Got Television, Got Supervision

Barack Obama mans up and takes a stand against the entity that's terrorizing Americans.

Democrat Barack Obama said on Sunday he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

"I will assure that we will have an antitrust division that is serious about pursuing cases," the Illinois senator told an audience of mostly senior citizens in Oregon.

"There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we're seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask…is the consumer being served?"

Obama's too far ahead to lose the nomination, but I couldn't help but think of Howard Dean:

I believe we need to re-regulate the media, go back to limiting the number of stations that can be controlled in one particular area, so we can be sure that the American people get moderate, conservative and liberal points of view.

The day in 2009 when Sen. Al Franken casts the tie-breaking vote on a bill reversing most of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is really not hard to imagine.

Headline explained here.

Comments

[Neil]

"The day in 2009 when Sen. Al Franken casts the tie-breaking vote on a bill reversing most of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is really not hard to imagine."

God help us all.

[Paul]

would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

What consolidation?

[Paul]

I believe we need to re-regulate the media, go back to limiting the number of stations that can be controlled in one particular area, so we can be sure that the American people get moderate, conservative and liberal points of view.

I mean, isn't it the government's job to make sure that the news and commentary we hear is tempered, reasoned and mainstream? What if anyone were able to speak and say anything they wanted?

[Aresen]

Dear Senator Obama

Let me tell you about something called the Internet.

It is a medium where every sort of opinion - from far left to far right and way beyond either - gets aired. And thrashed.

It is a wide open, no holds barred, forum where anyone can speak his piece and find those who agree with him. Those who don't agree are equally free to rebut, make counter-assertions, abuse or insult the first one. They, in turn, are subject to the same give-and-take. (Try googling "flame war".)

The internet is almost unregulated (aside from a few asinine attempts by your fellow senators and their counterparts in other countries), yet still manages to achieve this remarkable fairness.

I humbly suggest that this example should persuade you that fairness will be best achieved if the regulation of media is decreased, not increased.

Yours truly,

Your neighbor, Aresen.

[Episiarch]

"Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV? Don't know the answer? Hmm. Successful, isn't it?"

[COL.[retd]A.M.Khajawall]

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America
is facing and will face very critical and substantial
"Challenges" in coming, months, years, and decades to
come.

It is very essential that we pick out our next
President keeping in mind the following criteria.

1. A candidate who has a clear and candid " Vision
and Mission" for our Nation.

2. A candidate with " Strong Character and Stable
Integrity" in-spite of adversity during primary
election process.

3. A candidate with sound and sustained
"Presidential Temperament" and
" Judgment".

4. A candidate with little "Washington exposure"
and "real connectedness with people and future
generation".

5. A candidate who "Inspires us up" rather than
"Tears us Down".

6. A candidate not based on sexism,
racism,regionalism,and ageism.

In my professional, political and personal opinion,
the only candidate who meets the all above
characteristics and has shown constant and consistent
coolness, calmness, and connectedness { PRESIDENTIAL
TEMPERAMENT } is Senator Barrack Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1980. I voted
for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First Bush,
and second Bush in 2000 and In the process last
interest in Washington politics and I
stopped voting. Getting disinterested and disgusted in
our political process and stopping voting that was a
bad decision in any circumstance, particularly under
present circumstances.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and
let "Washington" stay the same.We can not afford our
Greatgreat Nation to become less than what we are,
what we were and what we can be?

We need to send clear, careful and candid message to
the world and some time 24 hour partisan hateful media
to set the agenda for our future.

These partisan media outlets are trying to deprive,
dupe, and derail us and our Nation getting it right
this time.

These partisan media and pundits are trying their best
to deny us better future and continue focus our
weaknesses and generate bitter future for us and our
Greatgrand Nation. { Our Greatgrand Nations people
are persistently and constantly subjected to this
Psychological Terrorism" without our knowledge. The
common and regular people do not have time to see
thru
and sort thru this psychological terrorism perpetuated
by these partisan media outlets.

We the Americans should not and would not to allow
these partisan media outlets psychologically
terrorized, traumatized and silence us this time and
any time in future.

I am sure that we will get it right this
time and elect Senator Obama our next President.

Let us remember that our Greatgrand is constituted of
family, friends,fellowships, faith, funds,foundation,
fun, and future with fairness and freedom and without
fear or favor.

We can not afford to lose any of above. Let us stand
up, be counted, save, build our Greatgrand Nation for
centuries to come and regain our world economic,
moral, and power status back.

God Bless our Great grand Nation and its diverse
people.

Our Greatgrand nation needs present and future
stability, security, safety,sustained progress and
restoration of our due status in this perilous Global
World at the all levels.

