Bill Richardson!

I don't know about the main conclusion you draw--not least because you exclude the standard, required-by-all-pundits disclaimer that It's Still Early Yet. This time in '03, Joe Lieberman was the front runner, by virtue of being famous.

Yes, fame plays a large role throughout a race, but it's a disproportionally large one in this stage, when no one is paying attention and name recognition drives every poll. It seems too easy to point out that the only candidates who are on the news are the ones who are previously famous. How else would the news know who to put on, if not for past fame?

Howard Dean was in a similar situation at this point four years ago, and he almost made it. Don't despair for Richardson yet!

It seems like there's just one reason why Richardson's not taken seriously. He seems to have not only a zipper problem, but also a Dr. Strangelove (that is, he may not have full control of a few of his own limbs) affliction. I've always been intrigued by a Richardson candidacy, at least his candidacy on paper, which is just about perfect. And besides his weight problem, he's a pretty good candidate in the flesh as well: he's affable, a confident if unspectacular orator, and projects a kind of "jus' folks" quality we always want in a Dem. His re-election campaign also came up with a number of fresh, clever ads that bode well for an underdog campaign.

Only thing is, every time Richardson is brought up, invariably someone else will allude to whispers about Richardson's "skeletons" in the closet, and vague "personal issues" that make him unelectable. Now the secret's out. And if Clemons' article (linked above) is to be believed, Richardson is damaged goods. Even if most of those allegations are false, Richardson will have a tough time just defending against them. Too bad.

My roommate keeps on hoping for an Obama-Richardson ticket. Then again, he also campaigned for Dean.

I agree Ben, but the very contenders the media focused on in the past at this stage, pre-modern-era, were exactly the people Matt is talking about, 2 Term Governors.

More problematically is the loose definition of "famous" MY allows, that seems to simply have every possible exception and thus fitting his rule (what else ties Mark Warner and Obama together in any small group?)

Next time let's make a space movie.

I won't prejudge his chances until I see it.

So I read the Prospect Article and learned nothing of Richardson, so why should I care in the least? A seriously empty article, Matt.

Naturally I agree with Yglesias. In my view it has to be Johnny "bitchen populist" Edwards or Barack "fresh face" Obama or it is going to be no one.

Wen Ho Lee could tell you why Bill Richardson gets no respect.

Back in early 1991, some friends and I were talking about how Sam Nunn couldn't possibly beat George HW Bush in the 1992 election. I brought up a small state governor that only one other person had even heard of. And that person said that the small state governor didn't stand a chance because he was from a small state, had bad name recognition, and had some extra-marital affairs. I replied that I thought the governor could overcome those problems because he's smart, talented and could draw in moderate voters. And once the campaign got rolling, the name recognition problem would fade away due to news coverage about his candidacy. That governor, of course, was Bill Clinton. And he ended up doing pretty well on the campaign trail. Not that Bill Richardson has Clinton's mojo, but I still think he shouldn't be counted out just yet.

More problematically is the loose definition of "famous" MY allows

One problem is that Matt equates Serious Candidates with those getting the most air/media time.

But most of these "Serious Candidates" are in the news because they have so obviously been laying the foundations for an '08 run. Hillary and Rudy have been running for president since 2000 and 9/11, respectively, Edwards since '03, and McCain since '99. The media were ready to cover their campaigns at a moment's notice, and thus they are all enjoying "Serious Candidate" status.

Of course there are other, qualified people out there, and the primary elections are the means by which they make their case. It's not as if the national media gathers a bunch of resumes together, evaluates which candidates are most qualified, and then decides on coverage based on that. They go with what they know, and what their audience knows. This isn't new.

I don't see why "you need to support someone who might win", in terms of the nomination. If it's someone you don't think is electable in the general election for whatever reason, that's one thing. But I don't see why you can't argue for Richardson (for example) and against Hillary (if you really don't want her to be nominated), and be more or less neutral towards Obama and Edwards. You have to support someone, but you don't need to go after all of the opponents.

