Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Dept. of Cute | The Morning News »

Monday, November 10, 2008

Olbermann on Prop 8

posted by on November 10 at 21:24 PM

RSS icon Comments


Wow. That was intense.

Posted by J | November 10, 2008 9:34 PM

That's all the more potent for its quiet intensity. I really wish there was a way to make people watch it...

Posted by Chris B | November 10, 2008 9:43 PM

I can't believe that big blowhard just made me cry...I only wish he'd taken the time to do this BEFORE the vote.

Posted by blargh | November 10, 2008 9:44 PM

This is why I love Olbermann

Posted by biju | November 10, 2008 9:45 PM

That was incredible.

Posted by Donolectic | November 10, 2008 9:45 PM

yup- Olbermann can seriously rock sometimes.

Posted by onion | November 10, 2008 9:48 PM

thank you. thank you. thank you.

Posted by mimulus | November 10, 2008 9:53 PM

Yeah, I watched this a while ago, and I can't stop watching it and linking it to people. My boyfriend said, "It's too bad his message is so amazing but it's not going to get to the people who need to hear it." I said, "True, but more and more messages like his are going to get out there, and this bullshit isn't going to continue for much longer."

Posted by Dikla | November 10, 2008 9:53 PM

yet again: slog needs to have one of those "share" buttons so that items can be posted on facebook or whatever.

Posted by konstantconsumer | November 10, 2008 9:55 PM

Powerful indeed, but @3 I agree. If he cares so much, why didn't he say something before 11/4? Maybe he was worried that it would backfire? Maybe he figured that everyone who watches his show would already be on the 'No' side?

I really liked "What's it to you?" which is more or less exactly how I feel about it. It just burns me up that people can somehow feel that two *other* people getting married affects them.

Posted by Why not a week ago? | November 10, 2008 9:59 PM
Posted by onion | November 10, 2008 10:00 PM

Wow. just... wow.

I'm tearing up right now.

I usually want to punch Olbermann in the face, but now I just want to hug him and sob into his shoulder. What a lovely man.

Posted by Jaya | November 10, 2008 10:04 PM

@11: Hey, thanks for the link. I'm really hoping the biopic actually shows in theaters around here when it comes out...

Posted by Darcy | November 10, 2008 10:04 PM

I occasionally hear mixed reviews of Olbermann, but this was pretty damn on the mark. I agree, "What's this to you?" is the bottom line here. Thanks for posting, Dan.

Posted by mc | November 10, 2008 10:05 PM

Thanks, but a day late and a dollar short. Ain't gonna be reamending the Constitution any time soon.

Posted by gay dad | November 10, 2008 10:08 PM

do you think there's a chance in hell my mormon parents would watch this if I sent them the link?

Posted by mimulus | November 10, 2008 10:13 PM

I still hate him and the media in general. Where was all this news coverage before the vote.

Posted by DW | November 10, 2008 10:14 PM

Prop 8 has nothing to do with love. It's about civil rights. Heteros don't have to love each other to get married.

Posted by idaho | November 10, 2008 10:21 PM

It's decided: I have no soul. That just seemed like crazy over-the-top dramatizing from a frustrated soap actor.

Posted by leek | November 10, 2008 10:25 PM

@19 (tee-hee!)

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | November 10, 2008 10:33 PM

@19: I second that, you have no soul, and are likely retarded.

Posted by Gillford | November 10, 2008 10:35 PM

I firmly believe that this is a country where we need to be saying "yes" to our people. I can always make a better decision for my life than the government can, and you know, I think there's a lot of Americans who would agree. Don't tell me I can't smoke weed. If you don't want to smoke weed, don't fucking smoke weed, but don't fucking tell me not to. Same with terminating a pregnancy. Or lighting a cigarette in my fucking bar. Or wearing a seat-belt. Or giving me the option of "pulling the plug" at the end of my life. Just let me do my thing and I'll let you do yours. This is Social Contract 101 - the government should only intervene to protect their citizens from harm.

For the record, my libertarian attitude extends to conservative issues as well. If you don't want to sell birth control at your drugstore or perform an abortion at your private practice, you shouldn't fucking have to. Somebody will. Fuck. Wallmart will. If you don't want your diabetic son to have insulin, because medicine conflicts with your religious beliefs, then so be it. If you want to have multiple wives, fine. I'll never have multiple wives, but what-fucking-ever.