Yours sincerely,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D.
Forensic Psychiatrist.
Disables American Veteran.
Las Vegas Nevada.
Cell: 951-505-6975

[LT Nixon]

Whoa,David likes The Germs. Good stuff.

Anyhoo, I'm just waiting for Videodrome to become a reality. Then I won't need any MSM or Obama's ridiculous policies.

[Episiarch]

Long live the new flesh, LT Nix.

[New World Dan]

What consolidation?

You've got things like the XM/Sirius merger. You had Clear Channel buying radio stations like crazy in the late 90s. Right now, newspapers are folding left and right (but mostly top to bottom).

But if, by chance, we elect Al Franken to the senate I'm moving to South Dakota.

[Paul]

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D.:

With all due respect, don't you believe that all candidates believe they fit into your criteria already?

[Paul]

New World Dan,

That 'consolidation' you speak of are market consolidations which are a response to new and an ever widening competitive base. Ie, due to the ever increasing number of new choices we have, they're losing market share.

[shrike]

As long as Net Neutrality is preserved the media will self-correct in time.

Its funny how the wingnuts throw barbs about the long
(deservedly) dormant "fairness doctrine" but lobby for ISP political correctness.

[jp]

Aresen: "Dear Senator Obama

Let me tell you about something called the Internet."

Shhhh. Don't tell 'em about the Internet. Let them have their fun with TV and radio and feel like they're "accomplishing" something.

[Stephen the Goldberger]

shit

[Paul]

Don't tell 'em about the Internet.

Hey, I hear there's this new-fangled thingy called 'telnet' which the young people can use to remotely control systems. It's a jungle out there.

[Warren]

The day in 2009 when Sen. Al Franken casts the tie-breaking vote on a bill reversing most of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is really not hard to imagine.

Tie-breaking vote? Then surely you must be referring to VP Al Franken.

[troy]

Oh yeah, that is what I am afraid of, media consolidation. I have 300+ magazines of every conceivable niche to choose from; Cable tv and radio, satellite movies, satellite radio, internet radio, radio radio in fm and am, internet porn, old fashioned (read: tedious mediocrity) over the air television. I heard of something called HD radio that I have no idea what it is. I can get my stuff from brick and mortor stores, ebay, or amazon.com. Hell, there are still a few newspapers left.

What the hell are these idiots talking about? I should pen this letter:

Dear Senator Obama:

You are an idiot.

Sincerely Troy

I hope that wasn't too mean. I don't need a federal felony conviction.

[shrike]

I hope that wasn't too mean. I don't need a federal felony conviction.

Not likely.

Obama is not the one who pushed the Patriot Act through and who requires a "loyalty oath" to attend party meetings.

That would be Herr Bush.

[Bohica]

Cell: 951-505-6975

Maybe someone should call the good COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall M.D. and tell him posting campaign spam in the comments is unbecoming a former officer.

[Terry]

Albert Jay Knock in his autobiography quoted an old teacher who said that most people can't read. And he meant can't read at all, that is take away the meaning of the sentence.

In all serious, when you look at what he just said and combine it with his views on the second amendment, this guy can't read.
He doesn't understand the US Constitution. Really doesn't have a clue.
This guy sounds dumber and dumber the more I hear him speak.

[Neil]

Liberals never understand the plain text of the Constitution, Terry.

[Tom]

Albert Jay Knock in his autobiography quoted an old teacher who said that most people can't read. And he meant can't read at all, that is take away the meaning of the sentence.

In all serious,

Er... Was the first paragraph a joke?

[shrike]

Conservatives won't admit that the Bill of Rights applies to subjects of the individual states, Neil.

Why do you hate the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment?

Do you hate democracy?

[Terry]

Tom the book is called "Memiors of a Fastidious Man." Get it. The quote is about page 33. He explains it better, but the bottom line is the same, most people can't read at all.
Does Barack Obama sound like someone who understands the US Constitution?

[Tom]

That's cool, Terry.

I was just wondering why you followed that anecdote with "In all seriousness..."

I'm trying to figure out what wasn't already serious about the preceding graf.

[Paul]

Tom the book is called "Memiors[sic] of a Fastidious Man." Get it. The quote is about page 33. He explains it better, but the bottom line is the same, most people can't read at all.

Does he say anything about people being able to write? Just curious.

[Francisco Torres]

Democrat Barack Obama said on Sunday he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

Read: Censorship.

"I will assure that we will have an antitrust division that is serious about pursuing cases," the Illinois senator told an audience of mostly senior citizens in Oregon.

Read: He will act out of pure expediency against high-profile companies.

