 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
|
   |
|
|
November 15, 2006
By: $36 MILLION?....Hillary Clinton spent $36 million for a Senate race in which she had essentially no competition? Compared to $14 million for the next most expensive race? Wow. Was this because she really, really wanted to win by a landslide and figured anything under 65% of the vote would be humiliating? Did she have a bet with Dianne Feinstein? (If so, she won. Feinstein won her race with an anemic 59% of the vote.) Was she trying to scare off her 2008 competition by showing that she has so much money she can literally afford to throw it away? —Kevin Drum 1:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (93)Comments
Democrats don't understand ideal ways to allocate and spend money. That's why they're Democrats. This is just another manifestation of that undeniable trend. Posted by: American Hawk on November 15, 2006 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK$36M and she gets *only* 65%... in a *blue* state??? (Yes, thank you, I know that much of upstate and Long Island are reliably red. Still) And in a year of overwhelming Republican losses? This is what it takes in this day and age. I say; put the corporate money into a free speech zone - and let the individual voters speak with our representatives without professional lobbyists or other flimflammery. Until we get rid of this assinine money=speech bullshit, we will never have a real democracy, and the Constitution is a mere stone on a beach, eroding more and more with each tidal wave of corporate cash. Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 15, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINKExpensive NYC media market is a partial excuse. Posted by: anonster on November 15, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINKIt was all the hookers and blow, right? Oh wait, that's Republicans. Nevermind. Posted by: craigie on November 15, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINKOr was it a pathetic display of arrogance? Schoolyard bully mentality. Our political, military, & economic circumstances have been so severely compromised that we cant tolerate another Clinton administration. Tell me what the extreme difference is between Hillary & Joe Rubberman. Politics is war, when the other house is on fire, dont pull them out & commiserate with them when they started the fire. Investigate, interrogate(sorry, no waterboarding), impeach, & incarcerate. And go vociferously for the platform of decency that we so often hear the American public believes in. If it turns out they really dont, then at least we know. Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on November 15, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINKKevin - I have a request. Please, no more than 5 posts on Hilary per week. Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on November 15, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINKNot to mention that both Clinton and Spitzer (who also spent a ton of money) did very little to boost the fortunes of their many, highly qualified, excellent downticket Democratic compatriots. With that kind of spending, that kind of media storm, and that kind of final margin for both the Senate seat and Governorship, one would expect that a larger number of Democratic candidates would have gotten closer in NY state, both in federal house elections and in state elections. Poor showing, misuse of resources, and demonstration of particularly bad instincts and/or strategy. Evan Bayh did a much better job, and he was not even running for re-election. I/R/C/P/J -- you're totally right about the "$/speech" equation being the root of most evil -- but not all. The bigger problem -- because of its effects beyond the political world -- goes back at least to the Supreme Court's "Lochner" decision (1905 -- though my quick google search says it goes back further, to 1886, in "Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific RR") -- making corporations legal "persons," with all the due-process, free-speech, and other rights attendant thereto. THAT truly is the root of much of the evil we find in our current corporatocracy. AH, which President balanced the budget? And which President and Congress ran up record deficits from 2001-2006? I guess you mean that Democrats spend most of the money they earn, while Republicans spend money they don't have and expect American taxpayers to make up the difference? Posted by: JoshA on November 15, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINKKevin, No need to worry. I can outspend Hillary in '08. "Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific RR" is the landmark case that is most often cited. Talk about Judicial activists. I sometimes look at the current "Evangelical Movement" as an organization that is tapping into people's unease at the corporate feudalism this nation has developed into. Only the "Evangelical Movement" gets its money tax-free, and largely cost-free (very little overhead in the Church biz - all you gotta do is put on a 2 hour show every Sunday, and pass the hat). People are afraid of the corporate behemoths, and what they're doing to our country, and the "Evangelical Movement" offers