Three or four years ago, I thought Richardson's resume looked good, so I read some articles about him and watched him give a speech on CSPAN. The articles convinced me that I don't like any of his policy ideas. The speech convinced me that he has no chance of getting nominated for president.

The aforementioned Wikipedia article also notes that, as governor, Richardson "has been lauded by traditionally right-leaning publications and organizations such as Forbes Magazine and the Cato Institute for reforming New Mexico's economy," traditionally the sort of thing that would create some buzz given that we are, after all, talking about a fairly progressive Democrat.

Are we? How certain are we that President Richardson would run a progressive domestic fiscal policy?

You're right, Richardson SHOULD get more attention, but part of it is also his fault. He's ran a bad campaign. Have you TRIED to watch his announcement video? He should use his underdog status to run an insurgent campaign. Instead he's basically going around boring people by arrogantly prattling on about how experienced he is. And as you said, that no longer matters anymore.

Oh, and how can you even consider supporting Edwards? He's even worse of a slimeball opportunist than Hillary (and that's saying a lot).

Today's column wonders why Bill Richardson can't get no respect.

He's fat. Sorry, but it's true. Who was the last fat president? Taft?

Obama doesn't have a realistic chance of becoming president, sorry folks.

This is a media created boomlet. They need something to write about while 95%+ of Americans aren't paying attention at all to the 2008 election.

Same as they did with Dean. And how many primaries did he win? One -- Vermont.

How many primaries did Dean place second in? Zero.

Besides winning in Vermont, his third place in Iowa was his high water mark. After 15 months of ink and pixels spilled over him.

Who here wants to bet that Obama won't win a single primary? I do!

"He's fat. Sorry, but it's true. Who was the last fat president? Taft?"

Bill Clinton.
Lyndon Johnson.
Maybe FDR, who knows.

Because he doesn't have political oomph. He's the Chuck Hagel of Dems, great resume, no political traction.

Well who knows, it's still a year away. Bill Clinton was a no-hoper in early 1991.

And it's not shameful at all to support someone who has no chance of winning, as long as that doesn't entail trashing the person who eventually does become the nominee.

I'm a little skeptical of your idea that once in the recent past there was a point when popular governors were looked to because of their job and now there isn't. For Bush, the exception is obvious--he had big name recognition early. Ronald Reagan had also been on the national political scene in some capacity since his famous televised speech for Goldwater in 1964, and before then was--guess what!--a celebrity. Clinton, as noted above, was a strong underdog who won based on personal political skill. So I'm not sure how this election cycle is different from any other.

Hey, PorkPieHat, remember that part of your post where you gave evidence or even an argument for why Obama is going to fizzle out in the primaries? That was awesome.

Folks, it's only February of 2007. There's most of the pre-primary to get through (the months and months of spin, media coverage, and fundraising) until Iowa. But there's also the X-factors. I'm talking about the inevitable "I paid for this microphone" type moments? Who knows what will transpire between now and the primaries -- or during the opening rounds. Richardson might well be doing himself a favor by keeping a low profile and by managing expectations in a realistic fashion -- so as to put himself in the right position should one of the top tier candidates stumble. And my guess is one of them will stumble (I mean, what are the odds that Obama and Hillary and Edwards all manage to avoid a damaging something or another over the next 11 months?). Anyway, I think Matt's article was spot-on. The times are too dangerous for amateurs. Richardson's resume looks like it was dreamt up by Aaron Sorkin. He ought to be given a hearing. At the very least he'd make an attractive possibility for the VP slot.

Oh, and by the way, if Richardson does have serious skeletons in his closet pertaining to his treatment of women, I guess we'll find out sooner or later. But the fact that he's a bit tubby is supposed to hurt him? I highly doubt it. If anything, it likely humanizes him a bit. After all, a huge percentage of the people he's trying to convince to vote for him likewise face struggles with weight.