"There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we're seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask...is the consumer being served?"

Read: Is my image in the media being served? Because if not, I will sic my Dept of Justice lap-dogs upon you.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"I have 300+ magazines of every conceivable niche to choose from; Cable tv and radio, satellite movies, satellite radio, internet radio, radio radio in fm and am, internet porn, old fashioned (read: tedious mediocrity) over the air television."

But if those 300 choices are owned collectively by 3 companies? That's what concerns the media consolidation types.

On a previous thread I broke down how my 72 Expanded Cable Package channels were owned by 6 total companies. So it looks like expanding choice, but is it?

And I don't buy the: well the internet will save us. The internet is indeed great, and a tribute to entrepenuerialism and capitalism (I mean that). But There is still a lot of people without computers in their house, much less internet access (much less "effective" internet access [non-dial=up]).

[zoltan]

MNG: No technology will ever save us. People will have to save themselves with their own intelligence and consideration. Computers and internet access help (which are, incidentally, both quite easy to access at one's local library) but they certainly aren't anyone's saviors. Again, no one's going to hold the sheep herd's hands and lead them to the way of light and truth.

[Chris Potter]

But if those 300 choices are owned collectively by 3 companies? That's what concerns the media consolidation types.

That's not even close to being the case in the magazine industry.

On a previous thread I broke down how my 72 Expanded Cable Package channels were owned by 6 total companies. So it looks like expanding choice, but is it?

Cable isn't using spectrum, so they don't have to serve the public interest. And the vast majority of cable channels have nothing to do with news. Who cares if all the sports, movie, and shopping channels are owned by the same company, as long as you have several independent news channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, C-SPAN, etc) in addition to broadcast media.

[J sub D]

Y'know what we really need in this country is an unbiased news source. Something that is only concerned with the facts and doesn't attempt to spin the news for partisan advantage. The government should ensure such a media outlet exists. We could call it "TRUTH" or something like that.

[Neil]

MNG show me where in the Constitution the government is authorized to ensure "fairness".

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Who cares if all the sports, movie, and shopping channels are owned by the same company, as long as you have several independent news channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, C-SPAN, etc) in addition to broadcast media."

Because culture matters, and if a handful of people control the culture...

[Neil]

If you don't like whats on tv, try to change it yourself dont get the government involved.

[Guy Montag]

Hey, I hear there's this new-fangled thingy called 'telnet' which the young people can use to remotely control systems. It's a jungle out there.

You mean I don't have to whistle into a pay phone any more?

[Guy Montag]

Oh no! 3 companies now control all of the culture! Better get a government program to fix it!

[Guy Montag]

Did anybody tell Sen. Obama about that raw milk story from last week? Can't wait to hear his answer on that one.

[Neil]

Maybe he can consult Jimmy Carter for advice about the raw milk story LOL!

[Guy Montag]

[free minded people, ssshhhh!!!! the funny historical secret is that only 3 companies controlled television back in the days Sen. Obama is wishing to bring back]

[Neil]

Don't forget about UHF Guy!!!

[Neil]

Maybe we can be like the socialist British and ha ve such diverse options as BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4....

[Elemenope]

Barack HUSSEIN Obama:

WRONG on Guns.
WRONG on Media Consolidation.

um...

WRONG on Having A Catchy White-bread Sounding Name.

...

RIGHT on Civil Rights.
RIGHT on Civil Liberties (except the gun thing).
RIGHT on Not Raping And Burning Foreign Countries To Satisfy Our Primitive Desire For War And Vengeance.

...and OCCASIONALLY FLIP-FLOPPING LIKE A FISH on the War on Drugs.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but a shite-sight better than the next fucker.

[Neil]

Elemenope-

The thought of a far-left liberal Democrat Congress combined with a far-left liberal Democrat President doesn't scare you??

What about judges? Do you want a liberal Democrat Supreme Court?

We don't need the second coming of the Great Society!!!

[Paul]

On a previous thread I broke down how my 72 Expanded Cable Package channels were owned by 6 total companies. So it looks like expanding choice, but is it?

Of course it is. I remember a time when there were three stations on television, owned by three companies. We've also been treated to a kind of 'remember when' browbeating by progressives who pine for the days of limited choice because only three television channels gave us all a kind of national 'civics lesson'. The reasoning: When the president was on the television, you couldn't flip it over to the Simpsons, The Daily Show, or god forbid, Fox.

Because culture matters, and if a handful of people control the culture...

Funny, I keep getting the sneaking suspicion that one man wants to control the culture. Through a sort of *shudder* ministry of culture.

