Democratic Presidential Candidates

[Apollon]

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support.

Mouais, pas très fiable.

[José]

…pas très fiable.

[William White]

Il reste à savoir les motivations du clan Clinton (si Obama élu, fin de carrière nationale pour Hillary?) et sa puissance (de nuisance sur la candidature de Obama).

[José]

Guerre des blogs chez les Démocrates : les groupies d'Obla di Obla da Obama tentent de couler les blogs pro Hillary qui attaquent leur idole en les dénonçant comme étant du spam.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3878

[José]

Conservatives for Obama?

By Thomas Sowell

A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the conservatives for Senator Obama.

Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Some Influential Conservatives Spurn GOP and Endorse Obama." In it they quote various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack Obama, rather than on John McCain.

What is going on?

Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the Congressional Republicans in general-- and Senator John McCain in particular-- have so alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a drowning man grasping at a straw.

The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election.

Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a very unreliable flotation device.

If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst betrayal.

But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to get jobs.

Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions or indulge their fantasies.

Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.

What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two decades.

Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well.

Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.

Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a member of the Senate of the United States.

Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make policy, not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.

Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays down the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics of fear."

Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's actions.

Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack Obama.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasS…p;comments=true

[William White]

White men can vote

Jul 3rd 2008 | WARREN, OHIO

From The Economist print edition

And there are a lot of them, even if they can’t dance

IN A family restaurant with bottomless coffee, Paul Radaker chews on a battered fish. A retired carpenter, he has been a Democrat all his life. But this year, he is leaning towards John McCain. The Republican candidate is a war hero, he observes. Barack Obama may be intelligent, but “I don’t really know what he stands for.”

Mr Obama’s race “doesn’t bother me at all”, says Mr Radaker. The question sparks an anecdote about the Korean war. The southern guys Mr Radaker met when he served there “really didn’t like blacks,” he recalls, “But I guess that’s changed now.” Still, he reckons that plenty of people round here will not vote for Mr Obama because of his colour.

Mr Radaker is white and 78. A few miles away, John McCain is taking questions from workers in a car factory, who are mostly white men too, but much younger. The car industry in the rustbelt is miserable. Factories making thirsty pickup trucks are cutting back or closing. But the General Motors plant at Lordstown is doing just fine. It makes a small car, the Chevy Cobalt, which sips petrol in moderation and is therefore selling well. Mr McCain is touting this, along with GM’s plans for a plug-in hybrid car, as evidence that American ingenuity can solve a lot of problems, from high petrol prices to global warming. He has trouble remembering the names of the cars he has just seen being made, but he thinks they look great.

The workers are polite, but hardly ecstatic. Many are socially conservative, but pocketbook issues trouble them more. “I’m undecided,” says Matt Cope, a 34-year-old assembler who hunts and prays like a Republican but thinks the Democrats are more focused on workers. “John McCain has suffered a lot [he was tortured by the North Vietnamese]. He’s a good man. But Obama’s a stand-up guy, too.”

Guys like Mr Cope could decide the election. According to the polls, Mr Obama beats Mr McCain in nearly every group except white men. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, there are a lot of white men. In 2004 they were roughly 36% of the electorate, and they preferred George Bush to John Kerry by about 25 points. This year, Mr McCain leads Mr Obama by about 20 points among them.

Democrats have various theories about why white men do not like them. One is that the problem is only with southerners, who abandoned the Democrats in the 1960s because President Lyndon Johnson signed laws demanding equal rights for blacks. Clearly, there is some truth to this. But it is not the whole story. For one thing, the Democrats lost many non-southern white men, too. Between the presidential elections of 1960 and 2004, their share of the southern white male vote shrank by 17 points, but among non-southern whites it still shrank by 12 points. And racial attitudes have changed dramatically since the 1960s, especially among the young. There must be something besides bigotry making white men spurn the Democrats.

Thomas Frank, the author of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”, thinks the white working class has been hoodwinked. It is in their economic interest to vote Democratic, but they don’t because those crafty Republicans have got them all worked up about silly moral and cultural issues such as abortion, guns and gay marriage.

Both theories are popular among Democrats, not least because they imply that Democrats have done nothing wrong; it is just that poor white trash are too bigoted or stupid to support them. But Democrats will not get very far by blaming the voter. David Paul Kuhn, author of “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma” points out that moral issues cannot easily be separated from economic ones. Poor people fret more about family breakdown because they see more of it than rich people do and its consequences, for them, are worse.