You sure as shit can't do it in Iran. If not in America, where?

Posted by Notecarder | November 10, 2008 10:37 PM

I don't get MSNBC and have never seen Mr Olbermann before, but, damn, that was some powerful stuff.

The question "What is this to you?" has me wondering again about the motivation for the involvement of the Mormon church.

How much of this could have been vengeful bitterness over the way they were forced to redefine marriage as they saw it in order for Utah to become a state? (I'm not suggesting it as a justification, I just figure it's easier to fight evil when you understand it's origins.)

Posted by chasman | November 10, 2008 10:45 PM

Offer the Mormons a deal: polygamy for gay marriage.

Posted by Tiktok | November 10, 2008 10:56 PM

It's too bad the people who would get the most out of watching that will probably never see it because they don't like who is saying it.

Posted by Clint | November 10, 2008 11:01 PM

Wow; surprisingly good. I'd forgotten that Olbermann had this in him. I was about to say "nice to see him speak in a way that might reach people outside the echo chamber," but we're a few days late for that, aren't we?

More attempts to actually reach people and less self-indulgence, please, because this was pretty damn moving.

Posted by Steve | November 10, 2008 11:01 PM

Offer the Mormons no deals. Until they accept homosexuals, we shouldn't accept them. Their religion is bullshit anyway. It's a bastardization of a bastardization of another religion that's based on nonsense, stolen from astrology astrology and fueled by fear and ignorance. They're so far gone, they're not even human anymore. Fuck 'em.

Posted by Gillford | November 10, 2008 11:04 PM

There's a lot of talk here about "What about all of this before the vote?" and the answer to this was that, at least here on SLOG, when Dan or others encouraged people in positions of power to speak up, they were shouted at by those who said the most important thing was to elect Obama and that gays for selfish bitches for trying to inject their divisive social agenda before this election. See here:

Now you know the result of that. Look, I'm happy Obama got elected, but all of you who told us to shut the fuck up about demanding to keep our rights helped Prop 8 pass. Kudos.

Posted by Donolectic | November 10, 2008 11:11 PM

How come only 50% of San Francisco voted? Is it because the gays there were not inspired to vote for Obama? If only 50 percent of Seattle voted how would that of affected the last election in Washington?

Posted by sdofjsdoiv | November 10, 2008 11:28 PM

I'd say "HEY! I didn't come out of Sarah Palin's ANYTHING!" but I didn't approve of that joke the first time around, so I guess I don't get the opportunity to use it now. Dammit.

Posted by leek | November 10, 2008 11:32 PM

I am writing from San Francisco, from a Catholic area that promoted and passed that legislation.

On another of these threads - I was raised in Alaska by my mother, a well educated woman who was the unofficial second wife of a Mormon - he was her boss and prevented her from getting raises and promotions for 15 years!

Why she didnt wake up until he tried to rape my 13 year old sister when he was drunk I don't know. she had to knock him out with the corner of the living room table. I think some people just don't see things for what they really are, they want to believe in love at all costs, and don't abide by common sense.

But I never thought marriage was any kind of answer. I don't believe sex is any thing but selfish. Sex is fun, but it draws us away from more important things - for example -real religion; knowing ourselves and living in the present and helping others.

But the point really is that the base of so called religious people were told that the law required that 1st graders would have to have gay marriage explained to them in school. As usual they used a lot of fear techniques and papered the houses twice with pamplets. They rallied the children to do this - I mean kids - in the streets with signs.

I felt terrible knowing that some of them are gay - they are protesting to fit in, and being taught there is something wrong with who they are - because some day they will realize what they did.

I also feel terrible about those kids who are getting behind hate - disguised as wanting to promote healthy psychology. I am seeking stuff I associate with Nazis. One woman told me her mother calls her to talk about all the people living on welfare and by the grace of the state.

So I asked her - would you hire that person pointing out one of the many homeless?? (There are lots of crazy just barely making it folks around in the downtown areas). She still thinks they somehow don't deserve to live. But spending on protecting the US through the military is just fine. She has not idea of the difference in amounts between military spending and human services.

