A Lousy Debate...plus Latest Column

More whining from Obamabot Kool-Aid drinking "journalists" like Joe.

It's HILARIOUS that the media, both new and old, are in such an uproar over the debate. Clearly, it's due to the fact that aren't used to seeing Obama receive any level of serious scrutiny.

Snap outta it!

I say it's about time the media stopped coddling The Precious!

The failure of right wing policies under W has left the right wing with nothing but trivia to fall back on. And coddled, over-paid elite pundits who are out of touch with the everyday American lazily grab on to that.

Joe:

I would also point out that it was you who wrote a column encouraging Obama to attack Clinton. You happened to entitled that column "Hit Her Again!"

It's unfortunate that you change your tune when it is Obama on the receiving end. Unfortunate and quite sad, really.

Stop spreading the poison, Klein!

Joe,

It's good to see you get the capital gains thing right. I hope Michael Grunwald can make an update correcting his error on the subject.

And I think an update would help your post as well--with "post-tax" in between "higher" and "profits."

From your print story-
(McCain)wants to have a substantive debate about the war

If that is so why does he characterize the Democratic positon as "waving the white flag of surrender"

McCain's reputation doesn't seem to square with reality.

Joe:
Of course you have a sympathetic take. You still want to be on the Sunday talking head shows. I am glad I missed the debate. And what about George S.'s asking questions that Sean Hannity told him to? Is McCain going to get attacked the same way in a future debate? I'm not holding my breath. Not to mention the inherit conflict of interest that George S. has. For a guy who once wrote a book about Woody Guthrie, you are as out of touch as Charlie Gibson.

Calling out "Shame on you" because Clinton attacks Obama is a nonsense. You have no problem when Clinton is attacked. Your schtick is getting to be standard fare: Clinton is great on substantive policy issues but should not attack Obama. I happen to agree with that. By the same token I would prefer people to look at Obama on sunstantive issues and less on "bitter" and "cling'.

Both candidates are ill served by journalists and columnists who have such a wonderful grasp of politics having never engaged in it. You all sound like the chap who tells a swimmer how to swim, never having done the same himself.

No: I am not saying you cannot comment or provide opinions. I am saying that until you stand there and listen to the tripe coming out of Gibson and George S you cannot imagine the exasperation of the candidates.

oh please. the takeaway from last nite's 'debate' was nothing to do with obama nor clinton. it was the disgraceful and insulting performances of the millionaire media puppets -- charlie gibson and wee george.

that they think the middle class is defined by a $250,000 annual income, confirms their clueless and utter isolation from the concerns of the majority of americans.

what an embarrassment -- but, mostly, what a contemptible display of american 'journalism'.

Worst. Debate. Yet.

Fine post, Joe.

I think Stephanopoulos and Gibson were doing what journalists do: they picked the most obvious scabs.

If that's what journalists do, and if, as Aristotle said, you are what you repeatedly do, then journalism is stupid.

Also, I think Paul no not that one and Florida are right. This is GOP-friendly territory, because it has nothing to do with anything that politicians do that affects people's lives.

McCain's schitck isn't substance, but the a caricature of character. He doesn't know whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shia, doesn't know much about economics, doesn't know what happens when you lower tax rates, thinks (or at least claims) that Brent Skowcroft wants to surrender Iraq to al Qaeda, etc.

If they want to have this debate about "elitism," let's talk about how McCain left his first wife, then a month after the divorce went through married a younger, wealthier woman who bankrolled his political career. Let's talk about his 2 million dollar third home in the resort town of Sedona.

Joe, I mostly agree with your analysis of the debate, though I lack the sympathy you have for the moderators. You make good points, though.

Joe-

I asked Jay Carney this yesterday and received no response. What would happen if you spoke to the annointed ones (Russert, Gibson, Steph, Matthews, et al) the way you wrote here? Would you not be invited back to their TV shows?

JoeCHi - of course we Obama partisans weren't happy with the debate - but do you honestly think those questions advanced the conversation about who would best serve the country? I wouldn't have been very much happier if they spent the debate playing gotcha with Hillary. Cmon, "do you love the flag?"

This debate was the best advertisement yet for why Iowa and New Hampshire need to continue to have the role they do. We can't count on the national media to present candidates or their positions to people who don't yet know them. This debate was a diservice to the American people.

And the voters, once again, are shown the press' understanding and interest in the issues affecting our lives is near the level of the National Enquirer. Is there any wonder why ratings keep falling?

I said this before in Karen's topic, but I feel I should make note of it again too here: in a quick scan of newspapers and such in hopes of finding something substantial on this train wreck, the only cogent critique I found was in the WaPo's STYLE section, out of ALL places. And David Brooks even went out of his way to gush over how great the debate his. Quoth:

We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.

He then went on to give grades: ABC - A. Clinton - B. Obama - D+.

If these are the debates pundits like Brooks are begging for, then we're in a worse state than we could ever hope.

It looks like Charlie Gibson has been smoking from George Gilder's stash.

Joe, I'm willing to give you more than just a microscopic amount of credit for at least having the courage to tackle this. Thank goodness Swampland is admitting, for once, what this really was: an embarassment and a travesty of a debate. Worst American debate ever.

Read the Shales piece. He's dead on and nailed this thing.

Also lack the sympathy you have for the moderators. They just did a terrible job. I know some people don't view it as one sided but when Charlie Gibson admits, 45 minutes in,

"This is becoming a little too one-sdied" that's a bad sign. It means they know they're doing a terrible job. Did they prep at all for this? For the love of God just watch what other moderators have done in the past. And if they can't do any better than this let PBS and Gwen Ifil have the debate. Geesh.

ABC's really gonna be surprised by just how angry and disappointed people are over this one.

It seems George and Charlie were sitting around before the debate thinking:
"Hmm, how can we bring doughnuts to McCain tonight?"
Looks like the figured it out.
"Issues be damned! We've got Doughnuts!"

McCain will have to live with the knowledge that in the most important business of his life, he chose expediency over honor. That's probably not the way he wants to be remembered.

Sigh.....

