've watched her speech at the Republican Convention twice, and it blows me away. She has charisma, she has assurance and somehow she makes even Obama look a little weak. I can understand her mass appeal. Is she qualified to be VP? Not really. Is she qualified to be President? Not for a second. Does she help McCain's campaign? Most definitely.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

If it makes anyone who agrees with Roger feel better, American Idol might get good ratings, but the CDs of the winners sell pretty horribly, compared to others on the market, while "From Justin to Kelly" was a total bomb. So while Americans might be "dumb" enough to boost ratings and ad revenue for this crap, they're not idiotic enough to actually pay for it! And even Survivor's success was not enough to help "The Real Cancun". So what this means is that, if asked to make a real choice versus a hypothetical choice, Americans will more likely opt for something with substance. The reason Bush won twice was that Kerry and Gore chose not to emphasize anything substantive in their campaigns. Obama is different, though, and he's actually willing to chip away at all the pre-fabricated PR to get his message across to the rest of us. He had a huge boost at the DNC, and so he just needs to do more of that confrontational style of speech-making to win.

actionman: "Something tells me, rather sadly, that the Maverick and the Hockey Mom are going to win in November."

I know how you feel, but McCain can't even win with his own base, so I doubt that it's going to change, just because he hired a cheap demo lure on his side. Casual Republicans are as sick of Bush as the rest of us, and unless McCain can prove he's not a Bush-lite-bordering-on-Bush-heavy, he's got no chance.

Catman: "this is an American election, not an election designed to placate the corrupt Eurocrats and dictators of the world like Obama would do."

As opposed to placating corrupt American plutocrats and puppets like McCain would do?

"Carter and Clinton were both highly intelligent men; but Carter made one poor decision after another, while Bubba settled for banging interns."

Weaning us off oil and making a peace deal with Egypt were bad decisions? And at least Clinton went after an intern of legal age.

"Nixon, on the other hand, changed the world by making peace with China, and Reagan ended the Soviet Union."

Nixon didn't make peace with China as much as he chose to appease them after Mao's massacre. We're still technically supposed to protect Taiwan, though. And Reagan didn't really have anything to do with the Soviet Union collapsing, since it fell to the same kind of corruption which Republicans embrace.

"Obama is, by all accounts, a very smart guy, but nothing he's done suggests boldness "

Talking to Iran and going after Osama aren't bold?

"or think-on-your-feet smarts like JFK and Clinton both possessed in spades."

Perhaps, but at least he can think, and doesn't just stand there like a deer trapped in headlights, while reading "My Pet Goat".

"are you honestly telling me that someone who went to Annapolis, served in the military, survived five years in a prison camp, and has served in the Senate a couple of decades, is somehow less qualified than Obama simply because Obama got good grades at Harvard?"

Well, his military and Senate experience still didn't stop him from making the wrong calls on MLK Day, Charles Keating, and Iraq, so no. As for good grades at Harvard, well, given that their entrance exams are rigged against minorities, and that the last dean was forced to resign for being a misogynist, that is impressive.

"I'm not arguing Obama isn't smart enough to be president - he is - but that his economic and socio/political beliefs would lead to policies that would not lead to economic growth or military security."

Yes, because they're the opposite of Bush's beliefs, so there's no way they can be successful.

dr.bob: "But hell hath no fury like a senior citizen being told McCain is too old. Senior citizens vote; young people do not."

They also vote for people who are likely to purge them from the same booths, so it'll even out pretty well.

Josh: "Of course, you might lose your job because your bosses - those bastards making more than $250K - will have to cut back. But don't worry about economics! Just give me my government check!"

If they have to cut back, then they deserve to fail. A successful business requires investment and sacrifice, not an easy ride.

"God, and really - "get more money?" Do you really think that's the government's job to decide who gets other people's money?"

But it's ok when it's lenders and oil companies getting OPM, right?

"When you give so-called "tax breaks" to people who don't pay income taxes in the first place, then you are absolutely taking other people's money and giving it to them."

So that means the rich are stealing from the poor and middle class. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=5561455

"I'm not ok with the government arbitrarily shifting the entire tax burden to the supposedly "rich" just so Democrats (and many Republicans) can buy votes."

But it's ok when the tax burden is on the rest of us, right?

"However, the vast majority of people that make $250,000 or above is like my boss, who is quite wealthy but works 7 to 7 every day to make himself that way. And I am putting in years in education and working up the ladder to get there myself. So after all those years of work and struggle, I'm expected to give a huge chunk of my money away because "I can afford it?"'

I like how you actually defend working longer hours, just to make a stable income, and then complain that taxes would further devalue your time and effort, since being forced to study clearly means you're getting your money's worth out of your job, and your boss clearly understands where you're coming from, because he/she clearly chooses to make it worth your time to stay there. (Sarcasm.)

"As for McCain, I'm not voting for him anyway because of his big-government history. Like Indeed above, I will be casting my vote for Bob Barr because the Libertarians seem to be the only party that still has a clue of what the founding fathers originally intended."

Yes, vote for the guy who prosecuted someone based on their bedroom behavior, just because he joined a party which hates government getting into people's personal lives. I love the irony of that.

"Interesting reading from The Wall Street Journal: "...(In 2007) the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.""

You really should read that ABC link.

Indeed: "Obama wants to institute tax credits that would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in Federal income taxes."

See the above link.

"Whether you believe in supply-side economics or not, the one FACT that you cannot argue against is that the only surefire way to fix the economy and at least put a dent in our national debt is to.............wait for it...........cut spending."

Kind of ironic for you to be saying that, given the trillions blown on the war, and all...

"And people that make and spend a lot more money than you do (who therefore help the economy more than you do) will have no problem moving their assets overseas."

Fortunately, Obama would punish them, so it's all good.

"Ill probably end up voting for Bob Barr."

Yes, why vote for change, when you can vote for an insider pretending to be a reformer?

bfm: She'll only help McCain until she is forced to address the issues and stuff. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/11/ready-to-lead-palin-doesnt-know-what-the-bush-doctrine-is/#comments
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/11/john-mccain-stumbles-badly-after-being-asked-if-palin-has-national-security-experience-energy/#comments

comment #51

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql high availability