Romney on Bhutto's death

Posted: Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:28 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Security, Romney

From NBC/NJ's Erin McPike
NASHUA, NH -- After retail stop at Norton's Diner here, Romney made the following statement on Bhutto's death in Pakistan. "We have all heard with great alarm and concern the reports of additional tragedy in Pakistan. At this stage, there are conflicting reports about whether Madame Bhutto has been killed or not. But there is, of course, the very risk that she has been killed," he said.

"This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism. We don't know who is responsible for this attack but there is no question that the violence we see throughout the world is violence which is not limited to Iran, excuse me, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- but is more global in nature. And this type of loss of life points out again the need for our nation and other civilized nations of the West and of the civilized world to come together to support moderate Islamic leaders, moderate Islamic people -- to help them in their effort to reject the violent and the extreme. The world is very much at risk by virtue of these radical violent extremists, and we must come together in an effort in great haste and with grat earnestness to help overcome the threat of the spread of radical, violent Jihad."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Jake & Carol Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM)

It all sounds good until you realize she was probably killed either by forces of President Musharraf or by the Islamic radicals that he refuses to do anything about. Hundreds of millions of dollars in Pakistan have made the regime LESS friendly to democracy and radical Islam, not more.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM)

Bhutto's assination just goes to show us how dangerous the world has become, and all we have is the Shrub and Condi. Does anyone besides me have that sinking feeling. Wonder what the stumblebum will have to say in his news conference, I sure hope it will be something of substance rather than cowboy diplomacy.

beaverdambob (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:44 AM)

Bhutto was encouraged by the Clintons to return to Pakistan. A female Pakistani president would pave the way for Hillary's presidency.
We need John Edwards in the White House!!!

Margaret, NYC (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:46 AM)

Our hearts and prayers go out to her family and to those who wish her well. Let's all pray that the situation in Pakistan is resolved with great patience but with great resolve towards peace.

Jarod, Raleigh, NC (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:47 AM)

Response to Jake & Carol Brady, Salem, NH:

<<If Clinton was qualified and experianced enough she would have been the first to comment on this tragedy. She didn't and she isn't. A Republican did. The safety of this country is foremost, and having a woman for President now is not a wise choice. The terrorists have no respect or value for the female gender. Safety first.
Jake & Carol Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM)>>

What a moronic thing to say. First of all Romney didn't even know if Bhutto was dead or alive, but was the FIRST to shill in front of the TV to get maximum exposure out of a tragedy he had little to no facts to go on.

Perhaps our next President, Hillary Clinton was waiting to get all the facts so she could issue an intelligent, coherent statement and not cash in on the murder of another country's candidate before she was pronounced dead.

Now wait, tomorrow he'll say that he never said that or that he was misunderstood. Those pesky varmint reporters.

Paul, NY, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:49 AM)

A very good time for the US to shut the hell up and butt out beyond condolences and wreaths. The ill will we have generated in that region over the last few years can only throw gasoline onto the fire

Marvin, Flippin, AR (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:56 AM)

A great woman was killed today.

Benazir Bhutto, the first woman to lead a Muslim nation, who had returned to Pakistan from exile less than two months ago, was assassinated by a homicide bomber along with over a dozen of her supporters.

She had returned to lead her political party and to try to restore democracy and the rule of law in the country that she loved, braving the resistance of the ruling party and numerous death threats including an assassination attempt on the day she returned to Pakistan.

This is a dark day for the people of Pakistan and freedom loving people everywhere.
As we begin the process of choosing a new leader for our nation, we should take a moment to be grateful that the battles we fight here are with words and not guns or bombs, that whatever the invective or insult, our battles take place on the page and not in the streets, that while we cry for change we do not cry for blood.
The death by violence of a leader is not unknown to us and the repercussions of assassination can still be felt decades after the fact, as the deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy have shown. Madame Bhutto was, to her followers, a figure of that stature, and her loss will impact the politics and history of Pakistan for many, many years to come.

Our hearts are with the Bhutto family, the people of Pakistan and freedom loving people everywhere in sympathy for the loss of a great woman, a brave leader who risked and ultimately gave her all for the country she loved.

Van

PS- Jake & Carol, making who comes out with a message of sympathy, and making even that political is despicable.

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:56 AM)

This should really be a turning point in America's relations with Musharraf. We have clearly supported him, while at the same time we have supported the process of turning Pakistan into a democracy. This effort was spearheaded by Bhutto and Sharif.

