President Bill Clinton: Democrat Role Model Or Democratic Con Man?
He’s baaaaaaaack.
In the news, that is.
Or, rather, at the center of an Op-ed inspired debate among Democrats and others.
President Bill Clinton — a Democratic president who did a teeny-weenie thing that many Democrats hadn’t done in a long time (won a presidential election and got re-elected) is being “dissed” and “defended.” But then there’s nothing new about that: he has been disssed and defended on talk shows, television, on blogs, columns and on in Congress.
In fact, today Bill Clinton is a vital part of the Bush administration.
Apart from his late-blossoming friendship with George Bush The Prequel, his name figures in many responses official spokesmen give when the administration is criticized.
Reduce the “under Clinton”s from their repertoire and the spokesmen sometimes wouldn’t have very much to say.
Take the “Clinton” references out of Rush Limbaugh’s three hour show and you’d have about two hours (30 minutes if “Hillary” is cut out, too).
But this time the fire is coming from Democratic quarters. Specifically, at issue is this thought-provoking op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Daily Kos creator Markos Moulitsas. It mostly focuses on Hillary Clinton, arguing she is too much of a Clinton Democrat. It should be read in full. But here’s the relevant passage on Bill Clinton:
Our crashing of Washington’s gates wasn’t about ideology, it was about pragmatism. Democrats haven’t won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976. Heck, we haven’t won more than 50.1 percent since 1964. And complicit in that failure was the only Democrat to occupy the White House since 1980: Bill Clinton.Despite all his successes — and eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at — he never broke the 50-percent mark in his two elections. Regardless of the president’s personal popularity, Democrats held fewer congressional seats at the end of his presidency than before it. The Democratic Party atrophied during his two terms, partly because of his fealty to his “third way” of politics, which neglected key parts of the progressive movement and reserved its outreach efforts for corporate and moneyed interests.
While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton’s third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic “message,” a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Actually, Bill Clinton didn’t kill off Jesse Jackson’s wing of the Democratic party: Jesse Jackson killed it off due to his hubris (“Hymietown”), lack of overwhelming proven clout at the polls, his running into a buzzsaw of bad publicity due to books and articles about how he operated with his organization, and his personal life becoming tabloid-fodder. Not Clinton’s doing.
Taylor Marsh, in a MUST READ post that must be read in full says, in part:
Bill Clinton was by no means a perfect president. However, in the end he won two terms in office, had effective policies and is still one of the only people who can go anywhere in this country and fit in, be welcomed and cheered. People are currently pining for the days of Bill. Consider me one of those people. Clinton’s appeal and wins are because he started out as the “original average Joe,” who could sell strip club stock to born again Christians. His failings come in the same package, but the man knows how to win. At least Moulitsas adds that “eight years of peace and prosperity is nothing to sneeze at.” If not a sneeze, then Moulitsas delivers a hacking cough….…. I’ve said this over and over again, but it bears repeating. In the end, people don’t vote for policies. They vote through emotion and the identification they feel with the person on the ticket and the excitement that person inspires. Good policies will never outweigh the I want to identify with him/her reality. I believe in him/her. I want to help him/her win. Policies don’t inspire participation, it’s the politician….Bill Clinton didn’t cause our losses in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But if you believe he did get ready to lose some more.
In another must-read-in-full-post DLCer Bull Moose writes, in part:
What is it about peace and prosperity and a two term Democratic Presidency that the donkey doesn’t like?…Shock and horror – Clinton did not exceed the 50 percent mark in his two Presidential victories. Odds are that Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry could have lived with that!Well, first of all, the reason that the Democrats lost so many seats back in ’94 was that the Clinton Administration betrayed its New Democrat roots in the first two years and veered to the left….These netroots types think they are something cutting edge when they are merely McGovernites with modems. One only wonders why the much maligned “Main Stream Media”, much less elected officials, pay so much attention to them. And their complaints about the political establishment just echo those of the New Politics folks who culturally marginalized the party until Bill Clinton came along.
Then, from yet another perspective, there’s Oxblog’s David Adesnik who writes of Kos’ piece:
No balanced budget (the first in decades)? No economic boom? No victory in Kosovo? No 60% approval rating? And killing off the Jesse Jackson wing justifies the Clinton presidency all by itself.Gee, I guess Kos’ article was pretty effective if it has me singing the praises of Bill Clinton. Anyhow, I still think Hillary is in trouble because so many loyal, mainstream Democrats I know consider her unelectable. If she doesn’t have the mainstream and doesn’t have the “netroots” what does she have?