Fat slobs don't like to vote for other fat slobs- it's a way of alleviating their guilt for being fat. ("Vote for that fat slob? No way!") Even a hairless wonder would have trouble getting votes from the ranks of the bald- secretly they blame themselves. The other problem with Richardson is his heritage. It's fine for New Mexico- but people wonder if he's latino- why is his name "Richardson"? I know it's dumb- but it doesn't help him. If his name were Bill Lopez- it'd probably be worse for him. As far as backing a candidate- I wish Hagel throw his hat in- him I could support. On the vital issue of the day- U.S. Foreign Policy- he puts Obama and Edwards to shame,

Tarzan, you know them already:

1) Senator
2) for not even one term
3) said unequivocally he wasn't running for prez during senate race
4) too little experience in world affairs (living in indonesia as a kid notwithstanding)
5) admitted in print to using coke

etc. etc. The kid isn't ready and everyone in the press knows it...but like I said, it's much more fun to build up a no-chancer like Obama than write about dull real chancers like Hillary, Kerry, Gore, etc.

I mean Tarzan, who do you really want to see up against the Republican Machine in 2008? Gore lost by negative votes. Kerry everyone thought was going to win that day. OK, they lost, but they were both candidates with highly realistic chances in a general election. Do you really want a newb like Obama in that ring, or a less exciting but ultimately electable battleaxe like Hillary?

what is 'political oomph'?

Mitt Romney happened to preside over the Massachusetts gay marriage controversy, thus becoming famous and, therefore, a serious candidate

Really? I think you're being a bit naive here. Romney isn't famous. In a poll from late January, a full 43% of respondents had never heard of him. Compare to 18% for Obama, 9% for Edwards, 8% for McCain and Giuliani, and nil for Hillary.

So why is he in the "top tier" of candidates? He's rich! So is Edwards. The others have demonstrated huge fundraising ability. THAT is what separates the top candidates from the rest; that is how Dean came to the forefront in 2003; that is why Kerry could have changed the balance of the race if he got in while, say, Biden cannot.

This is why Richardson is falling short, and why his campaign is so far pretty bush league. To pretend that he's the victim of arbitrarily shifting media goalposts is quite a bit beneath the analytic ability I generally expect from you Matt.

Richardson is not just chubby like Clinton or LBJ, who mostly had the extra fat stored in the gut. Richardson has a huge, ugly layer of fat below his chin that wobbles like a turkey gobbler. So does Vilsack.

I was watching them speak a couple weaks ago. As I sat there watching all of that neck and chin fat wobbling about, I thought there is no way either of these guys will get elected.

I'm not really seeing this "striking change from the past." I mean first of all, we're a whole year away from the 2008 primaries. So it's incredibly early, Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, and the field is crowded with star power: OF COURSE the media's going to focus on celebrity candidates. I mean, could you even imagine it happening otherwise? This has been totally true since the dawn of time.

It's not just the national media boogeymen, either. Go to the grassroots, go online, there isn't some magical movement behind Bill Richardson that's being ignored. In fact it looks like all the activists have already lined up behind either McCain/Guiliani/Romney or HRC/Obama/Edwards. Did the national media "unliterally" create that dynamic as well?

Look, if you're going to talk about the empty nature of presidential coverage or whatever, I'm all for that. But don't go around pretending this is some dastardly new development. I would even argue that the advent of the Internet has significantly leveled the playing field for obscure candidates in terms of media and fundraising, compared to past election cycles. And again, it's incredibly early. There's still time for Richardson or whoever to build up steam and seize an opportunity (should the major players stumble) that could catapult him to the nomination.

Matt completely misses the trend. None of the "famous" democrats have won an election (except as an incumbent) since FDR (and Old Guy isn't old enough to be sure if FDR was famous in 1932). Specifically, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were completely lacking in famousness until they won some primaries. The famous nominees would include Mondale, Gore, and arbuably Kerry.

Like Blah said. He is definitely not in the firm fat category. I think people could overlook the,"He looks likes he likes a good meal" kind of fat(Clinton) vs. the "He looks like he can't stop eating" kind of fat(Richardson).

Re Vilsack- he's running for VP. He's not a mental case like Lieberman- he knows he has no chance. '04 was a big letdown. The big lug saw the cameras and started to dance a little bit with the wife. So, he got proactive, God bless.

