Today on Blogcritics
Home » Obama’s Astonishing Victory in South Carolina

Obama’s Astonishing Victory in South Carolina

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In recent weeks I've displayed an embarrassing penchant for trying to predict the outcome of primaries and caucuses the night before the polls (or smoke-filled rooms) open for business. I held off on the South Carolina Democratic primary, but if I had tried to call it, even on my most optimistic day I'd never have come close to the actual results.

One day before the primary, the polls had Obama leading Clinton by a reasonable margin of about 11 points, not surprising in a state with one of the largest black populations in the nation. In the last few days Hillary's Surrogate in Chief had been using all his charm as the 'first black president' to scare the bejesus out of white voters so they'd flee to the welcoming arms of Mama Hilly. All things considered, a 10-12 point loss for Clinton in South Carolina would have been acceptable.

What the Clinton campaign couldn't have expected and likely can't afford is the stunning 28 point thrashing Obama handed Hillary on Saturday. The final vote count broked down 55% for Obama, 27% for Clinton and 18% for Edwards. The pundits and experts are going to be trying to figure it out while the spin doctors try to explain it away, at least until the vote in Florida next week.

That's bad news for Hillary Clinton, but the exit polls probably have her throwing the crockery around the mansion. Obama beat Hillary among men 54% to 23%, but he also beat her soundly among her own gender 54% to 30%. Of course he crushed her among black voters, but what has to have her tearing her hair is that he also won the 18-29 year old white vote by a margin of almost 2 to 1, and she lost to John Edwards among all other white voters. The idea of an Edwards endorsement for Obama or an Obama/Edwards ticket has to be keeping her up at nights.

Obama also dominated the vote in virtually every other category. He massively outscored Clinton by roughly similar amounts in every educational group and every income group. He beat her on every issue including health care. He beat her by a substantial margin among the few Republican crossover voters and among those who identified themselves as conservative by almost as large a margin as he beat her among independents and liberals. He won the urban vote, he won the rural vote, he won the last minute voters and he won those who had decided well in advance. In all of these cases he won by a margin similar to the vote in the overall population.

The one group where Clinton did significantly better than Obama was among white women, who in South Carolina make up only about 20% of those who voted. Obama more or less tied Clinton in support from white men.

Bill Clinton, who many have speculated has taken over as his wife's chief strategist, doesn't get off easy in the exit polls either. When asked if Bill Clinton's campaigning for Hillary was an important factor in how they voted, 75% of Clinton voters said it was at least somewhat important while 94% of Obama voters said it was somewhat important. That makes it pretty clear that Clinton alienated far more voters than he won for Hillary.  The exit polls agree with 70%, saying that Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, so it looks very much like Bill Clinton's strategy of attacking hard and subtly flirting with racial politics backfired badly.  Clinton's tactics were supposed to drive white voters to Hillary and polls showed only 10% of whites voting for Obama right before the vote, but when it came to the actual results, Edwards won the white vote and Hillary got only 28% among whites, barely leading Obama who beat predictions by 14%.

Now, South Carolina is by no means a typical state. It does have the second most delegates of any state to hold a caucus or a primary so far, but it's small compared to some of the states voting in the next few weeks, has virtually no Hispanic population and has more than double the black population of the average state. But it's still a majority white state, and Obama won the white vote by almost as much as he won the general vote, plus it's a southern state and he's a northerner.

The Clinton campaign may be banking on the Hispanic population to make up the ground they are losing to Obama among whites, but it may be a weak reed for her to hold onto. Not only are Hispanics only about 12% of the voting population because they register in smaller numbers than blacks do, they have increasingly moved towards voting Republican both in primaries and in the general election. In 2000 35% of Hispanics voted Repulbican. In 2004 45% voted Republican and this year it may well be more than 50%. So Clinton may be banking on Hispanic Democrats who just may not exist, at least not in the numbers she needs.