Our view? Putting aside Hillary Clinton, here’s how we see it.
The roots of the Democratic party’s present tensions actually go back before the McGovernites. Many people don’t remember, but in 1968 when Senator Eugene McCarthy essentially forced LBJ out of the race and Senator Robert Kennedy jumped in McCarthy and his followers were extremely bitter. They considered Kennedy a usurper: he wasn’t the REAL Democratic liberal, because he was a Bobby-Come-Lately to being anti-war, and got into the race right at the time when McCarthy seemed to be catching on.
RFK was murdered, McCarthy fizzled (in 1968 and as a national candidate in the future), Vice President Hubert Humphrey ran — and Richard Nixon won. Twice.
The McGovernites were passionate anti-war activists, out to retake the party. They were dedicated, progressive political activists in a time before “netroots.”
They took over the Democratic party. And lost. But their influence within the party remained dominant. If history proved them correct in their views on the Vietnam war (and some still dispute that), their sometimes politically toe-stubbing, take-no-prisoners rhetoric turned many Americans off. There WAS what Richard Nixon called “the great, silent majority” — and TGSM wasn’t with the McGovernites and the way they pitched their ideas. The McGovernites were a Godsend to many Republicans for years.
Enter Jimmy Carter. He didn’t run as a member of the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party, but he was wise enough to essentially neutralize them, win them over and get the nomination. And he won. For one term.
What did Clinton do? If you go back and re-read the news accounts, he did indeed look for a “third way” and as he campaigned he seemed like a salesman trying to overcome a skeptical prospect’s objections. On many issues on which the McGovernite/left-wing of the party seemed to alienate the majority of Americans, Clinton came up with a different plan. Or, at least, a more conciliatory, inclusive tone.
Yes. In a way he “stole the thunder” of the Republicans, moving his party (kicking and screaming in some instances) to the center of the American political spectrum, scrapping some positions that lost in the past and moving closer to positions that would incorporate a Democratic approach with a Republican approach. Was this “me-tooism” or political adaptability?
So is that why he won? Not quite.
He probably would have not pulled it off due to deeply rooted skepticism on the part of many Americans — except for a guy named Ross Perot who also helped siphon votes away from George Bush The Prequel.
Political scientists and historians can debate Clinton’s term in office, but the bottom line is that throughout it he was nimble enough politically to adapt, attempt to aggregate interests and build cohesive political coalitions.
It wasn’t just his personality that got him the high ratings — it was that he reached out. It’s when he reached out to Monica (or when she reached out to him) that his presidency’s efficacy was doomed.
YES: Clinton was NOT a leftist Democratic president. But he was one who knew how to look at the panorama of America and build coalitions that went beyond just appealing to his party’s own base.
Today, we see George Bush’s government by the base, for the base and of the base.
The cautionary note for the “netroots” is that they are in danger of becoming a mirror image of just that: insisting on an ideological purity that will eventually only reflect a segment of the Democratic party’s base (so just where will the other Democrats GO?). Just as American broadcasting has devolved into often artless “narrowcasting,” so is American politics in danger of devolving into “narrowcampaigning” if people on the left don’t proceed thoughtfully.
The idea of the “netroots” working hard as you see here to get people involved in politics and relentlessly press their agenda is admirable. Participation always is — whether one agrees with the specific cause or not.
The problem is if it results in a mirror-image political crusade similar to those Republican conservatives who want to purge Republican moderates from their party.
What have the “netroots” produced so far? Funding and great potential. But so far any candidate who would totally hitch their wagon to the advice of people writing weblogs (right, left or center), assuming that it would mean victory at the ballot box, is jumping the political and Internet evolution gun. To be sure, politicos are increasingly campaigning on weblogs. But there are few signs so far that people reading weblogs and computers have changed the course of the final votes on Election Day. Raising funds? Yes. Getting people excited? Yes? Actually winning elections? Nooooooooooooo…
But Bill Clinton? He knew how to win elections.
Which is slightly important — and admirable — in politics.
