Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 27, 2007

THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG...I got my first email that Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto had been killed at 8:47 a.m. this morning. I started hearing about "what this means" for the U.S. presidential race by about 8:56 a.m. (By 9:30 a.m., Joe Scarborough apparently was telling MSNBC viewers that this is good news for Rudy Giuliani.) It's just that kind of news cycle, I suppose.

Given that details of the events in Rawalpindi are still emerging, it's obviously far too soon to know what effect, if any, this might have on the Dems' and Republicans' nominating process. Indeed, it's not unreasonable to think most Americans probably don't know who Benazir Bhutto is, and her assassination will not necessarily influence their presidential preferences.

But for those who are engaged in current events, the speculation is already well underway.

Bloody images of Pakistan in turmoil, which will dominate newspapers and TV news just as Iowa voters are making their final decision and the caucuses are only a week away , will remind voters that this is a dangerous world.

And the aftermath -- still very unclear in the chaos surrounding Bhutto's death -- will test the agility of the presidential campaigns in dealing with an unexpected and momentous event; a dry run for daily life at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I suppose it's fairly easy to guess what the various message maestros are going to tell us.

Bhutto's assassination is bound to help Hillary Clinton, because she has experience on the national stage.

No, say John McCain backers, this is bound to help him because he has military experience.

No, say Barack Obama backers, this is bound to help him because in a time of crisis, we clearly need someone with good judgment.

No, say Rudy Giuliani backers, this is bound to help him because he was the mayor of a city attacked by terrorists.

No, say Mitt Romney backers, this is bound to help him because it hurts Mike Huckabee, whose understanding of foreign affairs rivals that of small children.

No, say Joe Biden backers, this is bound to help him because he has more foreign policy experience than most of the candidates in both parties put together.

My hunch is no one has the foggiest idea which U.S. presidential candidate, if any, Bhutto's death helps -- but it's not the most important part of the story. Apparently, though, that won't deter the breathless chatter.

(edited slightly for clarity)

Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

That's all pretty fucking ghoulish, scumbaggy and incredibly self-centered and is a perfect example why there is such a low opinion of America in the world.

I get the feeling that if an atom bomb went off in Jakarta, killing millions, it would get pushed off the top of the news if there were a breakthrough in the Natalie Holloway case.

Instead of analysing cui bono in the Presidential race, how about analyzing cui bono period? How about telling us if there is a parallel with the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massood, which was the trigger for everything that has happened in th last seven years?

Posted by: calipygian on December 27, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Of course the story I read refers to Pakistan as "an important ally in the war on terror." They've harbored Bin Laden for six years, their military ruler is about as anti-democratic as you can be, they were shopping nuke technology and the country is increasingly unstable.

Bush sure can pick them allies.

In any case, I don't see this having much effect on the primaries. Another Muslim country going bonkers won't affect that many voters.

Posted by: tomeck on December 27, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Ms. Bhutto's assassination helps candidates who use fear, uncertainty and dread to rally people to their visions of US dominance. It helps all of the candidates justify their platforms for increased military spending and increased US military engagement around the world.

Ms. Bhutto's assassination provides cover for war pigs everywhere to continue their demagogy, which was probably W. Bush's and VP Cheney's strategy all along.

Posted by: Brojo on December 27, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

It raises the stakes, certainly. for Clinton and Obama, it raises the specter of political assassination, which the right wing nutcases certainly have the arm and the zeal for.

Posted by: susanp on December 27, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

All those "Nos" read like a children's book. Hmm, you maybe on to something.

Posted by: jerry on December 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

And of course, it's bad news for Hillary because she is a woman like Bhutto. See, women shouldn't be running for leadership of a country.

Posted by: Dilbert on December 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

A perfect example of how awful our media is. No clear discussion of how it helps or hurts America (let alone how it helps or hurts Pakistan, or India, or Afghanistan). Just "pundits" babbling in a content-free manner.

Posted by: F. Frederson on December 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's time for me to re-read that Jim Fallows piece on why Americans hate the media. He ought to do an addendum and include this example. How this affects the horserace is obviously the most important thing about this story--not how it is entirely possible that, according to TPM, our "ally" might have assassinated one of his political rivals...