I can see that your among those not willing to fight your way out of the paper bag of McCain's virtue.

To recap: In the 2000 Campaign he rather sharply called out Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson referring to them "agents of intolerance" who were "corrupting influences"

In 2008 on the other hand he actively sought and then graciously accepted the endorsment of John Hagee who is needless to say rather famous as an agent of intolerance.

He speaks eloquently about the evils of torture but when it comes time to actually vote on the issue, he makes it a point to exempt the CIA from any restriction.

His gas-tax break will benefit fuel distributors more than consumers and let us not even begin to discuss the character flaws that are necessary in order to be an unfaithful spouse.

If your counting an John McCain to be honorable, I'd like to interest you in a bridge.

The Michael Grunwald piece is not bad, by the way. He even mentions Charlie Gibson's economic assumptions re: capital gains tax cuts. (Not surprising considering what we've heard from Gibson in the past.)

Joe Klein said:
And there is some value in seeing how Obama--the likely nominee--will handle Republican style attacks in the general election campaign, should they come. Last night he handled them fairly well, but not nearly as sharply as he could have. He stumbled about, at times.

But Joe, you ignore the awkwardness and difficulty that is inherent in responding to right wing attacks...when they're coming from a Democratic Senator from New York. Obama will be plenty sharp, once he's going against McCain and only McCain. It's hard to fight a three-front war (against McCain, Clinton, and the media), so I think you should manage your expectations a little better.

My take-away from the debate is that Clinton probably did herself more harm than good, by going along with the rightwing gotcha game. Obama looked solid enough, dignified and I think would have appealed more to the undecideds. The onscreen reaction during the debate suggested that he did fine, while Clinton had some clear negative reactions.

You hit it cfaller. It's also hard to respond to a 3 on 1 ambush, when you go out there expecting a Democratic debate and all of a sudden it's you versus your opponent and the moderators on the most trivial issues imaginable.

And someone does need to explain to Charlie Gibson this debate is not just about whether or not his stupid taxes get raised.

Bobo really disgraced himself with his "analysis" of the debate. Why not head over to Amazon and trash one of his books? It feels good to do that when a book-writing columnist writes something truly stupid.

Why is Stephanopoulos hosting on this debate.

The man owes his entire career to Bill Clinton and he is supposed to be a fair arbitrator.

It's funny how Joe is dismayed by Hillary's behavior during the campaign. It looks like the Clinton kool-aide is finnally starting to ware off on Joe Klein and the rest of his leftist media friends. How did they all not see this coming.

Now after a decade of media hyping and building up of Hillary's stature, these liberals are watching in horror as the Clinton's go "Tonya Harding" on the most inspiring Democratic politician in decades. I guess it's unfair now because they are no longer attacking republicans but thier own. If you don't think Hillary is hoping for a McCain victory over Obama in Decemeber you better get your head checked.

As for Joe's column, while everyone would like a substantive debate, I believe it is revealing that he states this would be doing the "democrats — and the nation — a great favor".

Notice which group he lists first.

Also Joe since you are against such pathetic gotcha questions such as Obamas flag pin and the reverened, Why don't you stop talking about how John McCain is going to keep us in iraq for 100 years. Oh yeah that's right, he is going to be president for 25 consecutive terms and is going to live to be in his 170's.

You liberals are just as guilty about these as conservatives are.

Forgive me if I'm not going to take advice on political ethics from a guy named "Mr. Albany". The New York State capital makes Washington DC look like a paragon of good government.

Do you work for Joe Bruno or Shelly Silver?

Welcome to Hillary's world! They treated Obama like they've treated Clinton for most of this campaign, and it was disappointing, unfair and generally pointless. And Joe is unfortunately wrong: pointing out the absurdity of the media's bias doesn't really help candidates; if it did, Clinton would already have won the nomination a couple of months ago.

Obama handled it very badly, especially for a general election audience (seriously, it's already April and it's hard to see how he could lose the nomination. This is the time to start focusing on the general), but it was probably better for this to happen now than in a debate with McCain. The weather underground answer in particular was very bad - maybe he didn't prepare for that one - and he seemed on the defensive the whole debate. Of course Gibson and Stephanopoulos made sure he was on the defensive, but he needs to work on his body language and speak more confidently so it doesn't look that way. This is the kind of thing Clinton has had to do for the past six months.

Clinton looked like she was enjoying not being the number one target in the debate. She did a great job at being very negative, but staying as likable as possible. She spoke softly and hesitantly when she was attacking him - like this was something she sincerely wished he didn't force her to do - and the 9/11 references were brilliant because they made it seem like she was motivated by her grief to speak out against Ayers and Wright. Of course it was taking advantage of the bias, but that's what Obama's been doing all through the campaign.

And for everyone out there who has been saying that the media is more biased against Obama than Clinton, this is what bias looks like. And you could see from Obama's face that he hasn't handled anything like this before. Let's hope he gets a lot better at it before he faces McCain. In fact, this debate really showed how much Obama needs Clinton to stay in the race: he is not ready for a one-on-one campaign against McCain and the MSM.

Good review, on both the pitiful job by ABC and the things Obama "should've" done.

I think James Poniewozik actually nailed it over at Tuned In.

http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/04/never_meta_debate_they_didnt_l.html

Bad debate all around. I have to say Joe, I do agree Obama could have been more...hmm, 'direct' in his responses. But I agree with stringer, cfaller96, and others here. In situations like last night, Obama comes across as not wanting to respond to such asinine questions. He said it in the beginning, they're pointless and are a disservice to the american public, but of course the MSM doesn't listen, and Hillary doesn't know how to debate otherwise.

Let's not pass the buck to the candidates. Why is someone like Hillary so appealing? Because your colleagues have slimed us with this inanity for decades, and we've been faced with a choice: a) FINALLY choose someone as trivial as the press is (Hillary) or b) Hope and pray that this time, the ground is shifted and this bunk just won't fly any more (Obama).