Why is it that when a politician gets the sneaking suspicion that something is going on in the marketplace that he/she can't control, the response is to wrest control of it...usually in the name of-- I can barely say this with a straight face-- diversity.

If the government is successful in turning media broadcasters into state media outlets (heavily regulated) we're supposed to accept this as the more 'progressive' way?

[Paul]

WRONG on Having A Catchy White-bread Sounding Name.

Yep, that nasty Hillary and her negative politickin'

WRONG on Media Consolidation.
RIGHT on Civil Liberties (except the gun thing).

The media consolidation issue is a Civil Liberties issue.

[Neil]

And hes WRONG on taxes.

[Butts Wagner]

Let us not forget UHF

[BakedPenguin]

Although I have a rather dim view of FoxNews, I have to say the liberals kind of screwed themselves there. For years, the big three (and later CNN) controlled TV news, and most of the producers / reporters were liberal. Whether they meant to or not, their biases seeped into the reporting. As a result, when Murdoch launched FoxNews, it was greeted rather warmly by millions. I don't think the fact that the cries over media "monopolies" started coming soon after was a coincidence.

[Elemenope]

And he's WRONG on taxes.

Hey, your guy flip-flops like a wet fish on taxes and can't even keep his story straight. How many times was he against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them, or wait, was it the other way around?

I don't like tax raisers, but I don't like pandering liars more.

[Paul]

I don't like tax raisers, but I don't like pandering liars more.

Uhm, that leaves the field pretty thin, doesn't it?

[Art-P.O.G.]

Because culture matters, and if a handful of people control the culture...

This is the opposite of what seems to be happening, due in large part to the internet, public libraries, etc. As long as Noam Chomsky and Ann Coulter (shudder) are published, there are diverse populations of consumers widely accounted for.
The most common 'bias' I seem to notice from the so-called MSM is 'bias by omission'. I don't think this is any conspiracy, but editors/producers seem to print/air what THEY PERSONALLY think is important.
Neither Fox nor Viacom scare me although I could 'guess' which way either organization 'leans'. I'm a little concerned about Obama's concern.

[texpat]

I hope Obama does pursue antitrust vigorously. RICO too. If he applied those things even-handedly, the first things that would be shut down, with their assets confiscated and their principals headed off to prison, would be the DNC and RNC.

[Hacha Cha]

love the Germs reference!

[Guy Montag]

Amazingly Predictibly, as soon as there is a post about Sen. Obama proposing to restrict freedom, MNG, Fluffy amd Elemenope rush in to defend the Socialistic, nannystatist, ant-freedom position.

[Abdul]

In Obama's America, television watches you!

[Guy Montag]

Abdul,

LOL!

[Taktix®]

Is he planning to "fucking steamroll" media consolidation?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Although I have a rather dim view of FoxNews, I have to say the liberals kind of screwed themselves there. For years, the big three (and later CNN) controlled TV news, and most of the producers / reporters were liberal. Whether they meant to or not, their biases seeped into the reporting. As a result, when Murdoch launched FoxNews, it was greeted rather warmly by millions. "

Baked-that's a dead on analysis. Fox's self conscious and party directed bias was certainly made possible via the seepy and probably unintended (but still obvious to any non-Northeastern liberal) bias. Dead on.

"MNG show me where in the Constitution the government is authorized to ensure "fairness"."

Obama's quotes above have to do not with fairness but with monopoly and whether the consumer is being served. He's talking about the monopoly and antittrust statutes, found consitutional long ago under rather conservative SCOTUS under the Commerce Clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1,3:

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

[Untermensch]

On a previous thread I broke down how my 72 Expanded Cable Package channels were owned by 6 total companies. So it looks like expanding choice, but is it?

I suppose it's obvious, but ownership doesn't really tell us much unless we know about how said ownership affects editorial policies for the channels each one owns. I am not too worried about it however, because it makes sense for each owner to preserve a diversity of choices in order to capture market share. The more each outlet becomes the same, the smaller the market. If I were a Big Bad Media Conglomerate?, I would absolutely want to own both liberal outlets and a conservative outlets because that's what's going to make me money. For much the same reason as I'd want to own both a NASCAR channel and cooking channel. I'd be foolish to try to convert one into the other and I'd be foolish to try to do the same thing in political discourse.

[Ayn_Randian]

Predictibly, as soon as there is a post about Sen. Obama proposing to restrict freedom, MNG, Fluffy amd Elemenope rush in to defend the Socialistic, nannystatist, ant-freedom position.

Dude, Fluffy isn't even on the thread.

Head up, eyes open and front!

[Guy Montag]

Dude, Fluffy isn't even on the thread.

Yet . . .