It's certainly still too early to poke Hillary with a fork and declare her done, but the momentum certainly seems to have abandoned her, and her campaign appears to be foundering. She does still have the support of a lot of party bosses, and the way the Democratic primary is structured that means a large portion of the insanely bloated body of over 750 'superdelegate' party insiders will go to her. But right now Obama is trailing by only 78 delegates out of over 4000, and if the polls – which have been so incredibly unreliable this year – continue to be off by margins in the double digits, all of the big 'Super Tuesday' states where Clinton has a lead may actually be up for grabs.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama today will carry some weight as well.

    I’d still give Clinton the edge on Super Tuesday, but on the Dem side, many states, including the two largest, NY and Calif., divide delegates proportionally rather than winner-take-all [the authoritarian Republican party prefers the latter, leading to a quicker result, at least in a normal year, which this is not; Dems allegedly prefer to be more, um, democratic, and perhaps, chaotic]. The result may be a longer, more hotly contested race.

    My main concern is that a race that continues to be closely contested after Feb. 5 will tend to turn more aggressive, that is, nastier. Words are already sharpening on both sides, McCain vs Romney and Clinton vs Obama.

    The more self-destructing each party does in the spring, the more ammunition they give the other side in the fall.

    This year couldn’t be more involving for horse-race watchers; it’s the best in years. But those of us who care a lot about the outcome get nervous when the race gets extended, emotional, and negative.

  • Clavos

    Excellent article, Dave.

    Not only did Bill “scare the bejesus” out of the white voters, he also (and I think this was his intent, in order to frame Obama’s candidacy as racial) motivated the African American voters who might have voted for Hillary to vote for Obama instead.

    May I somewhat immodestly point out that, a few days ago I predicted the possibility of Bill’s tactics backfiring on the Clinton co-candidacy here?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    With due respect to Dave and Clavos, I believe they may be misinterpreting the Clintons’ strategy and whether it has been successful. The strategy has been aimed more at Feb. 5 than at South Carolina, which polls showed Obama winning even before Iowa.

    So it’s the results on Super Tuesday that should be used to gauge the success of Bill Clinton’s “attacks,” which have been somewhat overblown anyway. His negative words make up only a small part, and sometimes no part at all, of his [looooong] stump speeches.

    Most of them have come in interacting directly with the press – and in each case it looks like the ex-Prez is ‘losing his cool’ – when in fact he knows exactly what he is doing: planting doubts about Obama in voters’ minds without his wife having to say unpleasant things directly.

    He knows these moments will get more attention than they should. He is certainly not a racist, just a very canny politician.

    I speak as someone who will probably vote for Clinton in the NY primary, but who will gladly support either candidate. I think Obama’s great. But candidates have to be able to take the heat. It’s part of the process of proving they’re worthy of a very tough job.

    For an excellent and entertaining article about Bill Clinton’s actual, as opposed to misrepresented, behavior, see today’s NY Times.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The BBC’s man on the campaign trail makes the noteworthy point that while Obama got 78% of the African-American vote in SC, he only got 24% of the white vote.

    Then again, this is South Carolina we’re talking about.

    Point is, I don’t think Hillary need be as concerned about this result as Dave suggests.

  • Clavos

    “The strategy has been aimed more at Feb. 5 than at South Carolina, which polls showed Obama winning even before Iowa.”

    I disagree. Knowing they would lose SC anyway, Clinton (successfully) neutralized Obama’s strategy of avoiding the “race candidate” issue by stirring the race issue up to the point the vote became a landslide as African American voters who might have voted for the Clinton co-candidacy switched to Obama at the last minute, thanks to Bill’s tactics.

    Bill Clinton is very smart. He’s shown repeatedly in the past that he’s capable of very subtle and indirect manipulation, and that he’s devoid of ethics or scruples. He got exactly the result he wanted in SC, thereby setting the stage for their eventual win, as the voters polarize along racial lines. There are far fewer Black than White voters nationwide.

    “Most of them have come in interacting directly with the press – and in each case it looks like the ex-Prez is ‘losing his cool’ – when in fact he knows exactly what he is doing: planting doubts about Obama in voters’ minds without his wife having to say unpleasant things directly.”