In a time of economic insecurity, it is rational for people to turn to things they can rely on, such as faith and patriotism, and unwise for Democrats to scorn them for it. That is why Mr Obama’s comment that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because they are “bitter” will be the keystone of Republican attacks, predicts Mr Kuhn.

Mr Kuhn thinks the Democrats’ failure to take white men seriously is the main reason they keep losing presidential elections. The party captures liberal white men—typically prosperous professionals—but scores badly among businessmen and white male workers. Part of the problem is that Democrats are identified with the notion that white men are to blame for all the world’s ills, from racism to the oppression of the workers. Few white men share this view. Many are workers themselves.

The Republicans have long been better at presenting themselves as the Daddy party, self-reliant, tough on crime and tough on terrorists. “They talk male talk,” grumbled the late Norman Mailer, a novelist who thought liberals could be macho too. The Democrats, meanwhile, strike some white men as effete, cosmopolitan and condescending. Mr Obama’s waffly explanation as to why he temporarily stopped wearing a flag pin sounded awfully as though he thought those who love the flag are frauds and dolts.

In some voters’ minds, Democrats are associated with an assault on masculinity itself. “Boys can’t be boys in school any more,” complains Karen Combs, a volunteer for Mr McCain. And urban liberals don’t understand how much guns matter to rural white men, fumes Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, a Democratic strategist. “Someone’s talking about taking your guns, they’re talking about coming inside your fence,” he says. “And government should stop at your fence.”

If the Democrats paid more attention to “Bubba” (the white male rural voter), they could get a lock on the presidency for 30 years, predicts Mr Saunders, with the hyperbole common to his trade. The first step is showing up: “If you live in Kentucky or West Virginia and you read in the local paper about a candidate who isn’t coming ’cause he thinks you won’t vote for him, you won’t vote for him.”

Mr Obama seems to understand this, and is striving manfully to make it up to Bubba. He has reversed his old view that the gun ban in Washington, DC, (which the Supreme Court struck down last week) was constitutional. He stresses that big cities and rural areas can have different gun laws, saying that “what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne”. He gave a rousing speech about patriotism on June 30th, including an anecdote about sitting on his grandfather’s shoulders watching American astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. And the next day, he gave a speech in Ohio about faith.

But he has his work cut out. The “people” section on his website divides Americans into 17 categories: Latinos, women, First Americans, environmentalists, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, Americans with disabilities, Asian-Americans and Pacific islanders and so on. There is no mention of whites, or men.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displays…ory_id=11670719

[William White]

«Je veux lui couper les couilles», a déclaré Jesse Jackson, candidat à la présidence en 1984 et 1988, figure importante du mouvement des droits civiques et supporteur officiel de Barack Obama.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080711…12/1014/CPMONDE

[William White]

[Ash]

De fait :

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation.”

[Apollon]

De fait :

Du Kennedy réchauffé, du blabla.

[sam_00]

Monstreux …

Que voilà de bien belles intentions! un discour à la chavez où à la kim jong il

Ah les bonnes intentions .. l'enfer en est pavé …

[José]

Barack Obama Walks the Walk

After telling a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers that he opposes school voucher programs over the weekend, Senator Obama added that: “We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools; not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”

Senator Obama sends his own two daughters to the private “Lab School” founded by John Dewey in 1896, which charged $20,000 in tuition at the middle school level last year. Though he says “we” should not be “throwing up our hands and walking away” from public schools, he has done precisely that.

That is his right, and, as a wealthy man, it is his prerogative under the current system of American education, which allows only the wealthy to easily choose between private and government schools. But instead of offering to extend that same choice to all families, Senator Obama wants the poor to wait for the public school system to be “fixed.”

I could editorialize about this, but I really don’t see the need. Readers of this blog are perfectly capable of drawing the obvious conclusions.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/07/14/…walks-the-walk/

[Taranne]

Monstreux …

Que voilà de bien belles intentions! un discour à la chavez où à la kim jong il

[Taranne]

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080711…12/1014/CPMONDE

Rien d'étonnant. Jesse Jackson incarne la vieille garde du mouvement "afro-américain", ceux pour qui les Blancs sont responsables de tout, les Noirs de pauvres victimes et la réconciliation possible seulement après que les seconds aient bien botté le train des premiers. On comprend donc qu'il ne raffole pas d'Obama qui, de plus, n'entre pas dans le "moule" - certains "intellectuels" allant jusqu'à lui refuser l'étiquette de "noir" parce qu'il n'a pas grandi dans le ghetto et s'est "vendu" à la culture blanche.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

C'est toujours mieux que "Bullshit like you cannot believe".