As a naive idealist, every election, I somehow convince myself that the ground has shifted out from under the horror of our national discourse, and that an Obama can lead us out of the darkness, but every election, I find those hopes dashed as Dowd inserts Obama into another "Dems are elitist" paint-by-numbers, and the press frames every question blindly accepting GOP narratives -- IN A DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTERS!!!

I voted for Obama, and watching this debate, it terrifies me that the media will do everything within its power to prevent any effort to rise out of the trash they feed on like rats.

"They asked trivial questions because this has become a trivial campaign" -- Joe Klein

This, for me, ranks right up there with Gibson's effort to pin the blame on Obama, in last night's debate, for the fact that questions "keep popping up" -- after HE popped them. It's like Maureen Dowd, touting her meager upbringing from her ivory tower, as she paints Obama as being corrupted, despite his meager upbringing, by his very efforts to insert himself in her social circle. It's got irony nearly as delish as Al Gore, in an interview purportedly about his book The Assault on Reason that asserts the modern media has lost the ability to discuss anything of substance, getting grilled about whether he was running for President.

We wouldn't need to look to a Hillary who can "play the game" if you were willing to let the rules conservative Washington has put in place. You wouldn't devote so much time to this nonsense aimed at someone like Obama, who naively hopes we can rise the level of our discourse, if you had the ability to look in a mirror.

It is clear your profession is incapable of changing, or learning, any more than the Bush Administration (amazing how DC seems to take on the personality failings of the President). We either have to try to change you from within, and sacrifice some of our dignity, or work around you and make you irrelevant.

I'm still hoping for the latter.

Everyone's talking about it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

I couldn't resist-Howie Kurtz gives his reasonable center right review of the debate.
"Liberal bloggers hated the debate,...I disagree. The first half hour was spent on Bittergate, Wright and Bosnia sniper fire--political issues, sure, but all received huge coverage in the media"

What a tool the nation's most famous media critic is.
http://tinyurl.com/6josvk

Paul-no -- please add that one to the list of the great media hypocricies.

I don't want any more debates, I want pistols at 30 paces. Let's end this m-f-er before we all go bananas.

The debate was an embarrassment. We get nothing but marshmallow-fluff from these debates and from mainstream media in general. Newsies are so dammed concerned with keeping our attention through the commercial break, or having their story get printed on the first page that they lose all focus on properly informing the public. Don't tell me what my opinion should be; give me facts, if opinion is presented state it as such, and let my filter work. The news has become a culture of alternating sensationalists and apologists where the bias of a reporter is more important than the topic covered and where participants justify it whenever one of their group is taken to task. Mr. Klein, while I appreciate the well thought out nature of your posts and subsequent discussions, you too are guilty of the later. To suggest, without derision, that picking obvious scabs is what journalists do and that the moderators ask trivial questions because Clinton and Obama have nearly identical positions is a cop-out, its lazy and serves to perpetuate inadequate reporting. Come-on, they should press the candidates to explain policy directives- and if they're similar, that's important to know too. Reading all of yesterday's posts (a big lump of nothing from the Swamp staff) and today's debate reaction has left me feeling empty. And you're netter then that, Mr. Klein.

I couldn't resist-Howie Kurtz gives his reasonable center right review of the debate.
"Liberal bloggers hated the debate,...I disagree. The first half hour was spent on Bittergate, Wright and Bosnia sniper fire--political issues, sure, but all received huge coverage in the media"

Don't you just love the circular logicon display here? The questions were worthy issues that are deserving of media coverage and scrutiny. Why? Because they got coverage in the media, of course!

Isn't this the same crap excuse peddled by Politico about why Edward's hair cut was so worthy of attention?

I've been consistently impressed with Joe Klein's work recently. The occasional call for someone to muzzle Bill notwithstanding (really, who hasn't wanted to muzzle Bill at some point?), they've been - even when I disagree with them - substantive, judicious, and worth reading (in contrast with some of the drivel his fellow bloggers here have been spouting).

His column on the coming campaign and McCain's choice is also quite good, although I think he is missing (or just hasn't addressed) a looming crisis for McCain. Like Klein, I have noticed the signals from McCain that he is looking for a serious, substance-driven campaign. This probably is something he truly wishes he could do - it is the way he presented himself in the 2000 primary, and it is a much better image than, say, your average Republican official has right now after eight disastrous years of the Bush administration. But there has been a lot of blood that has gone under the bridge since then - his endorsement of and complicity in that mis-rule, his pandering to the religious right after (justly) denouncing them in 2000, and his contortions and distortions on the issues of torture and domestic spying, for example. McCain would clearly like everyone to set all that aside and let him run on his old "Maverick" "Straight Talk" platform, and just as clearly his "base" - not the Republican base, but the press - would like to let him do it. But between Democrats who want a plebiscite on the Bush years (and can you blame them?) and Republicans who think McCain is a closet commie, the electorate probably won't let him. At some point, he'll be faced with the choice - does he want to go substantive and probably lose (as that terrain favors the Democrat this year), or will he embrace the dark side, go negative and preach the gospel of God, Guns and Gays, which gives him his (frankly) better chance of winning?

My guess is he will be pushed by the Republican establishment, which does not trust him, to go that route shortly after the Democratic primary is finally history, in part to prove his loyalty. If he refuses, the Republican base (which has a few more votes than the press) will sit on their hands - and McCain will need all the enthusiasm from them he can get if he's to win in November. When that push comes, McCain will be faced with the same choice he faced in 2000 - does he want to stay true to his principles or does he want to be President someday? Will he decide to try to gain the whole world or would he rather keep his soul? And, while I hope I'm wrong, if 2000 is any indication, he will go with option A - sellout.

Then the question will be, how will his "base" react to that? Will we continue to see "towering" pieces biased toward McCain, making excuses for him and believing, against all evidence, that he is still the "Maverick" of 2000? Or will they wake up, and realize the coffee and doughnuts are now stale, old, and bitter?

Meme-Kutz never fails to disappoint.
From his not disclosing his wife's affiliation with the Arnold Schwarzenegger campaign to his blind eye to his two employers CNN and The Post.