In short education is in a shambles in California, and some of the people who control private religious education are a menace to society. The kids are not taught to examine on principles of human kindness, and compassion. It's icky in some parts of the Bay area, as unlikely as that seems. Facts are as disposable as people are - if you are uncomfortable with them.

Posted by Transplant | November 11, 2008 12:07 AM

Sorry statement above should be "seeing stuff I associate with Nazis" not 'seeking stuff'

Posted by transplant | November 11, 2008 12:10 AM

this only furthers my crush on keith

Posted by eden | November 11, 2008 12:12 AM

Olbermann's way of putting it is pretty sensible, that in a world hard on lovers every struggling couple should darn well be free to try anything that sometimes helps people stick together.

That aside, the man clearly finds himself very moving.

Posted by tomasyalba | November 11, 2008 12:46 AM

From the heart to any heart, freedom to choose the chance that ember without others to stamp it out based on their own experiences and beliefs... (100% I agree, "What's this to you?").

Posted by nyholm | November 11, 2008 12:59 AM

It's too bad Olbermann wouldn't have voted no anyway - dude doesn't vote.

Posted by Hannah | November 11, 2008 1:03 AM

Let this be a lesson to all (SAVAGE included) about how to frame our argument forthcoming about gay marriage.
(To repeat, this argument is ALL ABOUT THE FRAMING.)
Notice Olbermann offered no name calling, no insults, no compartmentalizing (besides a small swipe at religion.)
(To change political course, politicians need to change culture.
To change culture, activists need to change social psychology.)
Notice how Olbermann went directly after the psychological element of gay marriage.
Again, frame frame frame.
Let us use this as a fine example of how to move forward.

Posted by justin | November 11, 2008 1:05 AM

*37 "Let this be a lesson to all (SAVAGE included) about how to frame our argument forthcoming about gay marriage."


Unfortunately the race baiting to which Savage contributed has probably done its damage. I guarantee you churches will use the racist incidents we've heard of to appeal to people of color in their next campaign.

Savage's blog entries on the topic of black homophobia, by casting black people as the primary villains in this mess, demonstrate that there are still important tenets of journalism that blogging doesn't always share. Namely: objectivity, thoughtfulness, investigation, critical thinking, skepticism, fairness and a sense of responsibility to a community of readers.

If you're doling out sex advice their absence doesn't matter. On the other hand if you're dealing with an incendiary topic...

Black Homophobia!!! The simple minded way he has framed the issue invites people to see black homophobia as in and of itself more reprehensible than homophobia from any other group.

The lame explanation that it is somehow ironic just shows how profoundly unaware he is.

Posted by HDS | November 11, 2008 2:48 AM

@ 9, you do know you can just link to the YouTube video don't you? It's very simple.

Posted by raisedbywolves | November 11, 2008 4:07 AM

"this isn't about yelling and this isn't about politics"
I appreciate the questioning of judgement for those who voted yes. This is a sacred issue and deserves to be treated as such.

Posted by 4f...sake | November 11, 2008 4:53 AM

I think I remember Dan actually saying he WASN'T blaming African Americans for the passage of 8 but that he was merely bringing to the forefront the apparently large percentage of CA African American voters who voted to pass 8. One just can't ignore the homophobia in certain communities across the US, especially well documented African American homophobia. This isn't placing blame or saying this is the ONLY homophobia in the nation. But it's part of the complicated picture we have to figure out as we move forward.

Posted by Balt-O-Matt | November 11, 2008 5:01 AM

Personally, I'd be 'happy' seeing Olbermann lighting his hand on fire like that cooldude did in Miranda J's kool movie. Or if Miranda takes the plunge of MSNBCX and proselytizes passed its talking hed phase, right to scrriptwriting for Gameday futball "ANALYCYST?"
excuse the seemingingly off topic and Skirting ze medium is zee message

let's go to mklskga for the call:
(visualize, hmm not harry scarey or vin scully, but who was the AbC guy? Jim McKAY, yes , on an AM receiver)
-----there's olberman going deep, maddow takes the hike, savage is calling for a time out, the kicker is warming up....yada uaddy yadda........