As far as Obama not being ready- who cares what the press thinks? The quintessential moeonic animus of the journalistic mind." (Norman Mailer) If Joe Klein said bet on the Mets- it was a sure sign the Cardinals were gonna beat 'em. He's as ready as people think he is- certainly readier than G.W., or Clinton were. Hillary's got a major problem- "likeability". You can't win if too many people think you suck. Nixon was the only exception to that, and the '68 Humphrey wasn't exactly a guy who cheered you up. Obama's got likeability, and he doesn't come off like the callow pud Edwards is. Right now, Obama looks like the guy with the best shot. The other thing going for him is that he's not provincial like Dean the Park Avenue little Lord Fauntelroy. Obama I think could whip Dracula, McCain, or Mitt. If I had to support someone-I'd hold my nose and let it be him.

MY: I enjoyed your article at TAP. And despite what Jennifer said above, I did learn something: Bill Richardson tops everyone so far on substance. You've piqued my curiosity at least, I now have his campaign site on my regular reading list, so I'll keep an eye on his campiagn. Thanks for bringing stuff like this to my attention.

Specifically, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were completely lacking in famousness until they won some primaries.

I wasn't around at the time, but I believe JFK, at least, possessed some measure of fame. He won a Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage in '57 or therebouts (he also sold a lot of copies of Why England Slept in the 1940s largely due to his father's marketing machine). So, it's not too much of a stretch to call him a best-selling author by the time he made his 1960 run. Kennedy also very nearly won the VP nomination in 1956 -- and this all unfolded in a very public drama as the convention was, of course, broadcast on national TV. JFK may not quite have had the "famousness" in 1959 that, say, a Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani do today. But he was very definitely a national figure, and he very definitely wasn't "completely" lacking in fame or name recognition.

I agree Ben, but the very contenders the media focused on in the past at this stage, pre-modern-era, were exactly the people Matt is talking about, 2 Term Governors.

Um?

2000. Dem: 2 Senators. GOP: Bush & McCain. Gov' Lamar ran but dropped out after the Iowa straw poll.
1996. Dem: Clinton. GOP: Dole, Gramm, Forbes, Buchanan. Lamar lasted a while but didn't win anything. Ditto Pete Wilson.
1992. Dem: Hey, governors! Kerrey (who was at the time a Senator), Clinton, Jerry Brown, Doug Wilder. But, the field was "2nd tier" because the top tier was afraid of war-time Poppy. And who was the top tier? Sam Nunn, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt ... all DC types.
1988. Dem: Dukakis, Babbit, and a bunch of DC types (plus Jesse Jackson). GOP: Poppy.
1984. Dem: Glenn, Hart, Mondale, Jackson ... Reubin Askew was the only gov' and he withdrew after the New Hampshire primary
1980. Dem: Carter, Kennedy, Brown. GOP: Reagan, Poppy.
1976. Dem: Carter was a darkhorse, the action was all around ... well I have no idea.

But I think I've made my point. What pre-modern era are you looking at?

I wasn't around at the time, but I believe JFK, at least, possessed some measure of fame.

Also, his dad was extremely rich. One of the 20 wealthiest Americans at the time, in fact. Even then, that mattered.

Richardson really does have the dream resume for electability. A Hispanic Governor from the Southwest, with foreign policy experience. Almost too perfect. Too bad he was in Congress and has a voting record.

Biden is long-winded, but I'd rather hear him for twenty minutes than most other candidates.

Matthew, you don't even bring up the issue of how the primary schedule might be affecting the popularity contest going on between Giuliani and MCCain, on one hand, and Clinton and Obama on the other. Even Edwards has drooped out of sight, and he did a good service by putting healthcare reform into the mix.

Richardson's dirty laundry? What candidate doesn't have it, or unfavorables, Ryan? Actually, I've read Richardson's unfavorables are low, and in polls he scores highest as a second or third choice.

I also have read that his efforts in the West are gathering momentum, so if the western states hold early primaries, Richardson could gain traction coming into the Eastern races.