You can also discuss this post on Gather.com
24 Responses to “President Bill Clinton: Democrat Role Model Or Democratic Con Man?”
In many areas I am in complete agreement with the left wing of the Democratic party. However, let’s face facts. The left wing has NEVER won a presidential victory. Ralph Nader, Michael Dukakis, George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Wallace…need I continue? Although George Bush and the Congress of Victors have proven beyond a doubt the bankruptcy (unfortunatley, literally) of conservative republican policies, it is not axiomatic that the answer is to march lock step with left wing wishes. Politics is the art of the possible and what is possible is a Democractic candidate in tune with a majority of Americans, most of whom are right of center. A Clintonian Democrat may not be ideal but it is far preferable to another 4 or 8 years of right wing Republican misrule.
Nice selections here. I think Clinton is over-demonized–the far left, the Markos’s of the world, make up maybe 15 to 20% of the Ameican electorate and no more. A party marketing to leftist positions is destined to lose.
By weighted average, the center of American politics is a little right of true “center”. Republicans, particlularly George Bush, have positioned themselves far to the right of the center of American politics. This gives those a little left of center an opening, the “emerging Democratic majority,” the progressive centrists. [Disclosure: I write from this camp]
Clinton had the right perscription. Gore was far too bland in 2000 (he’s running a great 2000 campaign now) and Kerry was too calculating and distant. For all his personal flaws, Clinton was really the “great Communicator” — one only need watch his recent appearances (Ex: at the King funeral) to recognize that.
robertl, I wish I had written that. The current frustration of the left is founded in the failure to win elections. I just read an editorial by Thomas Frank, who beats up on Joe Klein for Klein’s rejection of the electability of progressives. Robertl’s summary is the perfect retort: it’s all about winning. And a US presidential election victory (ie., putting some red states in the blue column) requires an appeal to center-right voters. The question facing Sen. Clinton is whether she can avoid being painted a progressive- because if it sticks, her campaign’s over and you can add her to robertl’s list.
Bill’s lurch to the left after he was elected in 1992 was seen by many as being driven by Hillary. She was the universal healthcare czar and I’m thinking a lot of people who voted in 1992 will remember that. Bill’s big successes came after Hillary was thrust from the spotlight and he returned to middle of the road politics.
Hillary is going to have a hard time convincing people who lived through her reign of terror during Bill’s first term, that she’s a moderate.
With Taylor’s post yesterday, and now Joe’s filling it out a bit more, Markos has accidentally done what has been nearly impossible to do on his blog in my experience: inject some common sense facts into the “netroots” echo chamber.
Unfortunately, they can’t hear us – they have their fingers jammed tightly in their ears, and are loudly singing “nah nah nah.” At least until David Sirota launches his next impotent broadside against the evils of the average Democratic voter.
I respect Markos, but I quit reading DKos and a number of similar sites a long time ago for precisely this reason. There is little room for even a moderately centrist view, let alone Joe Democrat.
Tragic, really. These are the guys who will snatch defeat from victory – essentially, the same thing they’ve been helping to do since JFK.
One of the great ironies of the entire health care reform fiasco is that it was an attempt to SAVE money, the idea was to CONSERVE on costs that are killing the middle class.
It’s incredible how twisted the debate became, that it was &is routinely called a ‘leftist’ plan.
It’s hard to know what the problem is with Kos and many of the Daily Kos bloggers.
But, as it is for the rest of the country, when it comes to seeing what Clinton was for &against and in seeing what the other side has done since, the focus is coming into stark contrast.
Where was this ‘lurch to the left’ anyway? From what I could see, there was gays in the military, which the Repubs brought up right away to embarrass Clinton, there was assault weapon ban, and there was the budget that not one Repub voted for and which they predicted would lead to depression. It was the assault weapon ban that ‘killed’ so many Dems mid term. Was that leftist legislation? Dont see it. Bottom line is Hillary understands as well as her husband that if you dont win you are not much use. The problem is the anti-Clinton wing of the party probably wont let her win, preferring to stay out of power rather than to think that they compromised one of their positions.
I could not agree more with the Jesse Jackson comment. I have personal experience with Mr. Jackson and would love to write about it if my host ever comes up. grumble.
It’s ironic, that the only guy to be a proven winner for the Democrats at the presidential level is demonized by the base of the party.
Bill Clinton didn’t cause our losses in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But if you believe he did get ready to lose some more.