[LeSanton]

The New Yorker est le magazine de l'intelligentsia de gauche, pro-Obama.

“The Politics of Fear,” July 21, 2008. Barry Blitt.

L'éditeur du New Yorker, David Remnick, a défendu son choix de «montrer les distorsions et les mensonges pour ce qu'ils sont : en les exagérant et en s'en moquant, nous en dévoilons l'absurdité».

Vraiment convaincant, au premier abord (le seul qui sera retenu par les lecteurs) ?

[Taranne]

On ne leur a jamais appris, au New Yorker, qu'une caricature fonctionne mieux avec une légende?

Ceci dit, l'affaire est révélatrice… du peu d'estime que les liberals ont pour les masses qu'ils prétendent défendre.

Uncovered: the elite’s view of white America

Many writers fear that the masses are too dumb to ‘get’ the New Yorker’s satirical front page picture. Trouble is, Obama agrees with them.

Kirk Leech

The cartoon cover of this week’s New Yorker has certainly provoked a response. Unfortunately, few have been able to see the funny side.

The front cover of the New Yorker

Entitled ‘the Politics of Fear’, the cartoon is an attempt to satirise many of the crazier right-wing rumours and conspiracy theories currently doing the rounds about the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama. The scene is the Oval Office a few months hence; an American flag burns in the fireplace and a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs on the wall. In the foreground, Obama, dressed in a turban, a khaki thobe and a pair of sandals, is giving what right-wing commentators describe as a ‘terrorist fist-bump’ to his ‘afroed’, machine-gun-toting wife Michelle. Where Obama evokes contemporary fears, she is drawn as Angela Davis, the 1960s Black Panther leader.

While the cartoon might mock the right-wing wet dream, the backlash has originated elsewhere - amongst New Yorker readers, Obama supporters and the Obama campaign itself. Unsurprisingly, calls to boycott the New Yorker have been growing daily.

New Yorker editor, David Remnick, denies the cartoon was an attempt ‘just to get attention’. It was ‘not a satire about Obama’, he protested, ‘it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama’ (1). Anyone who reads the New Yorker will know that its front covers are often obscure and at times cryptic. But it wasn’t obscurity that was the problem this time, but offensiveness. But to whom was the cartoon offensive?

Strangely, many of the cartoon’s critics claim to know that it’s ironic rather than a ‘smear’. It’s just that while ‘people like them’ are sophisticated enough to understand it, other Americans aren’t quite so fortunate. This patronising attitude to others, especially those living south of the Mason-Dixon line, reflects a deep-seated prejudice held not only by many Obama supporters, but also by the presidential nominee himself.

In this sense, Obama’s comments in April about small-town America – ‘they cling to guns and religion’ – mirror the real political divide in America today. Those who favour ‘God and guns’, in other words the white working class, are those Obama and his supporters believe most likely to be duped by the New Yorker magazine satire. Such elitist condescension is at the root of the Obama fan club’s concerns over the cartoon.

Hence, Eve Fairbanks, writing in the New Republic, suggests that a ‘reader would have to have a fairly sophisticated understanding’ of the magazine’s ethos to understand the ‘intended ironic distance’ (2). Rachel Sklar at the Huffington Post believes that the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but ‘[w]ho knows if they’ll get this in Dubuque, [and] they sure aren’t going to like it in Chicago’ (3). Elsewhere, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton was content to see it as ‘tasteless and offensive’ and Jake Tapper, another high-profile Obama supporter, called it ‘as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish’ (4).

The response on this side of the Atlantic has been no less condescending to the American electorate. The Times cartoonist, Peter Brookes, clearly ignorant of The Simpsons, believes that ‘Americans just don’t get irony and it’s probably wasted on them’ (5). Roy Greenslade in the Guardian opines that ‘satire, as so often, can be read two ways’ (6). BBC reporter Jonathan Beale questioned ‘whether everyone will get the joke, and that it may perpetuate the myth that Obama is a Muslim’ (7).