[Steve]

Reminds me of the part in Atlas Shrugged when they pass the laws to make sure that businesses were not so successful that the common man isn't able to compete. The common man is able to compete using innovation and creativity of course, but it's easier just to force the already innovative and creative to knock it off for a while, for the dumb lazy people's sake. Why should i care how many outlets Murdoch or Clear Channel own, when the number of outlets are limitless?

[Guy Montag]

LOL! MNG invokes the Commerce Clause for his Authoritarian Utopia of government controlled media.

Perhaps he wishes the congress use that one a bit more for some other things, like gun control and campaign finance reform?

[anon]

You guys soon forget. . .

The power that Obama propose the government had - how would you fell if it were in the hands of Bush?

[Guy Montag]

anon,

I would oppose it.

[joe]

There can't possibly be a problem, because if there was, the most obviously solution would involve the government.

Same shit, different day.

[adrian]

All fear the great Monopolies! Don't look too hard to see that all are helped by government action. Don't try to understand that without a mixed economy coercing monopolies could not exist.

We are from the government, we are here to help!

[joe]

"Monopoly" is one of those concepts, like "predatory lending," that libertarians choose to define out of existence, because their ideology precludes any response to the problem.

[Steve]

Joe, please explain how Media Monopoly is even possible today. Trust that it's not, Murdoch can own every t.v. channel on the boob tube, and i can still get alternative media within 2 min.

[Harlan]

North America's getting soft, patron. And the rest of the world is getting tough. Very, very tough. We're entering savage new times, and we're going to have to be pure...and direct...and strong...if we're gonna survive them. Now, you and this, uh, cesspool you call a television station...and, uh, your people who wallow around in it...and, uh, your viewers...who watch you do it--you're rotting us away from the inside. We intend to stop that rot.

[Steve]

You buy into "predatory lending"? Seems to me that, "i didn't bother to read what i signed", isn't much of a consumer excuse when it comes to the subprime mess.

[Marcvs]

There can't possibly be a problem, because if there was, the most obviously solution would involve the government.

"We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

[adrian]

Steve: You have to think of the children who signed those contracts! Some couldn't even read!

[Guy Montag]

Harlan,

Was that an adaptation of Kramer's interaction with Newman on the subway while playing Risk?

Watch out for that guy listening over your sholder . . .

[Guy Montag]

Dude, Fluffy isn't even on the thread.

I spoke too soon. The roll of Fluffy is being played by joe on this thread.

[Ayn_Randian]

Seriously, Guy, I don't think that these are arguments I would ever hear from Fluffy. He's more ideologically aligned with me than anybody.

"Monopoly" is one of those concepts, like "predatory lending," that libertarians choose to define out of existence, because their ideology precludes any response to the problem.

Define "monopoly" and "predatory"; further bonus exercise: please detail why you think that anything you perceive as a "problem" requires collective "solutions".

[Guy Montag]

"We must not look to government to solve our problems. Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

I love that quote. Back before I had my current appreciation of President Reagan this interaction happened on a Political Science exam of mine:

Instructor: "Do you think that government is something that is done to you?

Me: "Yes."

Correction to earlier comment:
The roll of Fluffy is being played by joe on this thread.

Replace roll with role.

Seems the Dave Weigel poeticism of yesterday got to me.

[Guy Montag]

Seriously, Guy, I don't think that these are arguments I would ever hear from Fluffy. He's more ideologically aligned with me than anybody He can not form a sentence without profanity.

Fixed 🙂

[Psychic Guy Montag]

Define "monopoly" and "predatory"; further bonus exercise: please detail why you think that anything you perceive as a "problem" requires collective "solutions".

I predict the answer will involve fairness being enforced against the unfair to help the helpless.

[MattXIV]

joe,

Name one non-goverment created monopoly in any industry.

[jacksmith]

HILLARY CLINTON IS THE GREATEST CAMPAIGNER IN AMERICAN HISTORY !!!

HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:

IT'S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, and loss in Indiana and West Virginia makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Sen. Obama has zero chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources without Hillary Clinton. Zero chance.

It is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Sen. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Sen. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Sen. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Sen. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Don't be fooled by the pledged delegate, and math arguments. Neither candidate has the necessary pledged delegates. The entire delegates counts, and votes from Florida, and Michigan are not even being counted. Plus the democratic caucuses, and primarys have been heavily corrupted by fraud, and vote cheating. The only relevant question now is who can best WIN IN NOVEMBER and take back the Whitehouse for the American people. And the answer is HILLARY CLINTON. Everyone knows that now.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class 🙂

p.s. Cynthia Ruccia - I'm with ya baby. All the way. "Clinton Supporters Count Too."