He also didn’t cause the Dem losses in 1980, 1984, 1988…
Laura, in a way it’d be good if the Green or another progressive party emerged or coalesced, and took the left wing of the Dems with it. That way we’d have better balance between the big 2.
Republican Conservatives, who dominate the party, are alienating independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats, but, the surest way to get disaffected moderate Republicans and independents to return to the Republican party is to nominate a leftist Democrat. This is their biggest fear, and instead of getting a crossover vote or having Republicans stay home on Election Day, Republicans will come out in droves to keep the leftist candidate out of office.
The only way Democrats can win, imo, is to run a moderate, centrist candidate who will reach out, as Bill Clinton did, to disaffected Republicans, as well as to left wing Democrats. A candidate like Russ Feingold, will galvanize a Republican party that is now in disarray, instead of capitalizing on the split, resulting in another 4-8 years of Republican rule. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he was a masterful politician, having the rare ability to connect with disparate groups of voters. The Dems need that type of appeal to win in ’08. Not sure Hilary engenders the trust of voters in the same way, probably because she has been all over the political spectrum on issues.
http://www.vintageclinton.com
My thoughts exactly. If it’s all about winning, why are they busy demonizing the only guy they have had in my lifetime who could win twice? The bottom line is that, with the Republicans playing so heavily to their far right base, the center is open for the taking. All you need is a moderate who can capitalize on this.
I just wanted to throw out one more thing in response to the Feingold comment. This person has obviously only followed Feingold far enough to know about his opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. Republicans have done a great job of framing him that way, though. However, as just one example, would a “leftist” vote against the assault weapons ban as Feingold did? He isn’t leftist, rightist, or anything else. He votes for what he believes is Constitutional and right for this country. Just as he voted against the Patriot Act because he believed it violated the Constitution, he also voted against the assault weapons ban because he believed it violated the Constitution.
I don’t think Feingold is all that electable because the attack dogs of the Republican party could cast him as too far left for this country. The average American would fall all over such an attack based on nothing but a handful of his actions over his nearly two decades in the Senate. However, if you take the time to learn about his record, you’ll see he is an independent who will vote with the left or the right based on what he feels is Constitutional and correct for this country, not based on some party or ideological line.
Ryan-Feingold also voted against the war, and in a national election, that, and his vote against the Patriot Act, and his attempt to censure Bush (unsupported by the rest of his party) would be enough for the opposition to cast him as far left of center.
While it is true that I am not familiar with his entire record, I agree with you that most voters would not look beyond the surface, and he would be crushed by attack ads.
Personally, while believing that he would be unelectable, I admire him for having the courage to take stands that are unpopular, and defending our liberties. We need him in the Senate as he IS a patriot, much more than Bush. I just think you have to be pragmatic and pick a centrist that can actually win
Kim, my only point is that Feingold is in fact not as far left as Republicans like to portray him. All you have to do is look beyond the high profile things he does, which are high profile simply because he’s pretty much the only one in the Senate willing to do them, and look into everything he does.
Right now, he’s pretty much the only person in the Senate willing to stand up to Bush, not just in words but in action. That makes everything he does in that regard very high profile and, according to Republicans, very far left of center (because apparently no conservative would do things like standing up for the Bill of Rights or demand that checks and balances remain in place). However, he has also done a fair bit that, if they look beyond the headlines, the liberals would find very disturbing. To use the same example I have before, how much coverage did we see of his “far right of center” (as some liberals portrayed it) vote against the assault weapons ban? I also recall hearing some liberals saying he would never get their vote after he voted in favor of the confirmation of Justice Roberts.
The question here is reality vs. perception. I agree with you that Republicans could paint him as too far left for this country. That’s perception. The reality, which of course can easily get lost during elections, is that he is in fact more moderate than some others in the running for the Democratic nomination.
Ryan, Fair enough. I appreciate the additional information about him. Perhaps I should have researched his positions more before casting him as a leftist candidate. As I said before, he has a quality that is almost invisible in this Congress-political courage. When he introduced the motion to censure Bush, the other Democratic Senators were literally hiding from the press, so they would not have to take a stand.