    Exactly.

    “He knows these moments will get more attention than they should. He is certainly not a racist, just a very canny politician.”

    I never said he’s a racist; he probably isn’t, but he knows that most of the electorate still is fearful of the “other,” and can be manipulated to vote along racial lines.

    You’re right; he’s “canny” to the point of Machiavellian.

  • Clavos

    Here’s a pretty good analysis of the SC primary and Obama’s demographics in it. It’s based on exit polls.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    It is a contest, not a love fest. Somebody has to win. Much as we might all like to see a political race in which the candidates talked about their own strengths and about the issues without attacking each other, it never, ever turns out that way. The Clintons didn’t invent this game. They just play it well.

    Whether this is sinister or just hardball politics is in the eye of the beholder.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The BBC’s man on the campaign trail makes the noteworthy point that while Obama got 78% of the African-American vote in SC, he only got 24% of the white vote.

    Yes, he got 24% of the white vote, but that’s 14% more than polls taken the day before the election were giving him, and Hillary only got 28%, which was substantially less than the polls were showing for her. Edwards seems to have been the main beneficiary of this strategy.

    If Obama continues to get 10-12% more than polls give him both overall and among whites, then as I said in the article, all the super tuesday polls that show Hillary in the lead are dead wrong.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    You can hardly hide your glee. You are so anxious to consign Hillary to the political slag heap.

    Obama’s winning margin was certainly stunning, and negative reaction to Bill’s statements probably had a significant influence in moving the numbers in Obama’s favor further than expected.

    But, South Carolina is demographically very unlike the nation as a whole. For that matter, none of the causus/primary states so far are particularly reflective of the country’s overall demographics. The Clinton’s strategy may well prove to be smarter than most of us suspect. They may be the most politically astute people alive. I don’t believe they are super-human, and they may have overplayed or misplayed their hand in SC.

    But, it may prove that Doc and handy are on to something. I certainly don’t want to be the one to burst your bubble, Dave. It may not pop, but you might want to keep your bubble machine handy, just in case.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The bubble machine is powered by biodiesel.

    And how can you blame me for wanting to see the Evil Empress and all the corruption and decadence she represents swept away by a message of hope, change and redemption?

    I just wish the GOP had found a way to take the lead and do the whole change and rebirth thing convincingly.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    Bill Clinton may have outsmarted himself, for once. Here in the SF area, at brunch today, sentiment had shifted strongly against Billary and towards Obama. Both because Billarys scandalous attacks were viewed as unfair and low, and because Obamas recent speeches and interviews are seen as statesman-like. 8 of 9 brunchers voted Obama with one holdout for Billary. A drastic change from a month ago.

    I don’t think that Obamas recent victories are a flash-in-the-pan.

  • alessandro

    Go-Bama!

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    I don’t blame you. I just don’t share your feelings. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, Obama is fine by me. But still. Hillary is whip smart and probably capable of being a very effective chief executive. Of course, that’s what scares you, isn’t it? You’d probably feel less threatened by her if you thought she was a bumbler.

    If what the two Clintons have been doing with Bill being the attack dog is a part of a strategic plan, it’s certainly a gamble. But people tend to have short memories about this kind of thing and also tend to be very mercurial in their political passions. If the Clintons manage to orchestrate all of this to their advantage by Super Tuesday, the outcome could be quite different than it would seem from our current perspective. Love ‘em or hate ‘em one must admit as handy notes above that Hillary and Bill play the game very well. They seem to magically and repeatedly turn shit into a rose.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t blame you. I just don’t share your feelings.

    How anyone can even stand to look at her smug, sanctimonious face is beyond me.

    But, as I’ve said repeatedly, Obama is fine by me. But still. Hillary is whip smart and probably capable of being a very effective chief executive. Of course, that’s what scares you, isn’t it? You’d probably feel less threatened by her if you thought she was a bumbler.

    Well, in the absence of competence that I agree with incompetence is the best thing to hope for from those whose beliefs are potentially dangerous.

