Friday, July 11, 2008

A New Role for Senator Clinton

Having been rather harsh in my assessments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (see, for example, here), I noted with considerable interest the senator's vote against the recent expansion of the government's wiretapping powers. As most everyone knows by now, earlier this week the Democrats in the Senate once again found themselves cowering in the face of the Bush administration, with half of them voting with Republicans to expand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I will not engage here with the question of why this was a low point in American politics, leaving that to what appears to be about 90% of the blogosphere. Instead, I will note simply that this vote could be Sen. Clinton's opening to create an important new role for herself now that she is not running for president.

During the primaries, I was rather late to the Obama party. I never trusted Clinton, but Obama seemed like a promising enigma at best. Left with a choice of Clinton vs. Obama, of course, the choice was easy. I was never, however, among those who thought that he could do no wrong. Obama's vote in favor of the FISA bill was thus hugely disappointing but not as big a shock as it might have been. Calling the bill a "compromise" was transparently ludicrous, as even President Bush didn't bother with that fig leaf as he thanked the Congress for giving him what he asked for.

During the primaries, as the Clinton campaign spun out of control, I started to compose a blog post with the working title: "Dear Bill and Hillary, Thanks for everything. Now go away." Sen. Clinton's vote, however, suggests that she just might have a new role. Whether to prove her doubters wrong or simply to exercise the freedom of not being a candidate, she refused to do the expedient thing on this bill. It hardly seems likely that she would have taken this position had she become the Democratic presidential nominee, but no matter. If she really wants to find an important role to fill as her career goes forward, leading the Democrats when their spines weaken is (sadly) likely to be frequently necessary and is something for which Sen. Clinton is uniquely well situated. Here's hoping that she takes that path.

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

22 comments:

Elvis Elvisberg said...

I hope she spends a lot of time with Senator Kennedy in the near future. The parallels are pretty obvious. She's intelligent, hard-working, and well-liked enough in the Senate to get an awful lot done.

(I'm another Dem who drifted to Obama, didn't really love Clinton's campaign, and am very disappointed with his FISA vote).

egarber said...

On the FISA law, it would be interesting at some point if somebody could post something about the ACLU suit. Insofar as both political branches are aligned, it would seem to be an uphill battle.

Of course, in Boumediene the Court threw out part of the MCA -- so it's not a given that the court will simply roll over.

Paul said...

I am 100% with you on this Neil. This was a real disappointment for me as an Obama supporter. Frankly, it does not bode well for our Iraq situation. One of the things I strongly admired about Obama was his steadfast assurance that the Iraq invasion was bad policy and that he would end it quickly after being placed in office. I had thought that his opposition spoke more broadly. Apparently it does not. He is still cowered by the idea of speaking out, generally, on the effectiveness of Bush Administration policy on the "War" on terror. Will he equally be willing to fear monger?

I hope not, and I hope he grows (regrows?) a backbone soon. To me this election is entirely about denouncing, broad-stroke, policies of the Bush administration - carried out in the name of making us "safe" - that frankly, have made America a less enjoyable place to live over the last 6 years. I had hoped, during the Obama years, to see more than just a pull out from Iraq, but also the elimination of the pathetically comical color alert system, a scaling back of TSA efforts to inconvenience travelers, and most importantly a complete elimination of the laws, rules and policies encroaching on our privacy. His vote of support for those ignorant policies brings all of that into question for me.

I cannot ever see myself voting McCain, but I can see myself now either not voting or voting for Barr. That was something completely inconceivable to me prior to this vote.

retlwyer said...

In January, Senator Clinton described the proposed FISA Amendment as "important legislation that would modernize our surveillance laws and give our nation's intelligence professionals the tools they need to fight terrorism and make our country more secure." She was right.
Senator Clinton opposed the form of the Amendment because of the immunity for telecommunications companies and that was presumably the reason why she voted against the bill. But even if objections to that provision were sound--and I believe they are not--they should yield to thevitally important interests of national security. Senator In short, Senator Obama got it right.

Sobek said...

To me, the most amusing part of Obama's changing positions (on FISA, on NAFTA, on the DC gun ban, on Iraq, etc.) is that he constantly protests his consistency, and even blames his listeners for not understanding him, as though it's their fault that they can't square his FISA circle.

He styles himself some kind of new politician, but he's nothing of the sort. He used his influence to more than double his wife's salary; he sponsored boondoggle projects in Chicago that made Tony Rezko a lot of money, but reduced housing projects to unliveable blight; he abandons his friends as soon as they become political liabilities; and he makes his decisions based on calculation rather than principle. That's a new kind of politics? Looks a lot like the old.

In all of this, he rather resembles Hillary.

Sobek said...

"To me this election is entirely about denouncing, broad-stroke, policies of the Bush administration..."

That's funny. That's what 2004 was about, and Kerry was soundly defeated. In 2008, the election is somehow a referendum on a guy who isn't even running?