Unfortunately, as you wisely realize, in the era of 30 second sound bites and negative political ads, perception has become reality for most Americans. If you took a poll, how many would know that Sen Feingold voted against the assault weapon ban? The best hope for Democrats is a centrist candidate who is not blatantly anti-war (also that Karl Rove, the Republican’s ace in the hole, is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald this week!). I don’t think we could survive eight more years of the status quo. This administration has been the worst in my lifetime.
That’s the sad thing. All most Americans know increasingly seems to be what Republican politicians want them to know. This is my point of perception vs. reality. In reality, he is definitely liberal but actually more of a moderate liberal. The perception of him, though, is mostly based on how Republicans want to paint him: as far left as one could possibly go.
I do think he runs good campaigns that directly counter attacks, though. In 2004, his opponent first chose to run on a simple platform: Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, elect someone who will support our President. He countered with a brilliant commercial where he mentioned this point and stated that he voted against it to protect our Constitutional rights, while showing an image of someone cutting sections out of the Constitution. It created a very vivid image of his opponent willing to “support our President” in selectively dismantling the Constitution. Shortly after he started the commercial, not another word was mentioned of the Patriot Act by his opponent. From that point on, his opponent had virtually nothing to run on and Feingold won comfortably in a state that was won by Kerry by only a couple thousand votes.
Today, we see George Bush’s government by the base, for the base and of the base.
Hardly. Medicare expansion, immigration, gov’t spending… these issues have much of the GOP base enraged with W.
I did enjoy Kim’s posting of
perception has become reality for most Americans.
which then proves it by stating
I don’t think we could survive eight more years of the status quo. This administration has been the worst in my lifetime.
Also, this seems to miss the point:
Kim, my only point is that Feingold is in fact not as far left as Republicans like to portray him.
Yes, in fact he is. Perhaps not on every issue (LOL just try supporting a gun ban in Wisconsin, where half the men drag home deer every weekend), but he has staked out some extreme positions.
Great piece, Joe. I am most definitely a “right of center” centrist. But if the Dems were to actually nominate someone like Clinton, I’d probably vote Democratic for the first time in my life.
I am going to be very curious to see who the Republicans come up with for 2008. I wonder if it’s too much to hope for someone a bit more moderate this time?
TallDave—Are you saying that the Bush administration is a failure, only because Americans perceive him as a failure due to liberal bias in the MSM?
I think in this situation, perception actually has become reality for most of us. In 2000 there was a surplus, affordable energy and America was still viewed favorably internationally. Now, despite being told daily how well the economy is performing with inflation in check, we have soaring energy costs, soaring housing costs, soaring deficits and soaring healthcare costs. Major governmental agencies have failed to protect us and for those who dislike big government, we have added layers of bureaucracy adding additional layers of inefficiency. We are no closer to energy independence, and have lost stature internationally.
Well, I don’t want to write a book, but my dissatisfaction isn’t due to perception, just bad policy. (by your logic, Tony Snow could fix the administration’s polling woes!)
Kim,
Your percpetion is that the Bush admin is “the worst in my lifetime,” but that is just your perception.
For instance, the President does not control the price of oil any more than the price of gold or beans, and I believe Al Gore has argued gas prices should actually be quite a bit higher. A modest surplus or deficit relative to GDP such as we have does not impact anyone’s lives (thats besides the fact there was never a surplus, unless you count Social Secuirty IOUs), but taxes are lower, which does. Housing costs are up, but that means the 79% of Americns who are homeowners are wealthier. Healthcare costs were soaring in the 1990s too. We may have “lost stature,” if by that you mean people in other countries don’t approve of everything we do (who runs America, Americans or foreigners?), but their perceptions have no real impact either and the fact is we remain the world’s hyperpower, the strongest and richest nation on Earth.
Meanwhile, 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan have a measure of freedom and democracy they could never have hoped for without our intervention, and two enemy regimes that supported Al Qaeda have been swept into the dustbin of history. (I wonder how many people have seen the translated memos showing Iraq was funding Abu Sayyaf, or the Abu Zubaydah debriefing where Zarqawi’s relationship with the regime is discussed.)
And the economy is booming, inflation is at 4.7%, the stock market is near a record, etc.
It’s all perception.
David—I wouldn’t call our deficit modest, and while it may not affect us now, what about our children? The tax cuts have disproportionately helped the rich, we’ve outsourced thousands of manufacturing jobs, and not everyone has large stock portfolios.
We are the world’s hyperpower, but for how long? China is catching up rapidly in economic development, and is using her profits from our enormous trade imbalance to prop up her military.