Mario Cuomo was an important top tier contender for 1992 until he elected not to run. Ben's still wrong, but I'm just pointing out the exception

I think Nicholas may have been getting to this point, but ... its just not true that the US traditionally chooses governors for the Presidency, or (the popular corrolary belief) that Senators can't get elected. These beliefs are just a function of a relatively short look-back period: since 1976, only one Presidential winner was not previously a governor, and all candidates with Senate experience have lost. But if you were back in 1976, and looked back over the prior 30 years, you'd see the opposite trend: candidates with Senate experience won four of the seven races between 1948 and 1972, and one of the other winners had been in Congress (Truman). Each governor who was nominated lost; in fact, they each lost twice (Stevenson and Dewey [counting 1944]). So in 1976, it would, by the "logic" we see applied quite often today, be reasonable to have written off the chances of Jimmy Carter in favor of Frank Church or Mo Udall. In retrospect, we can see the foolishness of such a conclusion, but we ought to recognize that our common current belief that Senators can't win Presidential elections is equally foolish.

The core problem here is small sample size. Thirty years seems like a long time, but its really only seven elections. And not all elections either over the last three decades or the three prior pitted a governor against a Senator, so we're not in a position to rule out chance as the cause of the trend we think we observe.

Mark--

I may be wrong, but not about that. The quoted material was from Tony V.

Because he's FAT he can't get elected?

Not only is that a shallow way to look at Richardson's candidacy, it's a profoundly dumb one when you consider that the only candidate who could blow hillary out of the water should he seek the Dem nomination is a portly documentarian who has been savaged for years concerning his lack of charisma.

But if it's the shallow people you want to appeal to, keep in mind that Richardson is nowhere near as weird-looking as McCain, Giuliani or Hillary when she does that eye-bulge thing. Kerry and Edwards were both better looking than the assholes who beat them, too.

Richardson for president. Never mind that he's from a swing state and would help the Dems seal up the Latino vote for a generation, he is simply the most qualified guy around. Unbelievable that we are overlooking this guy.

Many in this discussion assure readers that Obama, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton are only ahead right now because they are famous and that their leads will fade.

I'm not sure that's really true. Granted, I think that Richardson has the most potential out of any of the "second-tier" candidates to break into the first tier. But Obama, Hillary, and (to a lesser extent) Edwards are truly celebrity politicians; moreover, (esp. in Obama's case) they are genuinely good politicians. Even if their resumes aren't as impressive as Richardson, they are able to cut impressive figures.

That makes overcoming them a daunting task. Yes, Carter overcame party rivals, but none had the celebrity following of this cycle's top 3. It's the same story with Bill Clinton's '92 race.

And though Richardson has a good resume, a good resume does not necessarily make a good presidential candidate. Hell, a good resume doesn't necessarily even make a great president. Perhaps the most experienced president in history was James Buchanan. And the most politically-inexperienced was Lincoln. (although I guess one could make a case for Zachary Taylor; his inexperience hid no special abilities.) Richardson certainly has the makings of a competent president. But does he have anything to suggest he'll be very inspirational or bold in his vision or achievements?

Look, people, while you're discussing candidates' weight, you're hardly turning back the tide of Republican yah-boo-telly politics, are you?

But if you were back in 1976, and looked back over the prior 30 years, you'd see the opposite trend: candidates with Senate experience won four of the seven races between 1948 and 1972, and one of the other winners had been in Congress (Truman)... The core problem here is small sample size.

"Senate experience" seems to be fine, but only when you've also been VP or President as Truman, LBJ and Nixon demonstrate.

Small sample size point taken -- let's make it larger. In the history of the republic how many men whose only prominent government job previously was US Senator have been elected President? (I'm excluding governors, cabinet secretaries, VPs, and famous generals.)

Four.

Franklin Pierce -- Senator for 5 years, 10 years before becoming President

Benjamin Harrison -- One-term Senator won the election

Warren Harding -- One-term Senator won the election

John Kennedy -- 8 year Senator won the election

So as many Senators won the presidency in history as governors have won in the last three decades. And no one who spent more than 8 years in the Senate has ever been elected President unless he moved up from VP.