Posted by gry mklsk | November 11, 2008 5:33 AM

oops, Happy Veterens Day - to all my fellowess veteranarianians OUT thar

Posted by gry mklsk | November 11, 2008 5:37 AM

@9. Just go to your Facebook profile, click "Share Link," and post the link there. Click "preview," then post. If you have the YouTube application, all the better. People can watch the video right there on their Facebooks.

@41. Correct. And then he said that it hurts gay African Americans even more than gay whites. But his intent got buried in everyone's offense at how he "framed" it. Which is a damn shame.

However! I think the discussion--as hard and angry as it is--has done some good. At least we're talking about it.

Posted by Tracy | November 11, 2008 6:12 AM

The ones who really knock my socks off are the ones who pose the rhetorical questions. How am I supposed to answer my daughter when she asks why those two men are holding hands? What am I supposed to say to my son when he wants to know how some kid in his class can have two moms?
These morons want to take away human rights from others so that they don't have to have a conversation with their kids! How fucked is that?

Posted by Pam | November 11, 2008 6:58 AM

Did anyone else think that Keith was on the verge of tears during that?

Posted by Chris | November 11, 2008 7:27 AM

(more inspired by @45 than a direct response):

I have some Idaho-living, home-schooling, old-testament-believing in-laws that showed me why OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN is hard for them. They see the entire world in very all-or-nothing terms... that is why they are drawn to fundamentalism. They honestly believe same-sex relationships are only about sex, no love there, just hot sweaty sex. They cannot see two men or two women together without thinking about sex, and how dirty and wrong that sex is, and how they are going to hell for that sex. It honestly has not occurred to these people that the sensible answer to "Mom, why are those men holding hands?" is "Because they are a couple, like your dad and me." Their brain gets stuck on ThoseGuysHaveButtsexAndAreGoingToHell!!!! leaving them to wonder, "why do i have to explain anal sex to my kids?"

I'm not excusing, just explaining what i have seen from these people.

Posted by W.T. Foxtrot | November 11, 2008 7:51 AM

I don't think Savage engaged in race-baiting or was particularly incendiary. If anything my reaction was "duh, Dan this is news to you?". Population groups that A) are highly religious and church-going and B) lower socio-economic and education levels do tend to be less likely to support gay-equality legislation. Not news. This group (AAs) is an anomoly in that they have so solidly voted Democratic since FDR, whereas many of those non-degree holding, church-going, socially conservative white people drifted Republican over the last 35 years.

I still want to see the statistics of black Californians broken down by education-level and age-bracket and I bet the figures aren't as out of whack. I highly doubt 7 out of 10 university-educated twentysomething or thirtysomething African-Americans voted for Prop 8.

Posted by Jason | November 11, 2008 8:18 AM

Tiktok @24,

Fuck that. I got a different deal to offer the mormons:

You stay out of my civil rights, and I won't burn down your churches.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | November 11, 2008 8:27 AM

A superb example of appealing to the good, the right, the just.

Posted by Andy Niable | November 11, 2008 8:35 AM

I'm a Keith Olbermann fan and have been for over a year now. Yet, somehow, I had not been expecting him to do THIS - and was delighted he did.

Not that everyone in the world will see it, but he has a large audience and has set up the ripples to spread. I tend to only watch/read liberal media, but I've seen a LOT of outrage about Prop 8 passing. In the long run, it can only be good for us.

Even here in VA, where gays have NO rights, the messages will he heard. Eventually, they'll stick. It sux, but that's the way cultural change happens.

My one beef with the special comment was that Keith indicated he did not know any gay people. WTF? He WORKS with Rachel Maddow!

Posted by Ayden/VA | November 11, 2008 8:42 AM

I don't think that Savage was particularly race baiting. I just think it's an ugly situation & the comments devolved quickly. The question I have is what of it? There was all this anger at the black community and people were saying stupid shit about black people.

You're gonna walk past 5, 10 white folks ONE OUT OF TWO of which voted for prop 8 see a black person and get pissed because there's a 70% chance he or she voted for prop 8?

I mean the differences between 49, 51 and 70 are all significant but if you're angry it certainly seems like there's sufficient justification to be angry at Californians in general and not just blacks.

Posted by daniel | November 11, 2008 8:42 AM

@46, Ya, I did think that...right at the beginning when he turns to his left.

And yes, that was quite good.