At this point, I think the only safe thing to say is that it's going to further invalidate George Bush's "freedom agenda" if this turns out to be the case.

Posted by: Lev on December 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

I don't this horrendous assassination will have any effect in November. By then, it will have been long forgotten.

I'm not even sure it will have much effect a week from now. Media will give greater coverage to stories like the Patriots' drive for an undefeated season.

To the degree that it has an effect, I think it will help those perceived as more hawkish and more competent to handle foreign policy. In Iowa, that means Romney and Clinton. In New Hampshire, it could be a boost for McCain.

Posted by: ex-liberal on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Bhutto's death helps radical extremism, something our guy in Pakistan uses to his advantage to maintain power. This event helps the Orwellian critters in the WH by showing more support for Pakistan needs to be undertaken, despite our guy not being very democratic, and despite the growing madness of supporting a tyrannt who harbors a tyrannt who we are supposedly hunting down. Makes sense in a Bush world, but is repugnant to mine. -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on December 27, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

What a stupid and inane "anaylsis." What we ought to be speculating about is what effect this has on our national security, but I suppose our political journalist gurus lack even the pretension to discuss such a matter...though, judging by this account, they obviously feel the need to write something in response. What they ought to be writing is how utterly incredible and ridiculous it is that are so dependent upon Pakistan to deal with the greatest terrorist threat we have ever faced. In an ideal world, we wouldn't even care who is or isn't being assassinated in a two-bit military dictatorship.

Posted by: Xanthippas on December 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

My guess is that because it happened in a foreign country half way around the world and involves no Americans, it's not going to affect materially the prospects of any of our politicians.

Posted by: frankly0 on December 27, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

That's all pretty fucking ghoulish, scumbaggy and incredibly self-centered and is a perfect example why there is such a low opinion of America in the world.

Agreed.

I'm much more concerned about what it means for the future of Pakistan.

Posted by: Disputo on December 27, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps it will help Ron Paul because Bhutto would be alive today if she hand't been a willing pawn in Condi Rice's game of trying to make disfunctional Pakistan into "functional democracy". Dual power never, never works. Ask Alexander Kerensky.

Perhaps it will help Ron Paul because people will see the carnage in Pakistan and wonder what the hell business do we have trying to run that screwed up place anyway?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on December 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I heard Salman Rushdie speak on Nov. 3. His take was the Bhuttos are thoroughly corrupt, with nicknames like "Mr. 10 per center" for the husband, etc.
Perhaps Pakistan's K Street mob has been shut out during Musharraf's reign which explains why we see lawyers, marching, demonstrating, en masse.

Posted by: cognitorex on December 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Media will give greater coverage to stories like the Patriots' drive for an undefeated season."

That's a good point. How will this affect the Patriots' drive for an undefeated season.

That's the angle no one in the media has bothered to cover.

Posted by: ES on December 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Pakistan? Is that a country? Didn't we bomb them or something?

WHATEVER. I'm SO much more concerned with those after-Christmas sales at the mall!

Posted by: Typical American on December 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.

So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations committee. Right?

When Oprah went down to SC, there was all this Obama is the messiah hype. Oprah said –He is the one - But you know what, Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning


So let me get this straight, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan if dictators and militants run free, but he opposes the war in 2002, then says he supports Bush's conduct of the war on terror in 2004 while campaigning, then says if he had been in congress he might have voted different. While campaigning he says he despises the Patriot Act, yet upon arrival, he votes to renew it. While he has been in Washington, his votes on Iraq and Iran are identical to Hillary Clinton. He has criticized Hillary for her vote on Kyl/Lieberman, yet he missed the vote because Campaigning is more important than national security.

WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE TO CHANGE WASHINGTON? He sounds like every other senator. Missing votes, hobnobbing with Hollywood, and taking the job for granted and using it solely to build your resume.

Posted by: sadhana khan on December 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

The news is incredibly bad news for all the primary candidates, it means that they are the next targets.