I wonder, if McCain wins in 2008, will the 2012 election be yet another attempt at denouncing Bush? Is there some kind of statute of limitations on this sort of thing?

On the subject of FISA, here's an interesting article: "Warrantless Domestic Spying" Results in 15 Innocent Civilians Being Forced By Government Thugs into Helicopters and Spirited Away

http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=268336

egarber said...

To me, the most amusing part of Obama's changing positions (on FISA, on NAFTA, on the DC gun ban, on Iraq, etc.) is that he constantly protests his consistency, and even blames his listeners for not understanding him, as though it's their fault that they can't square his FISA circle.

He styles himself some kind of new politician, but he's nothing of the sort.


As I said somewhere else, in my view the majority of the "flip-flop" claims aren't valid.
On Iraq for example, Obama has always said that 1) he'd end the war, 2) he'd issue a general timetable, and 3) he'd listen to his commanders to ensure that care was taken in executing the new mission. Within those parameters, there is certainly room for a statement about potentially refining some of the nuts and bolts.

On the gun issue, in truth I think his real position was that he didn't have an opinion, since in the ABC debate he said he hadn't reviewed the detail and would reserve judgment. Still, even *if* he had firmly voiced general support for the DC law, that doesn't necessarily mean he must conclude the ruling was incorrect as a constitutional matter. He has always said the 2nd confers an individual right, but that it must be balanced against legitimate public interests; that’s exactly what the court ruled. In other words, I think it’s possible for a legislator to favor a law in good faith, while also respecting a constitutional ruling that throws it out.

If he had originally said he only favored a collective right, and then changed after the ruling, a flip-flop charge would be in order – but he didn’t do that.

Now on FISA, he changed his position, no doubt, which is very disappointing.

But all this brings me to the larger matter of Barack potentially being a different kind of candidate. It’s easy to equate compromise and nuance with selling out. But it seems possible (or maybe likely) to me that the desire to sincerely compromise may itself be partly what makes Barack unique as a potential “uniter” for the country. Indeed, dating way back, he has put his ability to bring people together front and center in his posturing. He’s always said that the red / blue state convention is phony – and we see that expressed by his 50-state campaign strategy.

He also hasn’t been afraid to say that good ideas can come from anywhere on the political spectrum.

But because the left / right frame is so strong in our political culture, he was defined as the firm liberal / progressive going in, even though in a lot of ways, he’s always been more of a pragmatist and compromiser.

The question is whether he is philosophically a sincere pragmatist, vs. a political opportunist. In my view, pragmatism and moderate thinking are indeed sincere disciplines.

And there are times when changing one’s mind after a learning experience can be a strength, not a weakness. Here, I’m reminded of Barack’s last appearance on Meet the Press, when Russert brought up his previous support for a fuel tax holiday in Illinois to contrast his opposition to the federal holiday. Barack said something like, “yeah, I’ve changed, because I learned through my previous decision making that fuel tax holidays don’t work.” Russert then said, “so you were wrong?” Barack answered, “yes, I was wrong.”

In the end, voters will have to decide if these seeming compromises reflect a valid philosophy, or mere opportunism.

Barry said...

Good post, Neil. I agree that I hope Clinton does serve that role. To me, the worrisome parts of this vote are that 1)Obama's vote reflects the present view of broadening Presidential powers at the expense of the other branches and 2)why is it that when it is time to compromise, it is the Dems that seem to always be the ones changing position.

Sobek said...

"in my view the majority of the 'flip-flop' claims aren't valid."

Some of them certainly aren't. I recently saw a conservative trumpeting some major flip-flop on abortion, but as I read through the article I concluded the charge was pretty darn weak.

I'm not sure how you still defend the DC gun ban flip-flop. He said he supported the ban, then said SCOTUS made the right decision. So he supported an unconstitutional law? And you can't rescue that by saying he only supported an individal right with reasonable restrictions (incidentally, SCOTUS said the handgun ban was per se unreasonable), because he said he supported the DC ban, not some hypothetical ban that appropriately balanced interests.

"It’s easy to equate compromise and nuance with selling out."

In what way was FISA a compromise, or even remotely nuanced?

"He also hasn’t been afraid to say that good ideas can come from anywhere on the political spectrum."

I can say the same thing, but if I'm a legislator, you would expect me to have some sort of track record backing that up, right? What conservative ideas has Obama supported?

"And there are times when changing one’s mind after a learning experience can be a strength, not a weakness."

I agree completely, but as you said, it depends on whether it is out of political opportunism. In the gas tax holiday example, what exactly did Obama learn that changed his mind? He doesn't say.

And does Obama say he learned any lessons about his irresponsible housing project plans that actually increased blight? Or his disastrously failed beautification project?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1050869,CST-NWS-garden11.article

If you're running on a resume as weak as Obama's, you have to hope that at least one or two of your bullet points wasn't a total failure.

egarber said...