    Remember that Jefferson was fond of saying:

    “that government governs best that governs least”

    Which is inherently incompatible with “it takes a village”.

    If what the two Clintons have been doing with Bill being the attack dog is a part of a strategic plan, it’s certainly a gamble.

    Perhaps a sign of desperation, even.

    But people tend to have short memories about this kind of thing and also tend to be very mercurial in their political passions.

    Hatred of Hillary seems to be long and abiding in much of the population. I know Republicans who would vote for Obama if Hillary changed parties and got the GOP nomination.

    If the Clintons manage to orchestrate all of this to their advantage by Super Tuesday, the outcome could be quite different than it would seem from our current perspective. Love ‘em or hate ‘em one must admit as handy notes above that Hillary and Bill play the game very well. They seem to magically and repeatedly turn shit into a rose.

    Which is just one more reason to hate them. They raise mendacity and pandering and deception to an art form. They’re the refined essence of all that’s wrong with American politics.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    At least your bias against HRC is totally objective as witness your statement regarding “her smug, sanctimonious face…”

    Smug sanctimony is in the eye of the beholder.

    I have far greater reason to hate Bush – he is evil simply owing to his artless stupidity, but my feelings don’t begin to rise to your vilification of Clinton. You should perhaps chill out for a time. Take your medication. The veins across your forehead are visibly pulsing. Get some kleenex. I think there’s some drool on your chin and spittle on your computer screen.

    B-tone

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Dave, your vitriol toward the Clintons is especially odd, considering that in October, you were ranking Bill Clinton in your Top 10 Presidents of all time.

    So which is it?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    And how can you blame me for wanting to see the Evil Empress and all the corruption and decadence she represents swept away by a message of hope, change and redemption?

    Because your tongue-in-cheek description of the situation is, like the hyped media coverage, not what’s really going on. If the Clintons are not evil incarnate, but in fact genuinely want to make the country better, and if Obama is not as pristinely faultless as, for example, Clavos wants to believe – then all this blather about the contest is just a ‘fairy tale’ about an Evil Empress and the Knight in Shining Armor who is her nemesis and victim.

    I just hope the two of them, after pettily avoiding each other tonight at the State of the Union address, don’t get so bitter that they can’t be running mates…because I tend to think that’s the outcome that would be best for the Dems and best for the country.

    Ted Kennedy did give a rouser of a speech today. Almost made me regret the absentee ballot for HRC that I mailed this morning, since I won’t be in NY next Tuesday.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    At least your bias against HRC is totally objective as witness your statement regarding “her smug, sanctimonious face…”

    Smug sanctimony is in the eye of the beholder.

    I freely admit to not being objecitve about Hillary. She just rubs me the wrong way. Every time she speaks I’m repulsed further. Her behavior in the interviews after the SotU speach today was just offensive, but a beautiful contrast to Obama’s rational, measured and sensible comments.

    I have far greater reason to hate Bush – he is evil simply owing to his artless stupidity, but my feelings don’t begin to rise to your vilification of Clinton.

    Stupidity isn’t evil, it’s just stupid.

    Dave, your vitriol toward the Clintons is especially odd, considering that in October, you were ranking Bill Clinton in your Top 10 Presidents of all time.

    Not towards the Clintons, towards Hillary. I still find Bill appealing.

    So which is it?

    A lot of those on the left think that by voting for Hillary they will get another 4 or 8 years of Bill. They’re disastrously wrong and we may all pay the price for that mistake.

    Dave

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Nah, he just doesn’t like her pantsuits…

  • Clavos

    “and if Obama is not as pristinely faultless as, for example, Clavos wants to believe”

    Enjoy engaging in a bit o’ hyperbole do ye, handy?

    I don’t think the Clintons are evil incarnate, but neither do I believe for a moment that they have any interest whatever in “wanting to make the country better;” the sense I get from them is they want to establish a legacy that puts the Clinton name in the pantheon of American greats, nothing more. If that means working to make the country better, fine, but it’s not the principal goal.

    That said, in that respect they are very little different from the vast majority of American pols, past or present.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    The Bush ignorance becomes evil when it takes up residence in the White House.