AQ would undoubtedly like to see Bush replaced by someone who offers a similar blend of bellicose rhetoric and incompetence. That would probably mean Giuliani.

I don't think assasinating Clinton would serve AQ's ends any more than the Spanish bombing campaign did. The most likely outcome would be that the Democrats draft Gore and he goes after Oasama and co for real. But that does not mean that they are not likely to try.

This is now Zawahiri's second head of government he has murdered. The first being Sadat.

Posted by: PHB on December 27, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton boasting about her experience is like the arsonist who goes on about how many people he's rescued from burning buildings.

Sure, she's taken a lot of heat - but it's always from fires she's set herself or had a big hand in creating (health care debacle, Iraq, etc.)

Her presidency would be a disaster for this country - four years of hysteria, viciousness, and revenge on both sides of the aisle, and no good coming from any of it.

Posted by: lampwick on December 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Many observers, including Sharif, are saying Musharraf had a hand in this. That is certainly plausible. If true, what would that say for America's policy of coddling the dictator, while encouraging Bhutto to return to Pakistan? We would have played the perfect role of patsy!

Now admittedly that's just speculation, but at the least this administration's policy re' Pakistan (and by extension the War on Terror) is in tatters. And any political candidate who supports Bush's antiterror policy blindly is an idiot who should lose. That's what to listen for from the presidential candidates.

Posted by: Jeff_from_WI on December 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Within the little D.C. media village, all events are important only in how they affect our presidential campaigns.

Repeal of law of gravity gives edge to Huckabee in Iowa.

I mean, what else could possible matter?

Posted by: jrw on December 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

A perfect example of how awful our media is. No clear discussion of how it helps or hurts America (let alone how it helps or hurts Pakistan, or India, or Afghanistan). Just "pundits" babbling in a content-free manner. - F. Federson

The media is consistently becoming more and more of a global soap opera. Any of the cable news outlets could now be aptly renamed to "As The World Turns"

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Ms. Bhutto's assassination ought to be a warning to all foreign dissidents considering using the W. Bush administration as a facilitator to reforming their particular countries.

W. Bush and his henchpersons probably made a deal with Musharraf allowing him to eliminate all of his political rivals by letting them return to Pakistan with the false hope of reentering political competition with US backing. Abbas should expect some US manufactured missiles to find him for the New Year for his attempt to renew peace talks, at W. Bush's urging, with Israel. Aung San Suu Kyi should refuse to have anything to do with any peace overtures the US has planned for the generals of Myanmar. Al Sadr should go back into hiding. Thaksin had better watch his back, too, as political assassination looks to become a solution to democracy.

Posted by: Brojo on December 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Of course each candidate's supporters will claim that Bhutto's assassination somehow highlights their candidate's abilities. We need a blogger to tell us this?

The other answer, ie how the MSM will spin it, is almost as easy: it's bad for the Dems - peaceniks in power will hurt America.

If there's anything else, I'll be in my office.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on December 27, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Bhutto was a great patriot. Who else would have returned to their country after the first attempt on her life?

Who benefits? Musharraf of course. She was the opposition.

Who did it? Who cares? It was done.

The world has lost a great leader. Now we're stuck with people like General Musharraf and Dubya. Pity us all.

Posted by: MarkH on December 27, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

This is only good news for Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by: NTodd on December 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

In all fairness to Scarborough, he's not a journalist - he's a political pundit, which means his sole purpose is to view everything through the prism of an American domestic political horserace, offering vague predictions and banal platitudes, leaving his viewers with the mistaken impression that they are informed voters (or would be if they ever bothered to register). Doubtless, when dining out, he regales the wait staff with predictions of how the weather outside will affect which special does the best (winter storms help beef, but hurt quiche's chances).

Real journalists have not only been purged from the airways, but seem to have disappeared from behind the camera's too. How else to explain how the further political destabilization of a nuclear armed ally facing an Islamic insurgency in one of the most heavily armed, populated and volatile areas of the world could be ignored in favor of mindless speculation of how it affects Rudy Giuliani?