the gullible an illusion of power and influence over their government. This fear is somewhat justified, because they otherwise don't have any. Thanks for the suggestion for reclaimdemocracy.org. I suspect SecularAnimist would also be interested. Posted by: Impeach.Remove.Convict.Punish.Justice on November 15, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Thom Hartmann's Unequal Protection gives a thorough treatment of corporate dominance. My suggestion for a one line amendment to fix the legal fiction of 'corporate personhood'. Try it in your state: "For all purposes under this constitution, 'person' shall be defined as a natural person." Details of how each president since WWII has affected the national debt: A possibly significant factor in our invasion of Iraq maybe the fact that Sadaam was paying $20K to the families of suicide bombers. I am constitutionaly devoid of anti-semitism. Hell, I didnt even know that Russ(a man I greatly admire) was Jewish til recently. I dont think about whether a name is Jewish or not. Summer of 70 in Madison , I was in a dorm that was almost all Jewish. I didnt know til they told me. They taught me so much about music & philosophy that being a rube from the midwest, some of it took decades to sink in. If there is a heaven, I hope to be with people that intelligent & tolerant. That being said, any group(or country) that is preempted for serious criticism must , of necessity, have disproportionate influence. Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on November 15, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINKpreepmted from, Freudian? DOH I think there's a mistake here. I think she raised 36 million. I don't think she spent 36 million. I'm here in NYC and don't watch local TV stations, other than sports, so I may have missed an ad campaign, but if she had spent that kind of money I'm sure I would have noticed. I do listen to radio, and if she had spent that kind of money I can't believe I wouldn't have noticed. Kean and Menendez were constantly running ads. Hillary, nowhere near as much. Posted by: jayackroyd on November 15, 2006 at 3:48 AM | PERMALINKWell I take it back. Here's the FEC summary as of early October: S0NY00188 CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM Senate Total Receipts: $37,853,894 Total Disbursements: $29,450,302 --------------------------------------------- What did she spend 30 million dollars on? I've been poking around the FEC reporting site and haven't found a disbursements breakdown yet. Posted by: jayackroyd on November 15, 2006 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINKDid she really spend it all on herself? If so, she could have easily doubled the funding for the 50-state strategy and still won easily. Posted by: Royko on November 15, 2006 at 4:46 AM | PERMALINKWhat about the old Wall Street adage, "You have to spend money to make money?" In New York if you don't spend money on what's important people think you're a putz. Posted by: pj in jesusland on November 15, 2006 at 5:09 AM | PERMALINKFirst, she probably spent some money locking up top-notch consultants that she will use in 2008 by giving them well paying, make-work contracts. I'm too lazy to look it up, but HRC had an impressive number of donors. I'm guessing you'll find a lot of direct mail expenditures that were fundraising prospecting. Her finance staff was probably told to spend a dollar to make .90 -- the end result is a lot of cash raised and spent, but most importantly, a large donor base for 08. Posted by: cc in az on November 15, 2006 at 5:35 AM | PERMALINKI would bet that a lot of the spending had the seconary purpose of setting up an organization for 2008. It also would not surprise me to find that it was a trail run of her campaign funding organization in preparation to the much greater demands that will be there in 2008. [Concur with cc in az here.] The people who have been fundraising aren't going home after the midterm election. They had a job waiting. I guess HRC might as well pay them out of Senate campaign money as long as possible. Posted by: Rick B on November 15, 2006 at 6:32 AM | PERMALINKHC must have spent all of those big bucks on organizations and polling efforts because she did little advertising during the course of the campaign. I managed to see a few of her ads during the last week of the campaign and those were the first TV ads that I saw her run during the entire campaign. Ditto for advertising on the NYC radio stations. I heard more ads with Mike Bloomberg for Lieberman than I did by Hillary for her campaign. Media was not her biggest expense, not even in the NYC market. Maybe lots of bucks were going into preparing her mailing lists and donor contact list, telephone system for '08, and a new boffo campaign website to be unveiled next year. That backroom stuff can be ultra-expensive, as we see with 'Publican campaigns. Posted by: PrahaPartizan on November 15, 2006 at 6:42 AM | PERMALINKMichael7843853 A possibly significant factor in the Iraqi invasion of the US maybe the fact that Bush was paying $200K to the families of professional killers (ie, American soldiers, pilots etc, who have, in total, killed many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis). Posted