Paul-NNTO - Don't forget his insistence on Glenn Beck's show that even if Fox News might lie about the news (of course, the idea was couched in a 'hypothetical'), they're entitled to do so as much as they damn well please.

DOn't forget, too, that he was beating the biggest drum about Obama getting soft media attention. So I'm sure this is just peachy keen for him.

Hey Tom T

That's is Albany Oregon to you

just kidding, you're right about the Capitol City and to anser your question I actually have three jobs. Elliot Spiter's pimp, Mrs. Hevesi's driver and Gov Patterson's coke dealer.

Those debate moderators knew in exactly what order they were going to ask the questions...and they set up a debate that allowed Hillary Clinton extra time during the substantive questions in the second half while making Obama defend himself against the tabloid questions in the first half.

ABC has lost all credibility. Whoever designed the above hit job should be fired from his own. There's a fine future for him in the tabloid blogosphere.

Worst. Debate. Ever. It is simply sad to see the once highly-respected ABC pull off shenanigans like that. Peter Jennings would have never put on such a poor performance (RIP). I didn't always agree with everything he said or did, but he was competent. What we observed, or if one were lucky didn't, was a chasm of incompetence unbounded in depth and with breadth as great as the Grand Canyon. If the media has run out of issues or they are just fatigued, then cover something else. Go home, get some rest, and come back when you've got something good and constructive to add. Until then, that type of performance is harming the country, it is anti-American and reflects poorly upon the profession (if one would dare be so brave as to call it that).

If you expect that John McCain will raise the tenor of the general election then you have way too much faith in the guy.

As soon as McCain starts losing he'll lose his temper and if he doesn't start hitting below the belt, he'll have surrogates do it for him.

Or will they wake up, and realize the coffee and doughnuts are now stale, old, and bitter?

The self-perpetuating nature of denial suggests that there will be no waking up unless something utterly earthshattering happens. Certainly, if the current CiC can deliberately misidentify our enemies and our prospective one is indicating his intention to continue that tradition, and not one word of correction or doubt is to be found in the press coverage, certainly a significant quantity of other misstatments and confusion will be equivalently hidden in plain sight.

After all, it's not like he called anyone a rube or anything....

I was wondering why no one had mentioned Gibson's nice job 4 years ago. When Kerry accused him of doing the RNC's job for them.
Here is a transcript starring Kurtz and AMC. Classic.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/02/rs.00.html

While there were all those dumb questions, it isn't as though they were a surprise. And, they are the things that lower information voters actually hear most. I was surprised that Obama did so poorly responding to them. He should have sentences about flag pins, Rev. Wright, "bitter" that roll off this tongue with no hesitation and no thought. (Noticed that the great patriot John McCain didn't have one on at the Hardball College Tour nor at the White House -- no one seems to care about him!)

All those questions should have been utterly predictable. In situations like last night, Obama comes across as not wanting to respond to such asinine questions. He better get over that, because it doesn't make him look good.

I thought he did well to use the "bake cookies" meme. However, when he mentioned that Pres. Clinton had pardoned two members of the weather underground, which was worse than sitting on a board with one many years later, it blunted her reference, but on the other hand, she wasn't the President and she didn't pardon them. I hope we aren't into a world where no woman who is or has been married can ever be elected President.

I was also surprised that he was so at sea in response to the capital gains question. It applies less directly to everyone who has mutual funds, as well as people who own individual securities. Obama didn't answer the question at all at first, then seemed utterly unclear about what he was talking about. Hillary was able to respond to that one.

As Rose said, "They treated Obama like they've treated Clinton for most of this campaign, and it was disappointing, unfair and generally pointless." One analyst on the radio said that if voters judge on these "character" issues, John McCain will win. Obama and Clinton better get up to speed.

McCain will not raise the tenor. He'll pull the same old Rovian crap, and the press will do the spinning for him, starting with a column by Nicholas Kristof on how "refreshing" McCain's Swiftboating attacks are because he's so uncomfortable when he lies. Or, Johnny's base will just fall for it when Mc repeats Bush's trick of denouncing 507's or something while his surrogates do the dirty work. Remember, the Swiftboat Vets were "unaffiliated" with the Bush campaign, as they will be to McCain, who will also raise the level of our discourse by distancing himself from his underground campaign.

McCain doesn't need to "spin". That's the press's job. After all, he cooked them BBQ.

I have to agree with those who have noted the double standard when it comes to Obama and HRC.

HRC gets accused of being whiny when she complains about the media in a debate but the press rushes in to defend Obama when he takes some heat.

just kidding, you're right about the Capitol City and to anser your question I actually have three jobs. Elliot Spiter's pimp, Mrs. Hevesi's driver and Gov Patterson's coke dealer.

How come you're not breeding horses for Joe Bruno?

the press rushes in to defend Obama when he takes some heat.

Theres a war on, people are dying on a daily basis. The economy is tanking. People are losing their homes on a daily basis. The separation of powers that define our government and preserve our freedom are being deliberately eroded.

Asking someone about why they were seen in the same room as a 60's radical is not providing heat. It's desparately changing the subject.

And it's working like a charm......

(McCain)wants to have a substantive debate about the war-JK

"McCain: “If we do what Senator Clinton said that she wanted to do night before last, and that’s wave the white flag of surrender and set a date for withdrawal, then we will have expenses, my friends, in American blood and treasure, because Al Qaida will then have won."
1-24-08

"I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it's the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda."
5-25-07

“If we surrender and wave a white flag like Senator Clinton wants to do and withdraw as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos,” Mr. McCain said to reporters
1-27-08

Frankly, I'm happy to know that the most pressing issue in the country is Charlie Gibson's taxes and stock portfolio.

"More whining from Obamabot Kool-Aid drinking "journalists" like Joe.

It's HILARIOUS that the media, both new and old, are in such an uproar over the debate. Clearly, it's due to the fact that aren't used to seeing Obama receive any level of serious scrutiny.

Snap outta it!

I say it's about time the media stopped coddling The Precious!"

...

I'm voting for YOU, Truthinessezzezzer.

tom T:

I fly Joe Bruno's helicopter when he fundraises on official state business.