    Clav,

    “That said, in that respect they are very little different from the vast majority of American pols, past or present.”

    So, what, then, is the problem?

    You know, I find Obama far more likable than Hillary. I’m not sure I could stand to be in the same room with her for more than a few minutes. That’s much the same way I felt about Bobby Knight with whom I did once share an elevator. He’s a big guy.

    I will definitely back and vote for Obama if he gets the Dem nomination. But my concern regarding his personal strength, his ability to deal with the hard nosed pols around the Beltway makes me a bit queasy. I hope he’s up to the task.

    It is my opinion that there was no question of Bush standing up to the DC pros. He was chosen by the party faithful specifically for his lack of a backbone. We don’t need 4 or 8 more years of a puppet president.

    There is little question in my mind if HRC somehow manages to achieve her goal, that she will definitely NOT be anyone’s puppet. It’s been a while since we had a hard assed chief executive. Nixon could be hard as nails, but he was also certifiably crazy. Maybe Johnson (not Andrew but Lyndon.) I don’t know.

    I think, though, that the only way Hillary will get the nod is if Bill gets the fuck out of her way. There was mention above of Bill’s being the attack dog as a planned strategy. With the Kennedy endorsements of Barack yesterday and today, it is fairly plain that the plan, if that’s what it is, has backfired. I’m not sure she can recover. The Obama juggernaut that I predicted a week or so ago may be well into the launch mode. There may be no stopping him no matter what tactics the Clintons use. Of course, how Obama will do against the Rep nominee may be another story. Given the breakdown of the SC vote, race may well be an issue, especially among the southern tier states. As Dave had suggested before, there may be a number of people once they enter the voting booth who will just not be able to pull a lever (or punch a chad, or touch that part of a screen) for a black man. Latent racial prejudice may prove to be a more potent factor in this country than openly hostile racism. I hope not.

    B-tone

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Not everybody is thrilled by Obama Barack, and some have good reasons not to root for him. I disagree with the blogger at Atlas Shrugs, in that I do not believe that Jews should stain themselves with involvement in this presidential race. There is nothing in the marmosets who want to be the American “monkey-in-chief” for Jews except bad choices. But, many Jews are impressed by Obama Barack’s seemingly moderate tone, and projected voice of hope and change. Let’s have a look at how the man behaves when the spotlight is not on him….

    So yes, Israel is the linchpin issue. Everyone agrees that Nazism and the Third Reich were bad, very bad. The fact is there was a conspiracy between Nazism and Islam (ongoing documentation and research by Dr Andrew Bostom here) So how can the Nazism be bad and Islamism be good?

    Rudy gets it and this is why I support his candidacy. But the more we learn about Obama, the more troubling his candidacy becomes (although Hillary is just as bad, if not worse). Obama’s support of Odinga in the Kenyan bloodbaths, by far, is the darkest indication that Obama sides with Islamists and their handmaidens. Caroline Glick agrees. In her last column;

    Kibaki is close ally of the US in the war against Islamic terror. In stark contrast, Odinga is an ally of Islamic extremists. On August 29 Odinga wrote a letter to Kenya’s pro-jihadist National Muslim Leaders Forum. There he pledged that if elected he would establish Sharia courts throughout the country; enact Islamic dress codes for women; ban alcohol and pork; indoctrinate schoolchildren in the tenets of Islam; ban Christian missionary activities, and dismiss the police commissioner, “Who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists.”

    Although Odinga is an Anglican, he referred to Islam as the “one true religion” and scorned Christians as “worshipers of the cross.” Obama strongly supports Odinga who claims to be his cousin. As Daniel Johnson reported recently in the New York Sun, during his 2006 visit to Kenya, Obama was so outspoken in his support for Odinga that the Kenyan government complained to the State Department that Obama was interfering with the internal politics of the country. After the Dec. 27 elections Obama interrupted a campaign appearance in New Hampshire to take a call from Odinga.

    And if you missed my column in Israel National News, read it: Obama, the Muslim Thing and why it Matters.