Whether or not Musharraf directly ordered this attack is somewhat irrelevent. He is using marshal law to stay in power. He got his power in a political coup. He refuses to hand the country's military power over to democratically elected leaders. And this attack really plays into his hands by eliminating the leader who was supposed to be on the ballot in a couple of weeks. Now the elections will have to be "delayed".

It's got a corrupt Musharraf all over it. We've tried with this guy. Now it's time to drop it like a hot potatoe...after we secure his nukes of course.

Elbeau, Austin TX (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:57 AM)

"and having a woman for President now is not a wise choice."...my bigot meter just went through the roof.

Elbeau, Austin TX (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:59 AM)

A very unfortunate incident. Also another incident the repubs will use to wrap themselves in the flag and beat their chests about how tough they are. Another bottomless pit to throw our tax dollars down while all the phony repubs will claim to be "keeping us safe".

Steve A Jonesboro IN (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:01 AM)

Now maybe her supporters will come to realize that al Qaeda, not Musharraf, is the real enemy of a democratic Pakistan.

Ray Robison author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents
http://www.bothinonetrench.com

Ray Robison, Huntsville, Al (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:06 AM)

BIDEN '08

Elizabeth Sullivan, San Diego, CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:08 AM)

A woman does not have experience? Come on lets get real---what experience did the dunce in chief have----and look what the dunce has brought us----a never ending occupation and troops deployed too numerous that even they are breaking, torture of prisoners, outing of an under cover CIA operative, higher gas and food prices, loss of jobs to foreign countries, this based on what kind of experience. LET'S GET REAL HERE.------Doofus Mitt did not even know if she was Bhutto was dead or alive when the rest of the world knew. LET'S GET REAL--The doofus Mitt does not know which way his head is pointed on any issue-----he just claims what people want to hear----No real substance

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:12 AM)

Whether to some it is bigoted or "idiotic" to say a "womsn is not a wise choice for President" it is the truth. You all who have every excuse in the book to support scumbags like the Clintons are certainly as naive as they come. Reality is what it is, better to be wise aand alive than dumb and dead.

Jake Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:19 AM)

"Safety first" is cowardly and UNAMERICAN!! The Founding Fathers believed that anyone who preferred safety to liberty deserved neither.

Joe Einloth (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:21 AM)

Jake & Carol Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM

Your post, and any post attempting to politicize what happened to Bhutto in a way to disparage Hillary Clinton, are so tasteless, disgusting, and moronic, there's nothing else to be said.

Pat Huntington NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:21 AM)

If Clinton was qualified and experianced enough she would have been the first to comment on this tragedy. She didn't and she isn't. A Republican did. The safety of this country is foremost, and having a woman for President now is not a wise choice. The terrorists have no respect or value for the female gender. Safety first.
Jake & Carol Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 10:35 AM)

------------------

Blunt, but who cares:
Who the holy f--- cares who came out first with a statement? So what that it was Republican or Democrat. Are you so blinded by hate and by sexism that you'd rather have the status quo remain than vote for someone that might actually have a chance in hell of changing things? Remember, it is YOUR President (I am assuming you voted for Dubya, you sound moronic enough to have done so) that has caused this and any other numbers of atrocities in Afghanistan and Pakistan to pass because his administration turns a blind eye to the totalitarian regimes in this nations while passing to them billions of dollars thinking they're going to help us win the global war on terror.

It's the likes of you that make the world as unsafe as it is today with your backa-- way of thinking about the world around you. Wake the f--- up already and realize that the way things are today only makes events like today's assassination the norm.

Mike K, Denver (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:26 AM)

Bhutto’s death is a tragedy. She was a very brave and courageous woman. Another blog was talking about how Hillary might benefit from this. I guess there is a way for Hillary to spin this to her advantage, but this is a twist of events that might not benefit her because Bhutto is a woman. Political leaders lives are at risk when they run their countries. JFK was assassinated. An attempt was made on Regan's life. This stuff happens. While this country is ready for a woman president, I don't think it is ready for the potential that a woman may die by violence in office. I hope this never happens here, but Bhutto was (as leaders go) a relatively young, beautiful woman and it happened to her.

MaryC (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:37 AM)

Response to Jake Brady, NH.....

<<Whether to some it is bigoted or "idiotic" to say a "womsn is not a wise choice for President" it is the truth. You all who have every excuse in the book to support scumbags like the Clintons are certainly as naive as they come. Reality is what it is, better to be wise aand alive than dumb and dead.
Jake Brady, Salem, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:19 AM)>>

Yes, your comments are both bigoted AND idiotic....but I do find your post amusing....did you have to send Carol out of the room - perhaps to iron your clothes and cook your dinner - when you hit "submit"?