Besides, isn't that escaped tiger a much better story? I mean, no complicated analysis or thinking necessary, all you have to do is read it, feel a moment of horror ("Roar!") and sympathy ("poor bastard!") followed by relief ("Phew! Glad it wasn't me!") and that's pretty much it! (I wonder who they'll get to play the tiger in the movie…)

Posted by: Chesire11 on December 27, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

The most electorally relevant aspect of this assasination is that it may mean there won't BE any 2008 election -- or at least any 2012 election -- because some of the nukes from a destabilized Pakistan will fall into the hands of al-Qaida, and they'll bring down American society (and human civilization as a whole) by simply setting off one or two in cities and then announcing that they will in the future set others off in unnamed other cities.

One would like to think that this will jar at least one candidate in either party into talking about the one piece of major leverage we could have in Pakistan -- namely, eliminating our ban on Pakistani textiles CONDITIONAL upon that nation behaving itself -- but I doubt anyone will. After the South Carolina primary is coming up, and we musn't lose those few thousand textile-worker votes...

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 27, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Right on point, Steve. Within minutes after I heard Bhutto had been killed, someone sent me a link from Dow Jones news service quoting vapid campaign statements by Huckabee and Giuliani about the assassination. It's a lazy way for the media to get more column inches out of one story. First the story is, "It happened!" And then the story is, "Someone said something about it!" That substitutes for any actual analysis of what it MEANS that it happened.

I suppose the article I saw was also a way for the right-wing press to portray their candidates as having something to say about foreign policy. I have no doubt that Huckabee's actual first reaction to the assassination was, "Who's Benazir Bhutto again?"

Posted by: The Fabulous Mr. Toad on December 27, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

More important than how the assassination per se affects the US presidential race, is what the candidates have to say about it. I must say that Bill Richardson's comments to the effect that President Bush should remove Musharaf from power, are disconcerting.

Posted by: Shelby on December 27, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo has it right in her/his comment above.

For perspectives relative to the Bhutto assassination not to be encountered in usual media outlets check out Laura Rozen’s interview of a “Former US Intelligence Officer” and Steve Clemmon’s report of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s perspective.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/12/6684_interview_with.html

The former intelligence officer, amongst other observations, offers:

The other thing against her is that it is never good for a foreign leader to be perceived as the darling of the American government. I am talking about perception, not necessarily the reality. I’ve been back to Pakistan a couple times recently. The belief not just among the people on the streets, but among the elites, is that America was delivering Bhutto to Pakistan, to lead a coalition government. Whether it’s true or not, every time the plan hit a bump, [deputy secretary of state John] Negroponte was in Pakistan. In terms of perception, there are no coincidences in South Asia.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002616.php

And Brzezinski offers:

I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don’t really think this is America’s business and I don’t think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan.

As for of you commenting on which candidate will benefit, meet your long lost relative, and dip shit, Joe Scarborough.

Posted by: Chris Brown on December 27, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

That's a good point. How will this affect the Patriots' drive for an undefeated season.

Not good for Romney, who is probably still wondering if the Patriots will beat the Celtics in the World Series.

Giuliani thinks that "We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us," as if we could have done anything to stop this particular event.

Huckabee says, somewhat irrelevantly, that "On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government."

Posted by: AJ on December 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

"...they'll bring down American society (and human civilization as a whole)"

I'm not sure how much the society that gave us, "Momma's Family" has done to advance human civilization.

Posted by: Chesire11 on December 27, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

In answer to the Katie Couric question, "Which country scares you most" all the GOPs answered Iran. Clinton and Edwards were the only ones that did not choose Iran. Edwards chose China. Clinton chose Pakistan

I still think Clinton is correct.

Posted by: bakho on December 27, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

[political impact] not the most important part of the story

Of course it isn't. It's the impact on the stock market. Next question?

Posted by: thersites on December 27, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

In answer to the Katie Couric question, "Which country scares you most"

let me say it: the USA. Out of the USA that is a frequent feeling.

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume on December 27, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

It was good for Rudy!

Yeah, like it was good for Bush.