I wouldn’t mind paying more for gas, if I knew that
we had a real energy plan that would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, but in reality, not much has been done since Jimmy Carter lectured Americans to conserve energy. We didn’t listen then and we’re not listening now.
Since we are a superpower, I think we do need to realize that we have a standing to maintain on the world stage, and that acting unilaterally will damage the fragile nature of our alliances. It does matter to me that America is hated, and viewed as a bully by so many countries.
Iraq has been costly, and this administration has mismanaged the war, except for the invasion itself, and toppling Saddam. There was no plan to maintain the peace, and many lives, American and Iraqi, were lost unnecessarily. Iraq’s antiquities were looted, the ancient city of Babylon was damaged, as helicopter landing areas were built there. I don’t count that as a success story yet.
And now we face another even bigger conflict with Iran, a conflict with few good choices.
Obviously, you have a much different perception than I have.
PING:
TITLE: Bloggledygook Blotter, Euro Edition.
BLOG NAME: Bloggledygook
Um, I’m not sure if I mentioned this, but I’M ON VACATION! We’ll be either in the air or sitting around waiting to get in the air much of the day, so this is probably it until, well, until I
PING:
TITLE: Remembering and Examining Bill Clinton
BLOG NAME: Dean’s World
Joe Gandelman has an excellent piece, one that I can’t do justice by quoting. I can only say, I agree with all of it except one thing:
The Bush presiden…
PING:
TITLE: Winning The Election of 2006 and Beyond
BLOG NAME: Searchlight Crusade
Everybody has been talking about the problems that both major parties have. The Republicans have this problem, the Democrats have that one. Snipe, snipe, snipe. Everyone is saying what a low approval rating President Bush has, while the commentator…
PING:
TITLE: Design and Hosting
BLOG NAME: Design and Hosting
Read more about Design and Hosting
PING:
TITLE: Day memorial
BLOG NAME: Day memorial
Read more about Day memorial
PING:
TITLE: Alfuzosin
BLOG NAME: Alfuzosin
Read more about Alfuzosin
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rsb5
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/lo62
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rsb5
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/lo62
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/5ah9
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: Macie
BLOG NAME: Macie
Read more about Macie
PING:
TITLE: Kiara
BLOG NAME: Kiara
Read more about Kiara
PING:
TITLE: Raegan
BLOG NAME: Raegan
Read more about Raegan
PING:
TITLE: effexor
BLOG NAME: effexor
Read more about effexor
PING:
TITLE: effexor
BLOG NAME: effexor
Read more about effexor
PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease
PING:
TITLE: hickey
BLOG NAME: hickey
Read more about hickey
PING:
TITLE: balding
BLOG NAME: balding
Read more about balding
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: detoxification
BLOG NAME: detoxification
Read more about detoxification
PING:
TITLE: accutane
BLOG NAME: accutane
Read more about accutane
PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: prozac
BLOG NAME: prozac
Read more about prozac
PING:
TITLE: prozac
BLOG NAME: prozac
Read more about prozac
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: zocor
BLOG NAME: zocor
Read more about zocor
PING:
TITLE: zocor
BLOG NAME: zocor
Read more about zocor
PING:
TITLE: zocor
BLOG NAME: zocor
Read more about zocor
PING:
TITLE: Kia
BLOG NAME: Kia
Read more about Kia
PING:
TITLE: Kia
BLOG NAME: Kia
Read more about Kia
PING:
TITLE: Kia
BLOG NAME: Kia
Read more about Kia
PING:
TITLE: Yamaha
BLOG NAME: Yamaha
Read more about Yamaha
PING:
TITLE: Mitsubishi
BLOG NAME: Mitsubishi
Read more about Mitsubishi
PING:
TITLE: Holden
BLOG NAME: Holden
Read more about Holden
PING:
TITLE: Cadillac
BLOG NAME: Cadillac
Read more about Cadillac
PING:
TITLE: Ferrari
BLOG NAME: Ferrari
Read more about Ferrari
PING:
TITLE: Aston martin
BLOG NAME: Aston martin
Read more about Aston martin
PING:
TITLE: Dodge
BLOG NAME: Dodge
Read more about Dodge
PING:
TITLE: Kia
BLOG NAME: Kia
Read more about Kia