Posted by derek | November 11, 2008 8:43 AM

Only 50% of San Franciscans voted because a huge chunk of them are NOT American citizens. Check the census for actual percentages. Apparently you haven't visited the city, or visited enough of the city because you would realize that "the gays" are not what makes up the majority of the population.

Posted by medium | November 11, 2008 8:46 AM

Only 50% of San Franciscans voted because a huge chunk of them are NOT American citizens. Check the census for actual percentages. Apparently you haven't visited the city, or visited enough of the city because you would realize that "the gays" are not what makes up the majority of the population.

Posted by medium | November 11, 2008 8:47 AM

I don't want to debate the race-baiting because that only furthers the race-baiting which people from all over the country -- especially black people -- have identified as race-baiting (and I think they'd know), but I do want to chime in with the fact that Dan was so all over the board with his posts, either through design (to cover up his original intent) or carelessness (becuase even he wasn't sure what his intent ever was or maybe how to articulate it), that his position is thoroughly obscured at this point. The fact that people still disagree on his intent, I think, proves that last point, at least.

Meanwhile, yes, Olbermann's commentary is the single best piece on marriage equality I ever haver been exposed to in any medium. Part of why it is so is because it placed blame where it belongs: on EVERYBODY who voted Yes on Prop 8.

Posted by whatevernevermind | November 11, 2008 8:50 AM

So get the word out to the people that need to hear it. No protests, no anger at the "other side". Do what worked for Obama. Do not be divisive.

Go to the churches in your neighborhood. Ask to meet with the pastor, one-on-one. Discuss this with him.

Bring a thumb drive with a copy of Olberman's video. Ask, politely, that the pastor, or priest, or whoever view it, at his or her convenience.

Write a letter. Include the YouTube link (or define the search terms that will pull it up). Meet with your childrens' teachers. Show it to them.

Protesting and shouting isn't going to do squat to convince anyone. Be reasonable and rational, and treat them the same way. But make contact, get them thinking. Get them to drop their immediate reaction. Get them to see beyond the issue of (as was eloquently said above) seeing marriage as only about sex. Get them to understand it's about love.

Get the message out. Spread Olberman's video everywhere.

Posted by dr_awesome | November 11, 2008 9:05 AM

It's no use linking discrimination against gays with discrimination against blacks because the religious people still think that being gay is a choice. Their problem with gay marriage is that a sinful person will choose to be gay and if a gay couple raises a kid, that kid is also more likely to choose to be gay. And god doesn't want that.

Stupid, yes, but that's what they believe. So tying it to racial or gender discrimination won't work with them. I know, I tried it yesterday.

Posted by Sleestak | November 11, 2008 9:25 AM

It seems funny to me that now, after we lost, all the big guns are coming out. Arnie saying he thinks it's wrong. Well, Governator, where were you a week ago? Same with Olbermann.

All good and well that they can put their heads up now when there's no political danger. Woulda been nice if they'd spoken up before.

Posted by DeanP | November 11, 2008 9:27 AM

"I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us." -Mario Cuomo, 52nd Governor of New York (b. 1932)
i'd like to put emphasis on "anything else you choose".

Posted by kk | November 11, 2008 9:28 AM

You can use this website to see the contributors for and against Prop 8.

Decide which companies you would like to do business with... Also, you can decide which friends are "true friends".

Posted by Tim | November 11, 2008 9:29 AM


Keith is dreeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaamy!

Posted by TVDinner | November 11, 2008 10:02 AM

"What is this to you" in its original, less terse form:

The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
-John Stuart Mill

Posted by krzysz | November 11, 2008 10:11 AM


Thanks for the reminder! I was totally one of those people. And I still think it was more important to elect Obama. I still think that making gay rights a huge issue in this election cycle would have been shooting ourselves in the foot. Rock, meet hard place. Fuck. *sigh*

Posted by violet_dagrinder | November 11, 2008 10:11 AM

medium@55 -
The San Francisco turn out was 50% of REGISTERED VOTERS, not residents*. Western Los Angeles (incl Hollywood and Santa Monica) also had lower than expected turnout.