Yes, when libsurgent Thing 1 & Thing 2 IS again exposed as TERRORIST CODDLING WEATHER VANES it IS indeed a sad day for Jihad Joe and the rest of the Paid Speech Set infesting the Metro tubes near Soggy Bottoms.

And does America really need to see Chessley's ugly mug -- there, I said IS -- every 3 seconds, when herd idiot Mammy's mid-flipflop for the day? IS that going to help anyone's hemp cereal digestion, or hemp powered PC playtime, or hemp dress selection, or hemp candidate chances?

= HEMP HEMP HOORAY =

Paul Dirks - yeah, I suspect you're right. Hope you're not, though. Maybe Klein will take a pledge not to drink the coffee (a better metaphor than Kool-Aid, in this case, don't you think?).

Pelosi Peace Dividend:

AFRICA STARVES FROM ECO-TERRORIST ECONOMIC DISASTER, LIBS BLAME ABC NEWS.

But by all means, let's keep mowing down corn to meet the growing Red Chinese automotive demand.

Mike M. - "If you expect that John McCain will raise the tenor of the general election then you have way too much faith in the guy."

I'm not quite an atheist on McCain, but as agnostics go I'm pretty hardcore. I have a sense that he'd prefer to run a substantive campaign, he'd like to be that guy, but in the end I suspect he'll decide he just can't afford his principles. Sort of like the first wife.

See, that right there demonstrates McCain's problem - the "first wife" shot is a bit below the belt, but it was too good for me to resist, 'cause I want to be President of the Funny someday. So I feel McCain's pain, here.

"At some point, he'll be faced with the choice - does he want to go substantive and probably lose (as that terrain favors the Democrat this year), or will he embrace the dark side, go negative and preach the gospel of God, Guns and Gays, which gives him his (frankly) better chance of winning?" - Billiecat, good analysis. What makes me so convinced that Obama won't beat McCain is that he keeps turning the debate away from substantive issues; He's letting McCain get away with appearing to not choose the dark side. Wright, Michelle Obama's proud comments, and now the bitter/cling comments are all helping McCain consolidate his base without even having to alienate Independents and Reagan Democrats. No doubt the 527s ads will start when Clinton drops out, and they will be effective with Independents like the Swift Boat ads were. McCain will talk about how he deplores the ads and wants to close the campaign financing loophole that allows them, and because of McCain-Feingold and the MSM's glowing coverage of McCain's character, courage, and integrity, a lot of people will believe him.

Right now the Obama campaign is doing a better job at helping McCain than even Rove could do.

The level of liberal loathing this fine American day means ABC must have really done a number exposing the FRAUDS running as Thing 1 & Thing 2 towards their now inevitable lefty loon defeat to McCain in November.

Just another reason to shorten these stupidly long, costly, and sneering campaigns, and get back to the business of running the free world.

The real deal highlight of the night was seeing Wezzley Quark sitting in the cheap seats, while Hillary rattled on about her brave insertion into Bosnia. Oh sweet sassy molassy, you can't buy better stunning, stunted satire than that.

= COMEDY ACCOMPLISHED =

I would love to hear Joe's insight into George Stephanopoulos' conflict of interest.

Rose -

I hate to break it to you, but Obama will be the Democratic candidate. I'm not carrying water for Obama here, I'm just being realistic. He will have the most pledged delegates going into the convention and the superdelegates will not overturn the choice of the primary voters. It just won't happen. Last night, Clinton herself conceded he could win the general - "yes, yes, yes" - and the only reason for the supers to overturn the pledged delegates is because the stupid voters picked a dark horse that can't win (and yes, I said "dark horse" intentionally - because that's what the arguments against Obama really boil down to, don't they?).

Obama can beat McCain, however, by keeping the field of battle on substance - Iraq and the economy. People do not want four more years of Bush and that's really what McCain is selling. I also believe he is better positioned than Clinton with respect to fending off the same old smear tactics, when they arrive, by virtue of the higher road approach he's taken and because he will better be able to exploit McCain's own lingering desire to do the right thing. Look how well he's fended off Clinton's attacks - maybe not perfectly, but he's survived - and that was when he was dealing with a fellow Democrat whose constituency he has to keep at least reasonably favorable towards him. When he goes up against McCain, his right arm won't be tied behind his back.

Obama was not my first choice for a candidate. I did not expect him to do this well. He'd never been in a national campaign and it's that experience - not the 3 a.m. B.S. - that I figured would make him drop out eventually. I thought the choice would be between Clinton and Edwards (as the anti-Clinton), after Iowa. Obama's proved that analysis wrong. In fact, he's run the best campaign of any of the Democratic candidates and has a better grasp of the electorate this year than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. The best word on this came from John Edward's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, who said just before the Iowa caucus, talking about turnout - "[a]nybody who tells you this thing gets up to 220,000, that's some number of people who've never participated in this thing. It'd be an incredible thing to see if it happened, and more power to the candidate who pulled that off." And Obama pulled it off. More power to him.

I like Clinton and if she had been the nominee, I'd have voted for her (my first choice, I admit, was Edwards). I have no problem with her staying in the race all the way to Denver, either, if that's what she chooses to do (although I wish she'd stop using Republican talking points like a kidney punch when Obama can't retaliate because he still needs Democratic unity after the convention). But the reality is, barring an unforeseen occurrence about as likely as the sun rising in the west, it's over and Obama has won the nomination.

Rose: She did a great job at being very negative...

How sad is it that you feel going negative is a good thing, Rose? Wouldn't you like political discourse in this country to be better than what was on display last night?

What makes me so convinced that Obama won't beat McCain is that he keeps turning the debate away from substantive issues..

And back here on Earth, whether you wear a flag pin on your lapel or not doesn't qualify as a 'substantive issue'...and the concern trolling over how the Repubs are gonna rake a Dem candidate over the coals in the general election is getting rather stale, dontcha think?

...