Admittedly, the cartoon doesn’t really work. Satire holds best when reality is pushed to an absurd level. Anyone wanting to see this in action should watch the repeats of Chris Morris’ Brass Eye currently running on More4 in the UK. Morris takes on all manner of subjects from the point of view of a contemporary current affairs show. Pushing the sensationalist element of such shows to the extreme, he ridicules the self-promoting hyperbole of the medium, indeed, the media, from paedophile panics to drugs hysteria. Some 11 years since Brass Eye was first shown, it remains vital.

The Obama cartoon, on the other hand, fails because it has no foothold in reality: we know that Obama has no plans for a worldwide caliphate and his wife is no gun toting radical.

In this sense, what is more interesting than the cartoon, or even the response to it, is the companion article in the New Yorker by Ryan Lizza. Outlining Obama’s early political career and meteoric rise, Lizza presents Obama as very much a pragmatic and calculating politician, and certainly not the wind of change many are hoping for: ‘[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them… he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game.’ (8)

And this Tuesday, right on pragmatic cue, Obama promised to send another 10,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan, increasing their number by a third. It’s time that Obama’s cheerleaders began to see the irony in their belief that he is something to get all hot and bothered about.

Kirk Leech is project manager for the Research Defence Society (RDS) and is currently undertaking postgraduate research at King’s College London.

[Race to the White House 2008]

(1) David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It’s Satire, Meant To Target “Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices” About Obama, Huffington Post, 13 July 2008

(2) What were they thinking?, New Republic, 13 July 2008

(3) Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama, Huffington Post, 13 July 2008

(4) Obama Camp Hammers New ‘Ironic’ New Yorker Cover Depicting Conspiracists’ Nightmare of Real Obamas, Political Punch, 13 July 2008

(5) The Times take on The New Yorker cover, The Times, 14 July 2008

(6) Storm over ‘tasteless’ Obama mag cover, Guardian, 14 July 2008

(7) Anger over Obama cartoon, BBC News, 15 July 2008

(8) Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama, New Yorker, 21 july 2008

[Apollon]

On ne leur a jamais appris, au New Yorker, qu'une caricature fonctionne mieux avec une légende?

Ceci dit, l'affaire est révélatrice… du peu d'estime que les liberals ont pour les masses qu'ils prétendent défendre.

Bien vu, c'est exactement ça. Lire the New Yorker, journal d'excellente qualité par ailleurs, est un marqueur social pour élite progressiste un tantinet méprisante. J'ai d'ailleurs la collection chez moi et en particulier la rétrospective des meilleurs dessins, qui vaut le détour (avis à ceux qui viennent ce soir).

[Saucer]

Bien vu, c'est exactement ça. Lire the New Yorker, journal d'excellente qualité par ailleurs, est un marqueur social pour élite progressiste un tantinet méprisante. J'ai d'ailleurs la collection chez moi et en particulier la rétrospective des meilleurs dessins, qui vaut le détour (avis à ceux qui viennent ce soir).

Mmm…

[Ash]

Obama vire à droite

La gauche américaine , qui pesait lourd dans les primaires , mais peu dans l'électorat national , est en train de perdre son candidat .

Obama abandonne un par un , les principes qui lui ont valu sa nomination: il financera sa campagne sur des fonds privés ( ses principaux mécénes: les avocats , les banquiers et les entrepreneurs du net - les petits donateurs ne représentent que 45 % de ses ressources ) , il soutient la peine de mort en cas de viol d'enfant , il soutient les écoutes téléphoniques et le port d'arme , il dénonce les pére noirs qui abandonnent leurs enfants, il souhaite confier l'aide sociale à des communautés religieuse , et il renonce à quitter l'Irak sans s'être auparavant concerté avec les militaires sur le terrain . Autant de totems de droite , trés Bushistes , trés " Révolution conservatrice " , tous embrassés par Obama. Avec alégresse . Que reste-t-il à McCain ? Pas grand chose .

Les blogs conservateurs, pro McCain , déstabilisés par ce virage d'Obama , l'accusent d'être un socialiste masqué ; il se révèle plutôt un hyper centriste , une machine à gagner , un politicien en somme .Et pas vraiment porteur d'un nouveau message , ni pour l'Amérique ni pour le monde . Obama , au fonds , aime l'Amérique telle qu'elle est et qui lui a permis d'arriver là où il se trouve . Selon le Wall Street Journal , si Obama est élu ce sera une troisiéme présidence Bush .