Paul, NY, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:37 AM)

Why was Romney making the assumption that jihadists were involved? What happened to getting some facts before speaking? He is not ready for the world stage, just trying to get elected.

J. Peters Bay Area CA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:40 AM)

This tragedy underscores the need for the U.S. to elect a President who is strong in foreign affairs (i.e. Mitt Romney or Guiliani).
Huckabee would be a TOTAL DISASTER in a world crisis situation because he, frankly, isn't very intelligent.

Thomas Breen Concord, NH (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:48 AM)

The only blame for Bhutto's death lies with Bush and the republicans. You all have blood on your hands for this!

Pat Huntington NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:50 AM)

I am not usually the conspiracy-calling type, but this unfortunate event seems to play precisely into our current administrations warped view of things, as if they had a hand in it (the CIA could easily set up an undercover op to guide a suicide bomber). Despite what you will hear to the contrary, Bush & Co. are glad to have a more distinct enemy in Pakistan against whom to continue our extension of military might and spending. Just like in Iraq, where we are getting what we are truly paying for--a destabilized place which seems to require permanent US military bases; Bush & Cheney do not want a stable Iraq, which would leave no cause for continued deep spending (which hugely benefits the group of people linked to the president) and expansion of US military presence.

James Vaughn (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 11:56 AM)

I think the Bush administration pretended to support Bhutto but really supports Musharraf. A potential dictator better leads to situations where the US military seemingly must spend and spread, which is all the Bush administration wants in the world.

James Vaughn (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:00 PM)

A Republican was the first to respond, therefore they are the better candidate? People who say the constitution offers no privacy, people who say the Preisdent or V.P have broken no laws nor have they created any potential for a potential sickening precedence of seizing unlawful, thus traitorous, more-than-borderline treasonous power.

The same man who once again continued his war on facts, statistics, and reason... you're right, Hillary isn't qualified... because, I guess you're trying to somehow imply that this person is... Rudy Guiliani?

Yay! Now the entire nation gets to pay taxes for the next tryst he undergoes. Wonder if he'd kick Ms. Nathan out of the White House once he finds someone younger and more attractive.

Sorry, can't attack Bill for doing these things and then run a GO GUILIANI post and not get raked over the coals... sorry.

Travis, Louisville, Ky. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:07 PM)

Sure, a republican commented but as I mentioned to a friend today, watch the republicans ramp this assassination of Bhutto up in playing the fear card to the Americans, and sure enough, Romney did it. His comment sounds just like a typical political American candidate trying to get elected rather than this tremendous tragedy for the person, the former prime minister.

RuthieM (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:12 PM)

Paul & Others. Certainly your opinion of me is irrelevant. What I find ironic is that you all find so much support for this woman, ( and yes it is a tragedy ) but you don't find the same kind of intense support for your own President, That is shameful.

Jake Brady (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:14 PM)

I hope the comments in this section are not the avarege Americans as most are childish and written with to much emotion geared toward there own political views/agenda.When are Amercians going to stop addressing issues based soley on emotion and there parties opnion and start making intellegent choices based on valid data they themselves have reviewd and or researched...I would hope that any of the presidential canadates would consider this issue with a more aniliticial fact based mindset and not on what they think the people want to hear.
The real issue here is that Madam Bhutto's death is a direct attack by extreamist terrorists with the intent that it will eliminate the likley hood that a democratic regiem will be instatutied in Pakastan and give them free rein to create an extreamists state that has nuculer weapons that can be used to push the agenda of destroying western socity.and should be delt with as such.

Eric Krieger Colville WA. (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:15 PM)

Terry, you just described the Dem leader in the poles...Are you sure you are on the right page...

Pakistan is a big problem, they have nukes and there are a large number of crazies that would use them. No easy answer here. Sometimes as a leader you have to choose the lesser of two evils in regards to other countries. A majority of Americans do not believe that Iraq was worth it. The thought that they would support action in Pakistan is small. So what is the answer for America now. Turn our back on the current Admin? I dont know anyone that would think that is a good idea. Van hit it on the head, we are the exception not the rule. We say vile things about our leaders without fear, we have freedom. Others want it but can not fathom it. Every day I read these blogs and think that the same things said in other countries could warrant the death penalty. In January 09 power will be transfered, there will be no blood shed, or riots in the streets. Only whinning by the loosing side. This is our greatest achievment, and also why we are hated around the world. We prove that Democracy can and does work....

count your blessings (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:16 PM)

Well, I posted in the thread above this that it seemed to me to be a veiled attack on supporters of other candidates to decry political attacks made using this subject, but I see I was wrong.