Hey, I'm sorry, but Richardson doesn't have a hope, because he is fat. Maybe I should have said obese. I don't think less of him because of it, but most voters will. And neither Bill Clinton and nor LBJ were fat. They were both big guys who carried themselves well. If Richardson could lose fifty pounds, he might have a chance. Hell, Huckabee lost more than twice that much.

I don't think Richardson has run a particularly good campaign so far, but thankfully he has got about 9 months to get it right.

But what I really don't like with Matt's article is that he is perpetuating the Obama doesn't have enough experience myth. By 2008, the guy will have had 4 years in the Senate and 7 years in the Illinois Senate. That is 11 years of elected experience, which is more than many past presidents.

right -

That's not quite right: James Buchanan served roughly 11 years in the US Senate, and he was elected President without being Vice President (he did serve as a cabinet secretary in between the Senate and the White House).

More broadly though, imposing conditions like not serving as VP, or not being a General, or not being in the Cabinet is both necessary to reach your "only four senators" conclusion, and constitutes a selection bias. One has to assume that talented politicians are likely to be selected by their party to "move up", and the Vice Presidency and the Cabinet are places where a Senator can move up to. By excluding successful Presidential nominees who had a Senate carreer and also served as either a VP or in the Cabinet, you are artificially excluding what are likely to be the most talented polticians from among the pool of US Senators.

Is the fact that those with Senate carrers often move from the Senate to the Vice Presidency to the Presidency evidence that a Senator can't ge elected President? That strikes me as absurd.

The argument you seem to be making is that a Senate career is poison to presidential ambitions in a way that a gubernatorial career is not. I say again that the case is unproven.

Consider: out of 43 US Presidents, 14 spent at least some period of time in the US Senate, while 19 spent some time as Governor. Some of the Senators had rather short careers, but I'm including as Governors many who served only two years in the post (such as Coolidge, TR, McKinley, and Cleveland). Furthermore, Coolidge and TR succeeded a dying President, and Martin Van Buren really never served as a Governor, WH Harrison was a territorial rather than state governor, so you could argue that the governors number should be only 15.

Consider further: there have been 13 Presidents who served as a Vice President at some point, but only two who were elected to the Presidency without some other political experience. Two is less than the four Senators you point to: would you argue that the Vice Presidency is poison to Presidential ambitions?

"Back in early 1991, some friends and I were talking about how Sam Nunn couldn't possibly beat George HW Bush in the 1992 election. I brought up a small state governor that only one other person had even heard of. And that person said that the small state governor didn't stand a chance because he was from a small state, had bad name recognition, and had some extra-marital affairs. I replied that I thought the governor could overcome those problems because he's smart, talented and could draw in moderate voters."

Can we get rid of the myth that Bill Clinton was some sort of underdog when he ran for President? When he ran for President, he was the FAVORITE. ALL the Democratic money people were behind him, because they wanted a right-wing southern governor after the debacle in 1988, when the nominee was labeled a northeastern liberal. There was a bump in the road due to Gennifer Flowers, but his eventual election, if anything, demonstrates how MUCH control insiders have over the process, because their money and early commitment got a candidate with little name recognition the nomination.

It seems to me that no one has mentioned that fact the Richardson is easily the furthest 'right' (Democratic) candidate in the race. We could probably argue about Clinton, but she's not perceived as being 'to the right' because of some strange mental block that we Democrats have about anyone attacked from the right. While that might make him a dead center, surely we can understand that Democratic activists are not interested in DINO's (and no I don't think that he is one), but if he doesn't press some significant liberal bona fides, I don't see him getting any traction before the clock (that $150 million bank account) runs out ....

thanks.

thanks for you.

good thanks.

hee

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

Thanks ;
sex
seks
erotik
porno
video
izlesene
youtube
youtube videoları
izle
vidyo
video
youtube

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu
perde
oto kiralama

thanks ;)

thanks ;)

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

mirc

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
sex
porno
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

youtube
yotube
yuotube
yutub
yutup
youtube video
youtube izle
video izle
video siteleri
video sitesi
youtube.com
youtub
youtup
izlesene
youtobe