New-York, 13 juillet.

Manque de sources, mais ce serait drôle si tout cela s'avèrerait exact.

[Taranne]

Manque de sources, mais ce serait drôle si tout cela s'avèrerait exact.

Ce serait plutôt une troisième présidence Clinton. Par ailleurs, Obama n'a pas besoin d'un "nouveau message" puisque le message, c'est lui.

Et je ne vois pas ce qu'il y a de droitier à mettre les pères noirs en face de leurs responsabilités; le nombre de familles monoparentales dans les ghettos est proprement effarant, et contribue pour une bonne part à la stagnation sociale et économique de la communauté noire. Bref, beaucoup de bruit pour rien: du pur Sorman en somme.

[Ash]

En tout ça confirme ce que je pense depuis le départ : Obama vs McCain c'est Centriste vs Centriste. Rien ne les départagent idéologiquement, seules les fluctuations politiques du moment y collent des différences. Et ça les médias FR ne le comprendront jamais. Ce qui me fait également dire que McCain n'est pas plus désavantagé que ça face à lui, leurs chances sont à peu près égales, tous deux visant le mainstream comme succès électoral.

[Taranne]

En tout ça confirme ce que je pense depuis le départ : Obama vs McCain c'est Centriste vs Centriste. Rien ne les départagent idéologiquement, seules les fluctuations politiques du moment y collent des différences. Et ça les médias FR ne le comprendront jamais. Ce qui me fait également dire que McCain n'est pas plus désavantagé que ça face à lui, leurs chances sont à peu près égales, tous deux visant le mainstream comme succès électoral.

Je dirais plutôt centre-gauche contre centre-droit, du moins sur l'échiquier politique américain - Obama comme McCain sont certainement plus à droite tous les deux que Royal et même Sarkozy. Après huit années de polarisation extrême, la présidentielle doit être l'occasion de recentrer le paysage politique, c'est-à-dire que Obama va devoir (il a déjà commencé) à larguer son aile gauche, et McCain va devoir faire de même avec son aile droite, notamment sur la question de l'immigration.

Ceci étant posé, je serais très étonné de voir McCain l'emporter. Quand bien même Obama ne serait qu'un changement de façade, c'est tout de même un changement et c'est de cela que les Américains ont besoin en ce moment. Le Parti Républicain a besoin de procéder à des révisions déchirantes, et il ne peut les faire que dans l'opposition. C'est dommage pour McCain qui, je pense, aurait pu faire un grand président… en 2000.

[Ash]

En nous évitant Bush : oui

La seule chose qui nous concernent c'est en matière de politique étrangère (et économique éventuellement), et la différence entre les deux semble mince.

Quand au parti républicain, il doit clairement abandonner le néoconservatisme mais une défaite peut avoir l'effet contraire, McCain étant considéré comme en dehors de ce cercle (un comble vu ses positions). Face à une H. Clinton j'aurai préféré voir un McCain mais là quel que soit le vainqueur on peut dire que ça n'a plus aucune espèce d'importance.

[José]

[Taranne]

En nous évitant Bush : oui

C'est clair. Un homme d'expérience aux commandes le 11 septembre 2001 nous aurait évité pas mal d'ennuis…

Quand au parti républicain, il doit clairement abandonner le néoconservatisme mais une défaite peut avoir l'effet contraire, McCain étant considéré comme en dehors de ce cercle (un comble vu ses positions).

Ce serait bien de larguer également la Religious Right qui a pas mal plombé le GOP ces dernières années (et risque de plomber encore davantage la candidature McCain, celui-ci étant obligé à des contorsions intellectuelles franchement acrobatiques pour récupérer un électorat dont les valeurs ne sont pas les siennes) Mais bon, faut pas rêver.

Face à une H. Clinton j'aurai préféré voir un McCain mais là quel que soit le vainqueur on peut dire que ça n'a plus aucune espèce d'importance.

Je n'en suis pas certain, ne serait-ce qu'en termes d'exportation. Le monde aime Obama, pas McCain.

[Ash]

Le monde s'arrêterait-il à l'ouest de l'europe ?

[Normous]

Manque de sources, mais ce serait drôle si tout cela s'avèrerait exact.

Rassurez-moi, ce n'est pas de Sorman ce texte avec une faute par ligne?

[Ash]

Non, de Sorman

[Apollon]

bof