Jake and Carol, your ingorance is absolutely ASTONISHING. Aside from the obvious "liberty vs safety" argument, there's the argument that is clearly more important to you: beating the terrorists.

Yes, beating the terrorists. You're so cowed by fear of death in an attack like the one today that you're willing to cater your voting to the likes and dislikes of Islamic extremists? That's called LETTING THE TERRORISTS WIN. Congratulations Osama, you have been able to keep at least two voters from electing a woman president because you have no respect for women.

I should point out that I don't even support Hillary. But I made that decision about HER, not about TERRORISM. What rubbish.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:16 PM)

Pat, that is the most idiotic statement you have ever made. I usually dont respond this way but come-on. To blame Bush for what happend today is crazy. This woman, that evidently loved her country enough to risk her life, for it was murdered. Even those that blame the current President of Pakistan have something to base it on. You have a hatred of President Bush and thats ok. Im sure there are things he could be blamed for with a logical argument. This however is just stupid!!!

wake-up (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:27 PM)

Our family’s deepest sympathy and respect to the Bhutto’s family and close friends. This great lady dedicated her life to her country, her people, and sealed her love and principles with her life. Anyone from any nation, religion or cause owes her dignity and respect.

As to Mr. Romney’s response, or that he was the “first” to respond and people are passing “judgment” on him for that. How foolish! Do you think Mr. Romney went to a “retail stop at Norton's Diner” for the soul purpose of making a statement regarding this tragedy? Or does it make more sense that he was asked to make a statement by the media! Does it really matter? Additionally; at what time did she pass away, and at what time was Mr. Romney asked?

What should really be important is whether his comments were sincere. I have no doubt they were and unless one has verifiable proof otherwise they should be more respectful to Mr. Romney and Former Prime Minister Bhutto and keep their negative pessimistic mouths closed.

Dave Cartwright (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:29 PM)

Jake and count your blessings------you want support for this administration and the ducne in chief? How about we start with the troops first? How about we start with the veterans (who were called unpatriotic)? How about we start with taking care of our wounded vets? You talk about support where in the hell is it for our soldiers from this pompous administration??????????????? Until then don't even talk about supporting this freaking administration!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Terry, Disabled Vet, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:29 PM)

Steve, YES, "Beating the terrorists" is the only real priority. Why you and others don't see or understand that is mind blowing. And, by the way, name calling is the childish reaction to not understanding.

Jake Brady (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:33 PM)

to wake-up: Well, to be fair, Bush has been propping up Musharraf's regime since he (Bush) took office. So there IS a logic to blaming Bush for this. But Bush has enough to be blamed for (Iraq, torture, fighting government transparency, politicizing the Justice department, etc). So lets just wait and see who actually acted, and blame them.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:47 PM)

Dave Cartwright (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:48 PM)

I am sure that any of the candidates for president could have responded to this event. They all know who she was. But Mitt Romney was to address the press and the present situation of course made him address the issue. It does show that he knows the current diplomacy the U.S is pursing there and it shows Romney's international knowledge on politcal issues.

Eric Nicholes (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:48 PM)

Response to Jake Brady

<<Paul & Others. Certainly your opinion of me is irrelevant. What I find ironic is that you all find so much support for this woman, ( and yes it is a tragedy ) but you don't find the same kind of intense support for your own President, That is shameful.
Jake Brady (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:14 PM)>>
Give us something to be PROUD of and Americans would be dancing in the streets! You seem to forget we DID give Bush our support after 9/11 and he destroyed whatever good will and prestige we had in the world. He's an embarrassment to both the office and this country.

Get your head out of the sand and talk fact, not delusions.

Paul, NY, NY (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:50 PM)

It is clear that Musharraf knew that Bhutto would be a target, and did not take adequate safety measures (I wonder what his security detail looks like?) as Joe Biden has called for.

Tim D (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:54 PM)

This was a peaceful democratic rally designed to help her candidacy and the furtherance of democracy in an ethnic muslim/kurd country. It ended with a muslim extremist killing twenty-two men, women and children. Extremist muslims do not want democracy, they want their clerics to rule Pakistan and the world. There is an increasing war between those who believe in democracy and those who respond with suicide bombs and airplanes into buildings. Radical jihadists don't want elections, they want Shariah law. They believe they can go to heaven by randomly killing civilians. Who can not recognize this as the most evil of evils we have encountered since Hitler. Against that backdrop folks here are actually blaming Bush and America! Those who say America should stay out of Pakistan or who say we have made things worse have their head in the sand in the very same way England and France ignored the rise of the Nazi party and Hitler in Germany. What is scary about the prospect of a Pakistani government taken over by jihadists is they would have nuclear weapons. Study your history--fascism must be met with naked aggression early and often or we will all be looking to buy bomb shelters online. Pakistan needs our support and our aid. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing."