Didn't the Pakistani people know that it was a government plan of Bush, by Bush and for Bush. And if only Bush were not such good friends with Musharraf too than poor Bhutto would not have had to die because she was a member of the infidel, Bush's big Pakistani government plan.

The secret for Mideast peace is to condemn Bush and Western oil contractors. The Mideast is fighting for real freedom and Bush is the reason why. Bush wants WW III and he doing everything nasty that he can to start all out civil war in the Mideast.

Posted by: me-again on December 27, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

bakho:

Biden also said Pakistan. And I agree, I think he and Hillary were right.

Posted by: Lee on December 27, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

I agree -- which makes a pity, doesn't it, that Mrs. Clinton has also been cretinous enough to refuse to disavow the possibility that she might drop nukes on Pakistani territory just to wipe out individual al-Qaida camps that DIDN'T have access to nukes of their own? No one else has done anything that idiotic -- not Bush, not any of the GOP Presidential candidates, not Obama (although one can argue that his own attempt to play Tough Guy by suggesting that he might be willing to have the US unilaterally raid Pakistani territory with NON-nuclear weapons was rather dangerously provocative itself).

The only thing worse than the fact that the press views Pakistan entirely in terms of "How will it affect the Campaign?" is that the candidates themselves do, too.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on December 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Steve: "My hunch is no one has the foggiest idea which U.S. presidential candidate, if any, Bhutto's death helps -- but it's not the most important part of the story. Apparently, though, that won't deter the breathless chatter."

Yeah, well, it sure didn't take Barack Obama's campaign very long to politicize this horrific tragedy with some breathless chatter of its own. Per advisor David Axelrod this afternoon:

"Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, and he warned at the time it would divert us from Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that. Al Qaeda's resurgent, they're a powerful force now in Pakistan, they may have been involved -- we've been here, so I don't know whether the news has been updated, but there's a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment, so let's have that discussion."

Yessirree, Obama certainly is "a different kind of candidate", isn't he? I think the more appropriate description is "craven."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 27, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Spencer Ackerman of Talking Points Memo offers a different perspective on the Bhutto assassination: "According to a former intelligence official with deep experience on Pakistan, there's a third, and perhaps more likely culprit: internally-focused Pakistani Islamist militants without significant links to al-Qaeda."

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 27, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

In the interst of evenhandedness, the following is from the "Ah-HA! Two Can Play at That Game!" File:

Per Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who's schlepping for Sen. Clinton:

“When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say], ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong. And she’s experienced. And she’s tough enough to defend this country and do it in a way that’s true to our values, the civil liberties we cherish, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.”

Out of respect for the late Benazir Bhutto, would it really be too much to expect the presidential candidates to tell their advisors and spokespersons to just shut the fuck up right now?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody with a nuke is potentially dangerous.

Anybody with enough coal-powered electricity is dangerous to the planet's health.

That makes both Pakistan and China pretty dangerous.

Posted by: MarkH on December 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't read about this idea yet, and haven't watched anything on the tee vee. But, isn't it strange that there was a suicide bombing and THEN she was shot? The suicide bombing definitely sounds like Islamists, but the sniper shooting definitely sounds like someone in the government/military.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on December 27, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think the more appropriate description is "craven."

Wow, Donnieboy, you're not even bothering to hide your Obama-hatred anymore, are ya bud? Have you bothered to inform us yet which campaign you're working for?

Posted by: Disputo on December 27, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

The suicide bombing definitely sounds like Islamists, but the sniper shooting definitely sounds like someone in the government/military.

Always have a second gunman.

Posted by: Disputo on December 27, 2007 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I'm not sure what is more disgusting, watching the POTUS candidates making political hay out of this tragedy, or watching all the partisan hacks in this forum and others make political hay out of the candidates making political hay out of this tragedy.

Posted by: Disputo on December 27, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: "Wow, Donnieboy, you're not even bothering to hide your Obama-hatred anymore, are ya bud? Have you bothered to inform us yet which campaign you're working for?"

Blow it out your ass, clown -- just be sure you pull your head out first, lest you give yourself whiplash.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on December 28, 2007 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly