Who is for McCain?

Pro-Obama liberals love to tout the large majorities of Obama support in foreign countries.

For the liberals, the notion that Americans might disagree with secular, left-leaning Europe is outright heresy.

But it is interesting to note what sort of people favor McCain.

First, Americans in Israel:

JERUSALEM: If Israel were on the U.S. election map, it would be bright red.

A survey of Americans in the Holy Land has found that absentee voters supported Republican John McCain over Barack Obama by a three-to-one margin.

The survey interviewed 817 Americans who have cast absentee ballots for next week’s presidential election. It was conducted by Vote from Israel, a nonpartisan group that has encouraged Americans to vote.

An estimated 40,000 Americans living in Israel are expected to vote, and pollster Mitchell Barak says he believes his survey is a good indicator on how they will choose.

He says most American immigrants to Israel are observant Jews who tend to have conservative social views and hawkish attitudes toward the Mideast peace process.

In other words, people who care about Israel, and the continued survival of Israel, favor McCain. People throughout the Muslim world (numerous polls have shown) favor Obama.

What about U.S. soldiers?

A poll done by Military Times shows them favoring McCain by about a 3-1 margin.

And who (besides Israel) is on the front lines, the people most likely to lose their freedom (or even be killed) by bad U.S. foreign policy? The people of Iraq.

From the French Press Agency:

For five years Ali and Mohammed have lived alongside US soldiers in their Baghdad neighbourhood near Rasheed Street, a prominent commercial artery running through the heart of the Iraqi capital.

During that time American culture and politics have become familiar to them, and they say that if they could, they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain in next week’s US presidential election.

“McCain would be best for Iraq because he would ensure stability,” said Ali, 66, an expert on the Sumerian era.

The personal qualities and political platforms of McCain and his Democrat rival Barack Obama are of little import to Ali, however. His focus is on Iraq and its neighbours such as Iran.

“The Iranians believe that if Obama is elected he will not take action against them despite their nuclear ambitions. That worries me,” said Ali, sitting on an old bench in Al-Zahawi coffee shop.

“If the Iranians get the bomb they will become the Tarzan of the region,” said the former teacher and lecturer at the University of Baghdad, referring to the vine-swinging strongman of the jungle in old Hollywood movies.

Mohammed, also a professor at the university, said he too preferred McCain “because Obama supports a rapid withdrawal of US troops.”

This latter article has no systemic survey data, but Agence France-Presse hardly has a history of pro-American or pro-war bias.

So what we have opposing the war is a (literally) unholy alliance between secular decadent Europe and a Muslim world that is hostile to Israel. These two groups are radically different, the first being hostile to America because we are not secular enough, and the latter because we are too secular.

But who is on the side of the war effort, and therefore McCain? The people of Iraq (whose lives and freedom are on the line), American soldiers (whose very lives are on the line) and people who don’t want Israel wiped off the map.

Obama Lying About McCain, Limbaugh and Immigration

We are a couple of days behind the curve on this, but we can’t pass up noting that an Obama commercial intentionally tore comments by Rush Limbaugh out of context, and then claimed that McCain and Limbaugh held the same views on immigration.

This is from ABC no less.

When even ABC admits that Obama is far out of bounds, it’s really bad.

Clinton Strategist: Media Especially Tough on Palin

From CBS News, an interview with Mark Penn, top aide to both Clintons:

CBSNews.com: Your former colleague Howard Wolfson argued that you all unintentionally paved the way for Palin by exposing some of the unfair media coverage that Hillary Clinton received. And, therefore, a lot of the media may now be treating Sarah Palin with kid gloves. Do you agree with that?

In what sort of alternative universe does CBS live?

The answer to that is simple: a universe where Republicans are bad and wrong, and if any Republican is popular or beats a Democrat in an election, it must mean that the media have fallen down on their job.

Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what “Saturday Night Live” crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don’t do that for all four of the candidates, they’re on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that’s a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they’re not doing on the other candidates. And that’s going to subject them to people concluding that they’re giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, “Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time.”

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

The de facto semi-alliance between the Clinton people and Palin supporters may seem a bit odd, but it actually makes a lot of sense.

Hillary Clinton was the first victim of the media’s infatuation with Obama. So in spite of partisanship and ideology, they recognize when it’s mobilized against Palin.

Liberal Elites and Sarah Palin

Sometimes the most revealing things happen in e-mail exchanges, and this is one we got copied on.

From my good old friend Edd some interesting I’m sure known facts about Ms. Palin

Cousin,

I hope that you are keeping up with the seemingly never ending trail of white trash evidence that we are finding out about Sarah Palin and her family. I sure am. First of all, what would the late great George Carlin have to say about her kids names, Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper, not to mention the husband, Todd. We all have heard the bit. Some of my favorites from this weeks edition of “Are the Palin’s bigger pieces of White Trash than Lyndi England (you might remember Lyndi from her work stacking naked Iraqi’s into a pyramid and taking a picture giving a thumbs up)” Sarah’s Husband, Todd, not only has 2 DUI’s, races snowmobiles, and was a former member of the Alaskan secessionist party, but he recently referred to himself as “the first dude.” And what can we say about young Bristol? What a peach she is, and she sure knows how to pick ‘em too. Enter Levi Johnston, who describes himself as a “f**king redneck” on his myspace page. The only positive out of this is that if McCain were to be elected and something were to happen to him and he dies, we are now part of our own live version of “King Ralph.”

The friend of ours who forwarded this also forwarded his response:

Incredibly, incredibly judgemental and condescending, coming from someone who obviously considers himself part of the “diversity” crowd. . . . As if George Carlin’s comments or potential comments (were he still alive) are to be gospel for politics or... hmmmmm, let’s say.... religion? A further question--define “white trash” you guys... As opposed to what -- black trash? If you mean uncultured thugs who demean women and see white people as either sources for easy cash or an easy target for their own community’s failures, I would like to see the liberal elite “trash” them equally with hicks and their fellow travelers . . .

I, for one, much prefer the company of simple countryfolk (both black and white)--who at least have viable families and a discernable moral compass--over spoiled whiners who make up much of the voting base of the Democratic Party in places like River West, Shorewood, etc. . . . God f**king forbid that they actually take some responsibility for their actions and do some inner reflection! As opposed to smugly putting down snakehandlers and Alaskan snowmobilers to make themselves feel like part of some select few of Gnostic know-it-alls who can easily dismiss much of America as unworthy simpletons. . . . An overdeveloped guilt complex has proven to be, from what I know of human history, much more socially-constructive than moral relativism and outright hypocrisy in putting down other people’s lifestyles while making no apologies for faults in your own... It at least engenders quite a bit of humillity, while the latter makes one feel entitled to socially engineer to one’s heart’s content (see Wikipedia under “National Socialism” or “Stalinism,” for example)!

I have been involved in politics long enough to get to know people on both sides of the aisle and, I have to admit, the snobbery I’ve heard on the left wing far outshines the judgementalism of most conservatives I know (who often turn out to be a bit Manichean, yes, but at least honest more often than not). . . . On numerous occassions, I have heard liberal politicos and elected officials actually say: “People don’t know what’s good for them.... That’s why they voted for Bush, etc. etc.” People don’t know what’s good for them???? I, along with most of my fellow believers in the inherent value of moral agency in determining communal life, send to such people a well-deserved and long-coming “arm of honor” (as the French say)!!!!! I don’t know what’s good for me??? That’s for me and God to decide, you freaking walking windbag of complexes!

Guys, seriously--I will happily read such comments from serious and well-intentioned liberals that used to make up, say, FDR’s voting base. But outright garbage like this, please don’t send. . . . Mr. Pailin or future son-in-law at least have the gall to admit that they’re “f**king rednecks”... Why don’t Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or the rest of the liberal cognisenti add to their MySpace pages the label: “f**king bleeding heart who knows what’s good for you -- Trust me, I do”?

Probably because they know that most of America retains the common sense God gave us all and upon which the Founding Fathers had such enduring trust that they would run them out of freaking town, much or less elect them to public office! I love you guys, but please don’t push my buttons like this! Serious and honest discourse, as you well I know, I absolutely love, but talking down to my well-intentioned, though sometimes misguided, countrymen frankly pisses me off! Amen!

Marquette College Republicans in the New York Times

OK, so it’s not like winning a Nobel Prize.

But it’s always nice to see one’s students in the national media, right in the middle of the action in this very unusual and important election year.

From Reuters, Allison Herre and Matt Dambach in the New York Times, watching John McCain speak in Cedarburg yesterday. They are the two people on the left side of the photo. On the right is Remington Tonar (Editor in Chief of The Warrior).

Biden: Attacks on Palin “Outrageous”

From The Hill:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden repeated a Republican line of attack Thursday, slamming reporters for their “outrageous” and “sexist” treatment of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

“I just think some of the stuff said has been over the top, totally unfair, and has been sexist and I think the way the governor has handled it has been admirable,” the Delaware senator said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think this stuff about how can she be a governor and vice president and raise three kids, c’mon, whoever those folks are don’t know any strong women.

“The truth is, some of the stuff that the press has said about Sarah and that others have said about the governor, I think, are outrageous. Look, I think kids are off-limits, flat off-limits.”

One could, of course, one could posit that Biden and Obama (who has also condemned the attacks on Palin) are playing a cynical little game of making humane statements, knowing that the leftist bloggers and Mainstream Media attack dogs will continue to go after Palin.

But maybe they have simply made a shrewd calculation that the attacks are likely to backfire, and want them stopped for that reason.

Or maybe, just maybe, they honestly think the attacks have been unfair. Biden, after all, was the single parent of young children after his first wife died. He stayed in the Senate nonetheless.

Is it an embarrassment that Sarah Palin’s unmarried daughter is pregnant? Absolutely. But then Obama’s father ran off and failed to support his family, and Obama has a brother living in abject poverty in Africa.

Like most Americans, Obama has a few embarrassing situations in his family.

So maybe, just maybe, decency has prevailed in the Democratic ticket.

Ragardless, the statements of Biden and Obama have cut the legs from under the liberal attack squad.

Liberals: Fearing (and Therefore Hating) Sarah Palin

The attacks on Sarah Palin have been utterly unprecedented. Over the top. Obsessive.

And why is this?

Because Sarah Palin is a huge threat, both to their electoral prospects and (more importantly) to their worldview.

While her nomination certainly has its risks, it shakes things up thoroughly, and makes the election of The Anointed One more questionable. Ideological feminists won’t vote for her, of course, but a fair number of independent and conservative Democratic women may do so. They can identify with her.

But worse is the threat to the smug stereotypes of the liberals and leftist.

For those folks, all “real” women are feminists. Women who aren’t feminists are inert, reclusive lumps who stay home, bake cookies, and stay out of politics.

So now they are faced with a woman who is an achiever -- indeed an overachiever -- outspoken, aggressive, strong willed, and conservative.

It’s cognitive dissonance run wild.

In reality, of course, genuinely strong and independent women tend to be conservative. A passive “go with the flow” woman will quite likely be told by her high school teachers that she should be a leftist feminist, almost certainly be told the same thing by her college professors, and all the while be given this precise message by the media.

Conservative women have to be counter-cultural. They have to buck the stereotypes.

A Christian teen girl to resolves to abstain from sex has to have the strength to resist huge media pressures, and often high school teachers who sneer at the notion of abstinence. The “go along” teen who passively accepts the media message will be promiscuous.

Thus Sarah Palin is the sort of woman that liberals think does not exist. The fact that she does blows their minds.

Imagine a group of Klansmen faced with a black guy who is obviously smarter, more capable and more accomplished than they are. Eventually, the Klansmen will have a bunch of rationalizations about how the guy is not so smart, is corrupt and has no business being here.

But the first reaction will be hostility and fear. The liberals might be on average a bit more clever and verbal than the Klansmen (who isn’t?), but the basic dynamic is the same.

Bubbleheads: Not Getting Sarah Palin and the Evangelicals

A perceptive (as usual) comment from Peggy Noonan:

Let me say of myself and almost everyone I know in the press, all the chattering classes and political strategists and inside dopesters of the Amtrak Acela Line: We live in a bubble and have around us bubble people. We are Bubbleheads.

And again we know this, we know this is our limit, our lack.

But we also forget it.

And when you forget you’re a Bubblehead you get in trouble, you misjudge things. For one thing, you assume evangelical Christians will be appalled and left agitated by the circumstances of Mrs. Palin’s daughter. But modern American evangelicals are among the last people who’d judge her harshly. It is the left that is about to go crazy with Puritan judgments; it is the right that is about to show what mellow looks like. Religious conservatives know something’s wrong with us, that man’s a mess. They are not left dazed by the latest applications of this fact. “This just in – there’s a lot of sinning going on out there” is not a headline they’d understand to be news.

So the media’s going to wait for the Christian right to rise up and condemn Mrs. Palin, and they’re not going to do it because it’s not their way, and in any case her problems are their problems. Christians lived through the second half of the 20th century, and the first years of the 21st. They weren’t immune from the culture, they just eventually broke from it, or came to hold themselves in some ways apart from it. I think the media will explain the lack of condemnation as “Republican loyalty” and “talking points.” But that’s not what it will be.

One of the key failures of the liberal New Class is that fact that it is not only secular, it is actively hostile to Christians.

(It’s not hostile to Muslims, but that’s because they don’t actively contest with the secular types for control of American culture, and the Muslims can be treated as a politically correct victim group.)

The Democratic party is pretty much controlled by people with a secular orientation, and occasional claims of religious faith (which may be sincere, but are certainly superficial) aren’t fooling anybody.

But happily, the Democrats ignorance of people of faith and frequent hostility toward people of faith harms them politically. They just don’t get it, and therefore make serious political miscalculations.

Will the Media Notice the Major Obama Gaff?

Obama actually gave a very good speech tonight in Denver. Of course it was a standard liberal political speech, but that was probably a lot better than his former strategy of claiming to be a unifying, transcending candidate.

That nonsense was wearing thin.

But there was one major gaff. He promised to invade Pakistan!

Not in so many words, of course, but he attacked McCain for his failure to run Osbma bin Laden down wherever he might be.

But the whole world knows where that is.

Obama said:

. . . I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know . . . John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives.

(Check the video at 29:57.)

The Authoritarianism of the Democratic Candidates Shows Itself

The World According to Nick, a video of Obama lauding the Communist Chinese way of doing things, claiming that their infrastructure is much better than ours.

Here is the video.

Nick Schweitzer comments:

And if in the process of building this wonderful new infrastructure, I protest that it will tear down my home, will you also send me for “re-education through labor”? Unless you are terribly naive Barack, you know that the speed with which this infrastructure came about came at a high cost to civil liberties. One which we as a people feel is too high to pay. . . so much so that we enshrined it in our Constitution.

Of course, one might complain that Obama really doesn’t believe in forced labor. Maybe not, but he ought to be more careful about lauding a system based on it. What he said would be a bit like lauding agricultural efficiency in the antebellum South, without bothering to mention the little issue of slavery.

But Obama’s running made, Joe Biden, most certainly does believe in forced labor. As Schweitzer explains:

Of course your new Vice Presidential pick knows all about forced labor. He wants mandatory conscription for all citizens to the army, or civil service corps:

In 1988, [we in Congress] not only introduced a bill for mandatory universal service, but you get to pick one of three things: if you chose the army, it’s six months; if you chose a domestic Peace Corps, it’s two years; if you chose foreign Peace Corps, you only have to do it a year. Everyone man and woman when they get to be eighteen they can chose what they want, but there should be universal service unless there is an extreme physical disability.

Is this how you intend to bring about “Change We Can Believe In”? Forced labor and service?

Yes, at root, Democrats simply don’t believe in individual liberty.

This is All I Got?

Howard Dean Coming to Campus Next Wednesday

Just confirmed via the Office of Student Development:

Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, will be speaking on the Marquette campus next Wednesday.

The speech will be from 12:30-1:30 on the East Side of the Union. A platform will be set up there.

As you might have guessed, we don’t much like Howard Dean, constant player of the race card.

Still, the College Democrats and Students for Obama, who are sponsoring the speech, have to be feeling good right now, since this is a real coup for them.

Hogging Attention

Obama’s Military Disconnect

Great catch from Stepping Right Up.

A photo that shows Barack Obama in front of cheering U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

It’s a photo the Obama campaign may wish it had never released.

This is not exactly a packed gymnasium of cheering soldiers.

Look at the massive distance between him and the soldiers. (Was Obama afraid he would get military cooties if he got too close?)

The “crowd” is barely three people deep. (My guess is there were more media darlings than soldiers)

What is up with that “Oh God, what am I doing here look on his face”?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture shows the massive expanse of space between America’s military and Barack Obama. Clearly there is a huge disconnect here.

Not mentioned is the fact that a vastly disproportionate number of the soldiers are black.

We don’t quarrel with the racial pride of black soldiers who are proud of the Obama candidacy, but they don’t represent the majority of the military. Why should, after all, soldiers want a commander and chief who wants them to lose a war?

Michelle Obama at Princeton: Huge Racial Chip on Her Shoulder

We didn’t see this when it first broke, but better late than never.

From Politico.com, an account of Michelle Obama’s senior thesis at Princeton.

Michelle Obama’s senior year thesis at Princeton University, obtained from the campaign by Politico, shows a document written by a young woman grappling with a society in which a black Princeton alumnus might only be allowed to remain “on the periphery.” Read the full thesis here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

“My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before,” the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. “I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.”

Of course, on a campus that practices rather rigorous affirmative action, it’s hard for white students to forget that you are on campus because you are black, not because (like the white students) you met all the qualifications.

Even if a particular black student was as good, academically, as white applicants who got in, white students will not know this about the particular student, and thus the stigma applies.

But just who is to blame if somebody like Michelle Obama is viewed as “black first and a student second.” Consider the following:

The 1985 thesis provides a trove of Michelle Obama’s thoughts as a young woman, with many of the paper’s statements describing the student’s world as seen through a race-based prism.

“In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community,” the Princeton student wrote, “I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.” Other thesis statements specifically pointed to what was seen by the future Mrs. Obama as racially insensitive practices in a university system populated with mostly Caucasian educators and students: “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”

To illustrate the latter statement, she pointed out that Princeton (at the time) had only five black tenured professors on its faculty, and its “Afro-American studies” program “is one of the smallest and most understaffed departments in the university.” In addition, she said only one major university-recognized group on campus was “designed specifically for the intellectual and social interests of blacks and other third world students.” (Her findings also stressed that Princeton was “infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.”)

In short, she is constantly playing the race card, constantly pleading victimization and constantly attacking Princeton for having too few black professors and a too-small Afro-American studies program.

Of course blacks who do that are going to be viewed as “black first and a student second.”

Can anybody possibly view Jesse Jackson as “a man first and a black second?”

The notion that the Princeton curriculum slighted “the intellectual and social interests of blacks and other third world students” is, in fact, condescending.

Generations of affluent, academically outstanding white students -- destined for success in later life -- have majored in math, history, English, political science, physics or one or another foreign language. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that most of these disciplines have been tripping over themselves to include more “multi-cultural” and “diverse” (read politically correct) material, are blacks somehow not intellectually capable of handling the courses that white students have?

Actually, given the prevalence of affirmative action, that’s too often true. But ghettoizing black students into inferior victim studies courses -- courses that are widely recognized as inferior, even if few people are sufficiently politically incorrect to say so -- is not a way of respecting and intellectually nurturing them.

It’s a way of pandering to politically correct elements on campus and getting them off your back.

Of course, Michelle’s attitudes are not necessarily the same as her husband’s.

But when we look for any evidence that Barack, before his very recent strategy of appearing to be “post racial” in order to appeal to white voters, was anything other than the standard race hustler, we come up with essentially nothing.

So we have to ask the obvious question: is Obama just Jesse Jackson with a shrewder plan for getting white votes?

Obama Chastized by Washington Post on Iraq

Barack Obama’s pandering to the hard left anti-Iraq War crowd has drawn a sharp rebuke from the liberal Washington Post.

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama’s timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome -- that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.

Will he?

Or will he continue to be the leftist that panders to his leftist base? You know -- the people who don’t want America to win the war because they don’t much like America and virulently hate George Bush.

Let’s hope we never have the opportunity to find out.

Which Is the Real One?

Lame Excuse

Good Point, Hillary

It Worked For Dorothy!