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    “So, what, then, is the problem?”

    No problem. I just would like to see Obama get it precisely because he (apparently, at least) is NOT like that. Otherwise I will probably vote Republican.

    “There is little question in my mind if HRC somehow manages to achieve her goal, that she will definitely NOT be anyone’s puppet.”

    With respect, B-tone, wrong, wrong, wrong. At the very least, it will be a co-presidency.

    Otherwise, it will likely be Bill’s third term.

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    I disagree. Bill is rather out of control now. Should Hillary gain the WH, he may have to be scolded from time to time as a reminder that he is NOT the president. I have long felt that of the two of them, Hillary is much the stronger. I believe that it was only her political ambition that kept them together. Had she believed she could gain an advantage by leaving him, I think she would have dropped him like a rock. That’s a pretty cynical view, but I believe it may well be accurate.

    Despite the present turmoil with Bill being the hit man, he still has a lot of positives as a campaigner for Hillary. He remains very popular and influential with many in the party, and with many voters. (Though, apparently, not with the Kennedys.) Bill is not dumb, and certainly, neither is Hillary. Unless he is consciously or even unconsciously trying to sabotage her campaign, he will probably tone it down and get away from any racial statements.

    They are no doubt playing a risky game that may have already doomed her chances. But, we’ll see.

    B-tone

  • Jerry

    Any guesses on how long HRC and WJC stay married if she loses?

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    If she loses, I think Hillary will disappear but suddenly, after several months, reappear as a pole and lap dancer at a road house on the outskirts of Wheeling, West Virginia doing her routine in tear away pant suits under the stage name of “The DC Ice Queen.” Bill will be there sitting in the front row every nite, grinnin’ and occasionally getting his horn blown.

    Or not.

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    According to this article on Politico.com, he’s been pissing off a lot of senior Democrats for a lot of years.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Would that be the senior Democrats who masterminded John Kerry’s sweeping victory in 2004?

    [/sarcasm]

    Now I like him even more!

  • Clavos

    Early local reports indicate that the turnout for the Florida primary today will probably be a record, with voter participation likely to be above 50%

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    The Clintons are an enigma. How they not only manage to survive, but almost always come out winners is a puzzlement to many, myself included. If you consider them cats, they may be running out of lives, though.

    B-tone

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Does Hillary’s win in Florida mean anything? I’d say, not much, but I guess it can’t hurt.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It means she lied to the party and the public and will probably try to get the Florida delegates admitted in a vicious and destructive floor fight at the convention.

    Hey, check out my article on Florida.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    What lie are you talking about? She didn’t campaign in Florida. She made an appearance after the poles were closed, and it was determined that she had won. It is important that she doesn’t ignore the Florida voters. Even if their delegates do not gain access to the convention, she may need their votes in November.

    B-tone

  • Clavos

    “She didn’t campaign in Florida.”

    Not true, B-tone.

    She’s been here for three days, holding fundraisers and her campaign staff made sure she was talked about on the evening newscasts on all local channels the whole time.

    She did break her promise; Barack did not

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    B-Tone, her surrogates have been stomping the state for a week and she was there yesterday as well as today from what I can tell. Obama totally ignored the state as promised. Another reason why Howard Dean is unofficially backing him and not Hillary.

    Dave

  • http://rapturenutballs.blogspot.com Baritone

    I stand corrected. Apparently, the folks at MSNBC didn’t know that she’d been there either since that’s where I got my information.

    However, it should be said that she did not technically “campaign” in the state. She attended some fund raisers which were not open to the public. She did manage to make herself seen while moving from place to place on both Sunday and Monday. Yep. She lied. She should have her crotch ripped out with a grappling hook, her entrails left to rot on the sand at Daytona. It would serve the bitch right.

    B-tone

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Now you’re getting the idea.

    Dave

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    I actually hope HRC is elected President, if only to prove all the hyperbolic disaster-predictors wrong, to rub their noses in their own unpleasant rhetoric.

  • Clavos

    “Be careful what you wish for…”