Anyway, the debate was horrendous; Stephanopoulous needs to take some time off to be with his family, and Gibson took a page out of Tweety's playbook and kept interrupting the candidates. Obama wasn't great under fire - too much thinking about what his response to the bludgeoning was gonna be, not enough ready answers. Hillary was more ready with canned responses, but talked around the Tuzla question when she was first asked.

In other words, the debate last night did nothing to show me who would be the better President.

"...Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois and a fixture on the liberal edges of Chicago's political scene. As such, it is hardly surprising that one local meet'n'greet, when Obama was beginning his run for the Illinois state senate took place at Ayers' house. The two men also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for a time. Ayers, however, is also a former member of the Weather Underground, and remains unapologetic about that organisation's crimes..."

...

Not only do I question Obama's judgment, I question his American citizenship.

Klein considers questions about basic judgment as "trivial" during the age of terrorism.

Obama's become the Michael Jordan of the DNC: Don't touch Barack, he's the franchise!

It was a journalistic 9/11. I was hoping Obama would go bigger in calling out those 2 dancing monkey's for the banality of their questions. Someone said a few weeks ago that this campaign wouldn't be Obama vs McCain, but rather Obama vs the MSM, and that was spot on.

The good thing for Obama is that the MSM has the lowest of approval ratings in this country, lower than Bush, lower than congress...maybe lower than pedophiles, haven't checked recently. I think for the first time in American history, a candidate might get himself elected by going after the news media. BTW ABC news is no longer taking calls.

Tom, there is no way McCain will elevate the debate.

Even if McCain and Obama step back and allow their surrogates to do the dirty work, sooner or later something will get said that demands a strong response from one or the other or both of the two men.

Call me a partisan, but I honestly believe Obama and HRC are driven by their view of what America should be and that's why they're running for president, that's what fuels their campaign.

But McCain just wants to be president, he seems to look any kind of vision for what our future should hold.And we know McCain is obsessed with "winning".

"But I think Stephanopoulos and Gibson were doing what journalists do: they picked the most obvious scabs. They asked trivial questions because this has become a trivial campaign--mostly because Clinton and Obama have nearly identical positions on most issues. "

Joe, do you REALLY think that's what journalists do? Pick the most obvious scabs? Huh? And if they DO do that, is that what you think they ought to do?
This is NOT a trivial campaign. That just shows how out of touch you are. Maybe you haven't noticed that this campaign is going on into MAY, almost unheard of these days? That state primaries which have never before mattered might now determine the outcome? That many millions of Democratic voters are paying close attention and making important distinctions between these two candidates, and yes, on the ISSUES? For example, I'm for Clinton because I think her healthcare policy is more feasible and useful. My husband is for Obama because he thinks he'll do a better job getting us out of Iraq. Those are not trivialities... except, apparently, to the media.

Please TRY to think as deeply as your commenters, who aren't, you know, getting paid to think and write, though I think several ought to be. :)

Why does Klein's column repeatedly use the French "accent aigu" over the word "elitism"?

That seems kind of out-of-touch and elitist...

Frieda - I like your response but I have to question your take on Clinton's health care plan. Do you now know her record with health care? You might want to take a look at it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan. I'm not trying to offend you, but seriously, one of her main points is to have HMOs run the plans!

"And there is some value in seeing how Obama--the likely nominee--will handle Republican style attacks in the general election campaign..."

cfaller and stringer haver already touched on this, but I just want to add that Obama's performance last night actually gave us no insight into how he will respond to Republican attacks in the GE. He was at a tactical disadvantage in that if he had gone at Hillary full tilt, he would run the risk of alienating Dems he will need in the general. He was forced to fight with one hand behind his back essentially, and he did it reasonably well. The really sad thing is that Hillary is campaigning as though she has nothing to lose by going completely negative. But there is much for her to lose, both personally and for the party. I find her inability to grasp this rather shocking.

It's hard to know what was driving the vapidity of the questions, but I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. Either they were trying to prove to the Faux news watchers that they were not guilty of "liberal media bias" or they decided that no matter what, they would not be the subject of a Saturday Night Live parody. OK, a third. They are just morons.

Lapel Pin Patriot = False Patriot

billiecat,

I don't think Clinton can win the nomination - which explains my reference to "when Clinton drops out."

"and yes, I said "dark horse" intentionally - because that's what the arguments against Obama really boil down to, don't they?" - Actually that's not what they boil down to. Of course there are some people who are basically saying that Clinton and/or Obama are unelectable because of their gender and race respectively, but that's not my argument against Obama's electability. Although as I've said before, both Clinton and Obama are walking a tightrope in this campaign, and I do believe that Wright severely damaged Obama's chances in November. And it would be the same thing if Clinton had spent her Sundays for 20 years with a radical feminist like Andrea Dworkin. Frankly, it's unfair to use the Wright controversy to suggest that racism is a bigger problem than sexism - and I'm not saying you're doing that, but there are many Obama supporters who are - when Clinton would have as big or bigger problems if she had been as close to a radical feminist.

But Obama's problems go far beyond Wright. His biggest problem is that he's helping McCain make the election about social values. And that's a losing election for any Democrat, black, white, male or female. And, to be honest, it is inaccurate, unhelpful and very frustrating when people like you - who really know better - suggest that any reference to Obama's electability problems relates to his race (the same is true of Clinton supporters who say similar things about her gender). John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton would all have lost many votes in a general election if they made the bitter/cling comments.

Basically, Obama and Clinton both face a lot of prejudice in this campaign, and it would hurt either of them in November. But they both face other problems that have nothing to do with race or gender. Obama's bitter/cling comments are an example of those problems.

"Obama can beat McCain, however, by keeping the field of battle on substance - Iraq and the economy." - That may be true, but he's not staying focused on substance. And that is what my argument boils down to.

grape_crush, you completely misunderstood my comments. The flag pin debate was ridiculous, and my point was that Michelle Obama's proud comments and Obama's bitter/cling comments help turn the debate to meaningless issues like accessorizing. And the Republicans will win if the focus is moved to meaningless issues. Also, are you seriously suggesting that Obama hasn't been doing exactly what Clinton was doing last night when she subtly attacked Obama while trying to hold onto the high ground? He's run his entire campaign that way.