by: ForMichael on November 15, 2006 at 7:13 AM | PERMALINKWell those 36 million include everything, from '08 Build-up to fundraisers for other candidates, multi-million donations to the party, pac's, individual candidates, etc. Somebody ought to make a breakdown what expenses were primarily for her re-election, and which were primarily for the good of the party, and which are stealth '08 costs. As long as that hasn't happened, how do we even know we're asking the right questions, let alone have the right anwsers? Posted by: Ernst on November 15, 2006 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINKTruly a shame about the tons of money required to run for office - The job becomes a perpetual fund raising operation. Rahm Emmanuel wouldn't, and will not, even support anyone if they couldn't, and can not, show evidence of their fund raising abilities - We could have taken more seats, but for the lack of money being sent to the districts. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 15, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINKIn the 2004 US election you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush. I thought Kevin banned this troll when he was posting under another name. Posted by: klyde on November 15, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINKI presume she got the maximum number of votes available to her. There is a hardcore right that will never vote for her and I suspect it's pretty close to the 35% that she didn't get. She could have spent millions less or a billion more and the vote would have been the same. Posted by: tripoley on November 15, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINKperhaps she was spending it to build Harold Ickes' voterfile, the Catalist? Posted by: shai on November 15, 2006 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINKI live in NYC, and I can tell you she certainly didn't spend it on NYC television ads. We didn't see any HRC ads until quite late, and then only occasionally. Several orders of magnitude less than we saw of the Menendez/Kean race. And we never got any direct mail from her; I never saw any billboards, subway ads, anything like that. So unless she ran one helluva lot of ads upstate, that money didn't go to advertising but went to other kinds of expenditures. I'm guessing that includes what she spent on helping other candidates. Posted by: Glenn on November 15, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINKWow - she spent $34 million on her campaign? She must have some other reason for wanting to advertise her image broadly. Maybe she's going to run for President in '08? Just a thought. Posted by: brooksfoe on November 15, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINKSecond, I think if her campaign funnels money to PACs for her or other candidates, that counts as spending. Those expenditures are broken out and are dwarfed by direct disbursements. Posted by: jayackroyd on November 15, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKShe didn't spend 36 million on her senate race. She spent 36 million on the first leg of her presidential campaign. Posted by: mjk on November 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINKShe spent 36 million on the first leg of her presidential campaign. Okay, and what did that consist of? That's a lot of money with no media expenditures. She hasn't set up an exploratory committee, so she can't legally be spending it on a presidential campaign. Posted by: jayackroyd on November 15, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINKsomething is funny about those numbers. No way did she spend anywhere close to $30 million on media buys. Maybe Drum can go back to his days as CalPundit when he actually did research instead of spending 5 minutes to link and run. Glenn, Raising money for (e.g.) a senate race, not spending it all, then keeping the leftover for (e.g.) a possible presidential race. Is that legal? Posted by: exasperanto on November 15, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINKThe others are right, she did *not* spend it on Can we just not beat up on Democrats for the next couple of years? Let's champion them! I'm not a partisan, but by golly, haven't the last few years made clear that the alternative is unpalatable? Liberal or moderate Dem, I don't care, as long as it is not the Republican Party that governs. Posted by: Pothique on November 15, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINKHillary Clinton spent $36 million for a Senate race in which she had essentially no competition? Compared to $14 million for the next most expensive race? Wow. Candidates that have no competition spend lots of money (if at all) to (1) generate turnout of their supporters and thereby benefit other candidates of their party, and (2) to be seen doing (1) so as to build credibility as a "team player" by party faithful and insiders to build support from key supporters for future attempts at higher office. This isn't exactly rocket science. Posted by: cmdicely on November 15, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKPaul Lukasiak over at Down with Tyranny has an interesting evisceration of Rahm Emanuel and his "Republican Lite" strategy.