DLounsbury, Salem, Oregon (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:57 PM)

I am profoundly saddened at the death of such a courageous, articulate, self-sacrificing woman. Madame Bhutto's death is a tragedy for all of us. I believe the only appropriate response is one of sadness and sympathy towards her family and country. Please, fellow Americans- don't make this political. Don't malign each other. Show the world, each other and particularly the noble memory of Madame Bhutto respect. She certainly deserves it.

S. Davies, Centerville, Utah (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:58 PM)

"This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism"

You tool. It might show the danger of having Mushariff for an ally. It also shows what a shallow, fear mongerer you are (hard to believe on the uber right.)

RIP, Madame Bhutto.

Citizen of Rome (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:05 PM)

To all the neanderthals who don't believe "it is time for a woman president", beside respectfully asking just when would be the right time? I wonder would you have the nerve - let alone be able to present factual basis for your ridiculous presuppositions - to posit the same opinions directly to Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel or even Christina Kirschner?

Just asking (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:05 PM)

America can't control its' own religious nuts, how can we control the World's. It's pompous baloney when politicians claim they can do it.

Steve Turner Cedar Falls Iowa (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:07 PM)

Terry: I want chapter and verse with citation of the administration official who tarred veterans[which would include this poster], as ''unpatriotic''. Get to it.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:17 PM)

"The world is very much at risk by virtue of these radical violent extremists, and we must come together in an effort in great haste and with grat earnestness to help overcome the threat of the spread of radical, violent Jihad."

These words spoken by Mitt Romney are very true and we all had best be listening to them. It doesn't matter who spoke out first. What does matter is what we do about the situation as it is now and believe me it has changed for the worse as a result of this assasination. It was a terrible blow to democracy worldwide.

I also find it interesting that the rules for this blog concerning attacks on others comments and foul language are not being adhered to. Seems like a double standard of some sort to me. Only comments that agree with the censors viewpoints are being posted. I will be very surprised if my comments make it to the blog.

Dave DuRette Redmond,Oregon (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:27 PM)

Terry, where did I ask for support for anyone? The only thing I said was that it would be stupid to bail on the current Pakistani admin. You are so blinded by hate that sometimes you dont even make sence. You may have a legitamate reason for your discourse, I dont know you. My point is that personal hatred does not make a logical argument.

count your blessings (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:48 PM)

A few posts back some one was talking about how disgusting it was for a detractor of Hillary to become political when discussing the Bhutto's assassination. The people who feel like that must have logged off before they had a chance to respond in a similar fashion to all the post blaming every Republican they can think of. The fact that she was against the terrorists, and that they had called for her death seems to be something that people WANT to overlook. It's as if you can't stand to have any one say anything bad about your friends the terrorists. Face facts, the individual that killed her, and all the other people in the attack was a suicide bomber. To conclude it was anyone other than an Islamic terrorist would be like concluding that the death of a black person in the south would have been the work of anyone but the KKK when witnesses describe the murderer as wearing a white sheet and burning a cross after the attack.

As for the phony republicans that have claimed to protect us since 9/11/01, they've been doing a fine job for phonies. I can think a number of terrorist threats that were stopped in this country since 9/11. There were multiple plots to set off bombs on the NY subway, the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, the Miami terrorist cell that wanted to blow up the Sears tower and multiple Federal buildings, The pair of guys caught with bombs in the vicinity of a military base, and the Fort Dix plot to attack military personnel with guns and bombs. That's just off the top of my head, and it doesn't count all the terrorist attacks that were stopped before they could happen through out Europe, and the rest of the world. When comparing the Republicans to Democrats you may disagree with the Republicans on some things, but they at least seem aware of the problem of the Global Terrorist Threat. While Democrats like Edwards dismiss it as a "bumper sticker", and an inability to see, or acknowledge a problem disqualifies you from being the one to handle the problem.

Michael McCarthy Nashua NH 03064 (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:50 PM)

Jake, did my post not penetrate your thick skull? The terrorists are WINNING because YOU are so SCARED of them! You have fallen victim to their campaign of TERROR by being TERRIFIED.

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

Steve, Hartford, CT (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:58 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=534763