How many of that 50% that did turn out only voted for Obama and skipped the rest?(as always happens in presidential years)
Its not a big secret that unless they are motivated and campaigned, late day voters on the west coast skip voting if the presidential winner is obvious by 4-5pm. And the liberal progressive sides of initiatives and propositions usually lose, conservatives count on that. I'm surprised Washington's initiatives went progressive this time.

The Anti-8 campaign fell down on the basics of GetOutTheVote, even as it was talked about as a major strategy of Obama. Its unfair to criticize other groups for their votes when the most liberal, godless, gay-friendly, and yes GAY citizens don't even bother to vote for themselves.


*And many of the non-citizens working in SF live outside the city anyways.

Posted by skdfjdslfj | November 11, 2008 10:17 AM

Oh, hey: for those post-modern folks out there who don't have a TV or cable or whatever, you can podcast Mr. Dreamy every weeknight at

I slap it on my iPod and watch it under the covers in bed, but maybe that's TMI.

Posted by TVDinner | November 11, 2008 10:56 AM

@ 51: No, what he said was that he didn't have any friends or coworkers who have struggled because of their sexual orientation. Rachel lives in MA, where she could get married if she wanted to.

Posted by Elf | November 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Wow. That was amazing. I see now why my mom loves Keith olbermann so much. He puts into words what so many of us are feeling but are unable to express so eloquently. Thank you, Keith. And thank you Dan for posting that. I don't have TV, so I appreciate all the important clips that are posted on Slog.

Posted by d | November 11, 2008 11:05 AM

#10 Maybe he didn't think that Proposition 8 would pass in California.

Posted by elswinger | November 11, 2008 11:52 AM

god, this was KO at his best...just amazing. and timing albeit hindsight, his words still carry truth, justice and are very necessary.

but this is a civil rights issue! let us not forget this cannot be said enough and everybody must know that if someone or anybody cannot get married, then that is wrong.

Posted by bitchy not scratchy | November 11, 2008 11:59 AM

# 52. That is essentially my point. Why begin a discussion with the headline "BLACK HOMOPHOBIA" then spew some angry ill informed diatribe? That's the framing problem the previous poster was talking about. What difference does it make that Black people MIGHT have voted in greater numbers than others? ALL ethnic groups voted for prop 8 by way too great a margin. No he didn't blame people for prop 8 passing. But you would not be stupid to draw that conclusion from the way he framed his discussion.

It's the speed and ease with which Savage identified the black culprit on the basis of limited and suspect data that constitutes race baiting. It's mindless discourse that inflames resentment and does nothing to accurately identify or solve the problem. There are so many identifying characteristics of the typical yes on 8 voter -- religious belief, income, ethnicity, geographic location, education level, travel experience, exposure to gay friends, age and on and on. Why not group people of color into one mass and say people of color voted for prop 8 by such and such a margin? There are all kinds of ways to slice the data. What is the motivation that leads one to single out Black? The choice speaks of bias.

And this has been already said: He seems clueless about the world outside the white precincts of his leafy green Seattle niche. The black community's homophobia rooted in resentment of emasculation of black men is old as dirt, ugly and complicated. Every culture has some outdated useless neurotic mythology you can pick on. Why aren't we sorting through everybody else's shit with the nastiness and venom we reserve for black people?

#48. It would be interesting to see those numbers. The black cultural elite (I know, a corny turn of phrase)is probably just as elitist as every other elite. Yippe!

As importantly, why isn't he looking into the larger sample that showed different black voting behavior? Why didn't he ask questions about why the pre election polls showed no ethnic group polling much above 50% for prop 8 (Bradley effect? Perhaps. Intensification of targeting of black evangelicals. Of course.)

As a friend of mine says the "what" and "who" questions are a fraction of understanding. Its the "why" and "how" that tell the real story. And Savage is absolutely not equipped to address them.

Posted by HDS | November 11, 2008 12:35 PM

above i meant to say
"No he didn't blame black people for prop 8 passing. But you would not be stupid to draw that conclusion from the way he framed his discussion."

Posted by hds | November 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Elf @67...

Thank you; you're right. Guess I 'mis-heard'.

Posted by Ayden/VA | November 11, 2008 3:34 PM


TVDinner, if you're a guy, can I watch Countdown with ya sometime?

Posted by Chris | November 11, 2008 4:22 PM

Add Your Comments

Please click Post only once.