Please, Joe, you're a fair guy. Don't you think the sudden concern with trivia in debates coincides quite neatly with it being directed mostly at Obama this time? The previous debates, especially those hosted by MSNBC and later mocked by SNL, aimed most of their fire at Hillary. I didn't hear a lot of complaints then. So, I think Obama supporters in the public and the media should do some soul searching and ask themselves what made this debate appreciably worse than all the others. If it's not the fact of more trivia, or more stupid questions, than before, then there's only one other conclusion to draw: their guy got the Hillary treatment for a change. And they didn't like it.

http://billayers.wordpress.com/biography-history/

http://education.uic.edu/directory.cfm?page=faculty_info&netid=bayers

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008/04/13/end-the-war/#comment-2578

A Better World for Better Blogging.

Rose - the electorate doesn't seem to agree with you on the "bitter/cling" comment. Many of the good people of Pennsylvania probably had the same reaction I did - "heck, yeah, I'm bitter." And I don't follow your argument that Obama is "helping McCain make the election about social values" and not staying focussed on Iraq and the economy. Right now he's in the primary, campaigning against a woman whose position on Iraq and the economy are pretty much the same as his (except for that vote thing, but that's old news these days). If you want him to focus on John McCain, you might consider asking Clinton to get out of the way. And what are these "social issues" anyway? Maybe you are correct that the "electability" card does not equal the race card, but they sure do sound alike. And, I'm sorry, the character assassination of Jeremiah Wright based on snippets of his sermons is about race. You really should know better. If you don't, see this column of Lanny Davis's (of all people!) for a more nuanced view:

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/04/12/civil-dialogue-on-the-issue-of-the-rev-wright/

Bottom line, though - isn't it time to say "yes, yes, yes" on the electability issue? If you agree with me that Obama will be the nominee, why continue to argue he is unelectable, unless you don't want him elected?

Joe, re: the print column -- Does Time supply the knee pads? Do you just close your eyes and think of your paycheck? Is there any McCain load you won't swallow whole? Do you actually sleep at night and look at yourself in the mirror?

Everyday I thank God I'm not you...

I agree with Joe and all the non-Rusty people about the moderators. I have a bit of a different take on the candidates' performances. (Full disclosure - I am for Obama, but he was my 4th choice and I'm hardly a partisan.)

I thought the candidates did fairly well, considering the circumstances. I thought Obama did a good job briefly addressing each of the scandals, but then focussing on the message that we need to stop getting distracted by trivia. His biggest stumble was on the guns and religion comment. He caught himself just before saying something that would have been used as a soundbite. Don't know if that can be used against him effectively or not.

I didn't think Clinton did all that much attacking. She may very well have, if the moderators hadn't done it for her, but she didn't. She did try to sneak in one attack right before a commercial break, which I thought was pretty underhanded. I'm totally confused by her Bosnia response, which sounded like she admitted she lied, but was trying not to. But enough about the trivia.

I liked Obama's tax answer. Not sure if the general public will buy into the moderators' gotcha on it, but what he really said he stands for I like, and if people understood what he said, I think they'll like it too. That's a big if. Question for you on capital gains taxes. When capital gains rates go down, short term revenues go up because many sell to take advantage of the rate. When capital gains rates go up, shouldn't revenues also go up for the same reason? Provided there is warning, wouldn't people sell before the new rate takes effect?

I honestly thought Clinton did well with a couple of the issues. I'm against gun control for one. I found her take on registration versus restriction more sensible.

So I guess my main message is that they were in a hard place. Most journalists seem to be saying the moderators sucked, but the candidates still should have done better. I think the moderators sucked, but the candidates did well. In particular, I thought Barack did a good job addressing the unfair questions, making the narrative about not getting distracted, and doing it all without getting preachy or angry.

isu, I'm for a universal mandate as they have in Canada and most European countries. That works-- it's what we have for Social Security, and it's what has worked in those other countries. Obama's for "universal access" which might not work as well as the young and healthy opting out could make it much more expensive.

Clinton's 1993 health care plan was trying to split the difference and pacify the insurance companies. I didn't much like it then, but it was a start. Fifteen years later, I am pretty sure it would have evolved into a good plan, if it had been enacted then. But instead, they caved into the Repubs' scaremongering about HRC, about HMOS, about all sorts of junk, and things are worse than ever.

So I figure whatever plan is enacted is going to be just a preliminary, and we have to know that. (Same with Obama-- he has to deal with the same realities.) The president and Congress will have to deal with those insurance companies who won't want to give up their profits, and so I figure the first plan enacted will have lots of bennies for them, and then they're going to end up opting out (because there will be no profits probably with universal access), and then the government will probably just take over the whole insurance thing. And then we'll end up with a national health system, which is what would please me most (not that I'm important :). But I figure that the first bill won't be anywhere close to perfect, whether it starts with President Clinton (2) or President Obama. But either of them will end up pushing through something that in a few years, will evolve into a decent system.

The one thing I'm quite sure of, if it's President McCain, we won't get any universal at all. "Free market," yeah, right. That's what we have now.

Rose: And the Republicans will win if the focus is moved to meaningless issues.

So it's Obama's fault that Clinton and the Repubs are manufacturing 'controversy' from meaningless issues.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that Obama hasn't been doing exactly what Clinton was doing last night when she subtly...

Subtly? Clinton's poor argument that the Repubs are gonna smear Obama while she has already been 'pre-smeared' wasn't subtle.

...attacked Obama while trying to hold onto the high ground? He's run his entire campaign that way.

Examples, please, and not ones that are responses to being attacked.

..you completely misunderstood my comments.

Sigh. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you, Rose.

All of the candidates say things that can be sound-bitten and taken out of context, particularly in a long campaign like this one. All of the candidates will have meaningless issues made out of those interpretations, except John "Free Ride" McCain.

But you know what? If you want your fear of what the Republican noise machine will do in the general dictate who you support, go right ahead...that's not me, 'tho.