Hillary Clinton spent $36 million for a Senate race in which she had essentially no competition? Compared to $14 million for the next most expensive race? Wow. I can just see the headline: Hillary: Ready to Do Anything to be President. There's a completely different set of rules for her in American politics. Things that a McCain or a Biden could get away with, like joking about killing himself if the Democrats take over or joking about people who work at 7-11, would be front page news, run on endless loops 24x7 on all the news shows and would end up being the subject of 12,000-word magazine stories with breathless headlines like Hillary-Too Candid to be President? You have to analyze and judge her separate from everybody else-if she hadn't spent $36 mil, that would be a story as well. Hillary-Too Cheap to be President? Posted by: Pale Rider on November 15, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKHillary is on record as saying that the Democratic party needs to build extra-governmental infrastructure. Is it possible she spent some of that money doing stuff like that? Spending money that will benefit liberals and Democrats? Or to boost turnout and help Democrats down-ticket, to show she's a team player? Or is it possible that she didn't want her contributors to feel like she was hoarding her cash for a presidential run? Possibly she spent a lot of media money to gain experience with it, too. Posted by: Doctor Jay on November 15, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKcmdicely has a point. We're still not sure what Hillary spent the money on, but how many people turned out to vote for Hillary and wound up voting for John Hall as well? Posted by: brooksfoe on November 15, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK1) generate turnout of their supporters and thereby benefit other candidates of their party Except I don't know of any evidence that she did that either. I don't remember seeing any direct mail. There was no Hillary's army prominently getting out the vote. I looked at the FEC site but can't find a detailed expenditures report. The myDD guys know how to do that. I'll see if they know. Posted by: jayackroyd on November 15, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINKDid she even know how much her campaign was spending? Maybe her CM went overboard, in order to look good, and Hil wasn't looking at the books that closely, since she knew she had plenty of loot. If that's the case--and I admit it's a bit of a stretch--it's another of my 17 reasons she shouldn't live at 1600 Pennsylvania in '09... Posted by: Doozer on November 15, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINKI don't care if Hillary spent a lot of money. She raised the money; she had a right to spend it. Frankly, this seems like such a feeble charge that I wonder if there's some sort of anti-Hillary movement among the Dems. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 15, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINKKevin: to answer your question. I'll bet she spent a lot of money on signs, banners, bumperstickers and the like that all say Hillary... but no year or prospective office. A certain John Kerry pulled this exact same trick not long ago... Posted by: plunge on November 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINKIs that legal? Perfectly. Candidates don't raise money for a specific race; they raise money for their candidacies. There aren't really that many limits on what they can do with it. You have to analyze and judge her separate from everybody else-if she hadn't spent $36 mil, that would be a story as well. Hillary-Too Cheap to be President? Funny! Posted by: No, YOU'RE the sociopath! on November 15, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINKWell, I'm a Dem - Even though all of my panels are filled with Pubs - and my brother ran a hell of a race for Lt Guv of Pa - even though I constantly mouth the Publican line, with the exception of going into Iraq. And what was all that clapping by Hillary about? - Would a real regular guy, like I am from Philly, even though I live on Martha's Vineyard and hang with the swells, walk on to the stage for a winning celebration and join the crowd in clapping for me? I, simply hate her, hate, hate, hate her because whenever she comes on my show, she won't let me over and out talk her. Plus, she makes far more sense. But, did I tell you about working for Tip O'Neill? Why, Tim Russert and I are really just your regular guys sitting around your local bar having a brewski. Posted by: Chris DumbDumb Matthews on November 15, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK"Michelle Malkin has the link" But can it be cured? She also is trying to raise money for the erection of Clinton's Penis Memorial on the Mall. However, is it really appropriate for her to have Elgar's "Lest We Forget" used as the theme? Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 15, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINKFrankly, this seems like such a feeble charge that I wonder if there's some sort of anti-Hillary movement among the Dems. You don't pay much attention, do you? There's been an anti-Hillary movement among the Dems since about 3 nanoseconds after her name was first circulated as a likely presidential contender for 2004, with numerous overt members in almost every discussion forum where Democrats can be found.