"If you agree with me that Obama will be the nominee, why continue to argue he is unelectable, unless you don't want him elected?" - Billiecat, I'm just someone posting on a blog, so I don't feel the need to edit myself and put on a positive front when I believe that Obama is going to lose to McCain. I'd be lying if I said otherwise, and I really don't think my comments are changing the outcome of this election.

Right now if Clinton dropped out, Obama would probably be up by around ten points over McCain within a couple of weeks, but then the attacks will start, and because he is so badly prepared to deal with them he'll probably be down by ten points against McCain in the next couple of weeks. Right now the Republicans can't start their 527 attacks on Obama, because the Superdelegates can still vote for Clinton. So the question really is whether Obama is better off being weakly attacked by both Clinton and McCain, or strongly attacked by just McCain. I think the former is a better option. Obviously he will have to face the 527/Rove attacks eventually, but he needs to be better prepared if he's going to have any chance in November. Last night's debate made that pretty obvious. And Clinton's presence is giving him more time to prepare, and it's not stopping him from focusing on the general because many of her voters - Hispanics, Reagan Democrats, etc. - are swing voters.

I've written a lot about the Wright thing, so I don't want to bore everyone by repeating myself. But to briefly summarize my position: I agree with 95% of what Wright said - as I've said on another thread I'm way to the left of both Clinton and Obama - but his comments on 9/11, AIDS, and Al Qaeda were unacceptable. Also, the argument that those comments are unrepresentative of Wright relies on some very weak logic. I don't know about you, but I'd never release a DVD that included the stupidest things I've said. And since Wright is clearly a very intelligent and well-educated man, I'm not going to cut him any slack for his ignorance on AIDS and other matters. In addition, I am disappointed by Obama's misleading statements on Wright. Frankly, his interviews on the subject have been very Bill Clintonesque. Unsurprisingly, almost no one agrees with my thinking on the nuances of this subject; People tend to absolutely defend Obama's relationship with Wright, or condemn all of Wright's harsh criticisms.

I doubt that any attack on Clinton or Obama can be entirely separate from sexism and racism respectively, because they will be viewed through that prism. For example, the (valid) criticism of Clinton's Iraq war vote often includes references to her ambition. That reference to her ambition is fair, but of course it reinforces sexist stereotypes of female politicians. Yet many people are able to fairly look at the candidates without having their opinions distorted by prejudice. And some of those people may disagree with Obama's bitter/cling comments.

Also, obviously most people are not going to vote on the basis of the bitter/cling comment. But if even a few hundred thousand evangelical swing state voters decide to go out and vote even though they really don't like McCain, that could easily decide the election. And that is not anywhere near a worst case scenario.

grape_crush, unfortunately the Obama campaign and many Obama supporters seem to be unclear on the difference between talking about running a positive campaign and actually running a positive campaign. The Obama campaign's misleading mail ads, constant attacks on Clinton's character and continued reliance on McPeak to play the gender card are not consistent with their we-want-to-rise-above-divisions rhetoric. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Clinton campaign has been more positive than the Obama campaign; I'm just saying they're less hypocritical.

"And back here on Earth, whether you wear a flag pin on your lapel or not doesn't qualify as a 'substantive issue'" - That's what made me think you misunderstood my comments. Obviously I don't think that accessorizing is a substantive issue.

last time, when you claimed Obama "won" the Ohio debate, you were on here with a post like half a minute after the debate ended... I think the Obama-lovin media didn't like the way Obama performed, so they blamed the debate, the format, and the network....

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Clinton campaign has been more positive than the Obama campaign; I'm just saying they're less hypocritical. Posted by Rose | April 17, 2008 4:40 PM

This is finally the mud in your face that the democrats deserve. You all scream for an "issues" debate, but through out this entire campaign it has all been about "gotcha" politics. Now the tables were turned on the so-called "annointed one", and everyone is all up in arms. What do you expect from a totally inexperienced candidate, untested, and runs on purely far left liberal ideals? Then on the other foot is a candidate who carries so much baggage, all the botox in Texas would not get rid of it all.

So much for your feeble attempts at defeating McCain in November. You will all be battling this until the cows finally come home in the fall.

Anyone for some Arugula???

Rev Wright / Obama '08, WRONG for America!!!!

RustyDog, have you considered transcending puberty at some point? You are simply the most boring, trivial asinine windbag on this board, and if you would kindly fall off a cliff, I'd pay to have your remains shipped to some sort of detox center.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
منتديات برامج نت - 70 - ثيمات -
خلفيات - العاب الجوال - ثيم رومنسي مهند ونور -
ثيم مهند وهو حاضن نور - ثيمات رومانسية للبنوتات -
ثيمات رومانسية بنات - ثيمات حب حلوة -
ثيم مهند التركي - ثيم نور -
ثيم حب نور ومهند - ثيم مسلسل لوست -
ثيمات افلام ومشاهير - ثيم نور ومهند -ثيمات لميس -
ثيمات مسلسل نور -ثيم مهند ونور -
ثيمات رومانسيه -ثيمات E61 -
ثيمات بنات رومنسيه -ثيم سنوات الضياع -
ثيمات طبيعية -ثيمات N92 -
ثيمات للبنات2008 -ثيمات N95 -
ثيمات نوكيا -ثيمات n80 -ثيمات n93 -
ثيمات اطفال -ثيمات منوعة -تصميم ثيمات -
ثيمات بنات -ثيمات طبيعة -ثيمات كرتون -
ثيمات بنات N73 -العاب نوكيا -
ثيمات رومنسية نوكيا - ثيمات الجيل الثالث -
23 - 23-p-3 - 23-p-6 -
نغمات -برامج نوكيا -برامج جوال -
برامج نوكيا N73 -نغمات -
برامج الجيل الثالث -العاب جوال -العاب نوكيا -
ثيمات2008 -نوكيا n95 -
نغمات ماجد المهندس -ماسنجر8 للجوال -الحارس الذكي n73 -نغمات عربي -نغمات MP3 -ماسنجر للجوال -65 - 65-p-3 -
65-p-5 -65-p-7 -رسائل جوال -مسجات </