I mean, those of us in the "anti-Hillary movement" haven't exactly been quiet about it. I can see the headline now: Hillary Moves to Silence the Anti-Hillary Movement Posted by: Pale Rider on November 15, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely: Yeah, but you would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, right? Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK"In the 2004 US election you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush. " I for one welcome our sekkkrit Jooooish overlords. Also, with all the work that the International Joooowish Conspiracy (IJC) is doing, they must have assistants to help them secretly run the world. As you claim to be an expert, does the International Jewish Conspiracy offer good health benefits to their civil servants? What about eyecare? Is there a good pension plan? How many times salary do they give in free life insurance? (I mean, fooling the Aryan goyim can be risky work, and I want to make sure my family is cared for if I get taken out by some skinhead hopped up on meth.) Is the job security good, or are the IJC starting to outsource their strategic conspiracy work to Infosys in Banglalore? If I want to get hired by the IJC, does it help to have a graduate degree like an MCA (Masters in Conspiracy Administration) like those elitist bastards in the Knights Templar require, or does the IJC do on-the-job training? Thanks for the help. Posted by: Urinated State of America on November 15, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKTo the tune of "Good Times, Bad Times" "They hate what they fear
"They seek her here, they seek her there, With apologies to the author. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 15, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKAs Willie Nelson said about his free-spending younger days, she was throwin' it away with both hands. Since it was obvious that Hillary was in a safe race even before her Republican opponent imploded, didn't it ever occur to her to spread some of her wealth around to other Democrats in tighter races? Posted by: nemo on November 15, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKnemo: Same question could be asked of Senator Kerry and his campaign treasure chest from 2004. Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKYeah, but you would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, right? Against any plausible Republican nominee, probably. Posted by: cmdicely on November 15, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKSince it was obvious that Hillary was in a safe race even before her Republican opponent imploded, didn't it ever occur to her to spread some of her wealth around to other Democrats in tighter races? IIRC, though I can't find a good source right now, Hillary raised quite a bit money for other candidates than for her own campaign, and campaigned for dozens of other candidates in several other states this election cycle. "...literally afford to throw it away?" Literally? Et tu, Kevin? Sorry, but it's a pet peeve. Posted by: Brian on November 15, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKBrian, you could literally get over it. Posted by: Pale Rider on November 15, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider: What, are you going to literally throw him over his computer and out the window? Do you consider yourself this forum's NHL goon, or not? Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKThat was a fake "Jeffery" at 2:23 PM. Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINKThat was a fake "Jeffery" at 2:37 PM. Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKPale Rider: Are you going to put on the foil and hit him in the chops? Are you going to hipcheck him in the neutral zone and put him down on the ice so hard he pisses himself? Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKFake "Jeffery": I am beginning to get very angry with you. You won't like me when I'm angry. I have an aborted fetus in a jar and I know how to use it. Posted by: Jeffery on November 15, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKWithout actually knowing so, I'd say a large portion of that was in building infrastructure for a 2008 run, everything from getting Ad agencies to grounds people invested in her as a candidate. Posted by: Fred F. on November 15, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKI live and work in the New York metropolitan area. I reckon that either a) the costs include all the travel expenses of flying her and her entourage across the country campaigning for other candidates (she rarely had any pblic campaign stops in this area) or b) the costs reflects the amount she spent over a very long period of time leading up to the race. There's something very strange in Denmark. Posted by: ny patriot on November 15, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKIf she helped elect or reelect any Democratic candidate by using her money, so be it - Money well spent. And, yes, there are strange things going on in Denmark, espeically their becoming a Rubber Stamp for us at the UN - See recent veto. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 15, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINKSo let's see: people donated money to Hillary's campaign, and she... used it? String her up, I say! Posted by: Gary on November 15, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKEmbarrassed by the truth? Why did you delete this. George Bush is a religious JEW and, in the end, is only interested in Jews/Israel. This drives his every move. Here are 30 or so pictures of GW Bush, and cohorts, having fun with rabbis, etc,.... http://linux.coconia.net/politics/bush-jews.htm I like those photos of Bush wearing a Yarmulke (skullcap),... and praying at the Wailing Wall,... Bush is a Jew. And you are a dumbass Posted by: hateful hurtful horror on November 15, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK免费性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识图片 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴部 美女乳房 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 15, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 手机铃声制作 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 经典铃声 最新手机铃声 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 Posted by: qq on November 15, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINKI greatly appreciate the fact that the NYT lists Lieberman on the Republican side on their chart. Posted by: George Tenet Fangirl on November 16, 2006 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINKdirt bike motocross Visit my webpage!! Posted by: airline luggage restriction on November 18, 2006 at 3:22 AM | PERMALINKOrder Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Posted by: top on November 18, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK Visit my webpage!! Posted by: medical side effects of crestor on November 18, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINKVisit my webpage!! Posted by: samsonite spinner luggage on November 18, 2006 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