I'm not sure how you still defend the DC gun ban flip-flop. He said he supported the ban, then said SCOTUS made the right decision.

My contention is that he didn’t unequivocally support the ban. He stated pretty clearly in his ABC debate that he didn’t have a specific opinion on the case, but confused and mishandled matters in other settings.

So he supported an unconstitutional law? And you can't rescue that by saying he only supported an individal right with reasonable restrictions (incidentally, SCOTUS said the handgun ban was per se unreasonable), because he said he supported the DC ban, not some hypothetical ban that appropriately balanced interests.

So I’ll assume he clearly supported the specific ban for this exercise (though as I stated above, I don’t think this is the case). As I said in my previous post, I think it is possible to both support a law and not think a court decision throwing it out is incorrect, provided the lawmaker's general philosophy is aligned with the court's.

As a rough analogy, look at the gay marriage ruling out in CA. The Terminator supported the law as it existed on the books – he vetoed legislative changes to it in the past. But when the CA Supreme Court ruled this year that it was unconstitutional, he showed support for it on equal protection grounds; he essentially said the Court clarified the constitutional matter. That doesn’t mean he knowingly “supported an unconstitutional” law in the first place.

In the same way, I think it’s possible for someone to have supported the DC ban in good faith, while later supporting and respecting a court decision that generated (as least some) constitutional clarity.

In what way was FISA a compromise, or even remotely nuanced?

As I said, I’m not going to defend that vote. But I will say that it is significant to have *this* president sign a bill that specifically says it – and only it – is the exclusive rulebook on executive branch wiretapping. So there are some good things in the law.

And if you want something “remotely nuanced”, it’s easy to argue that the added minimization steps and process review to protect Americans represent a certain degree of compromise. But again, I’m not going to energetically defend Barack there – he let me down.

What conservative ideas has Obama supported?

In Illinois, he often co-sponsored bills with Republicans.

For example, he supported expanded welfare benefits, but to build bi-partisan support, he offered language withholding those benefits to parents who abused drugs. When he wanted a state version of the earned income credit, he let Republicans take the lead to win favor in the GOP senate. And he worked out compromises on racial profiling and changes to the death penalty.

He has also worked with Republicans in the U.S. Senate, co-sponsoring legislation on nuclear proliferation, energy independence, veteran care, etc.

Not that I’d call it a conservative value, but he speaks about personal responsibility in ways liberals often avoid – i.e., government is part of the solution, but not all of it. In some ways, Jesse Jackson’s anger over Barack’s comments about black fathers sort of makes my point in this area.

In any case, I’m not necessarily saying that Barack latches on to big conservative ideas; it’s more that he’s willing to get something done, vs. nothing, in a given setting.


I agree completely, but as you said, it depends on whether it is out of political opportunism. In the gas tax holiday example, what exactly did Obama learn that changed his mind?

He doesn't say.


Sure he does. In that same MTP appearance, he made an elasticity of demand argument – explaining that in Illinois, gas companies saw an opening and began charging up to the old level once the tax was removed (effectively converting the tax into direct profit), knowing people would pay it. He specifically explained why it didn’t work.

Sobek said...

This is funny. Obama writing "The Audacity of Hope":

"When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration."

Obama lecturing Americans for not speaking Spanish:

"Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English--they'll learn English. You need to make sure you're child can speak Spanish..."

Of course the first part of his statement is objectively untrue. Just because a person emigrates to a country does not mean he won't form an enclave of other immigrants and never learn the host country language. Obama also tried to justify his insistence on Spanish (and no other language, for some odd reason) by claiming that Europeans all speak more than one language. Well, that's also not true, and the number of Europeans who think they speak English is much higher than the number that actually speaks English (based on my personal observations -- I speak Italian better than most Italians I've met speak English).

And of course when Obama uses the words "You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish," he emphatically does not mean that you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish:

"...when somebody attacks you for saying the truth, which is we should want children with more knowledge. We should want our children to have more skills."

For Obama, "Spanish" = "skills." This is a lawyer speaking, a guy trained to use the English language properly.

Spanish isn't even a very hard language. He easily could have learned it in the two years since he published his book.

Sobek said...

"My contention is that he didn’t unequivocally support the ban."

An interviewer told him "you support the gun ban" (my paraphrase), and Obama nodded. Oddly enough for him, there was no equivocation at the time.

"He stated pretty clearly in his ABC debate..."

And he indicated something else during an interview. Hence the flip-flopping charge. You can't avoid the charge by simply disregarding one piece of evidence.

"I think it is possible to both support a law and not think a court decision throwing it out is incorrect, provided the lawmaker's general philosophy is aligned with the court's."

1. Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Are you suggesting that Obama's general philosophy is aligned with Scalia's?

2. Your CA gay marriage example doesn't work, because the gov. is just as guilty of flip-flopping as Obama.

"I think it’s possible for someone to have supported the DC ban in good faith, while later supporting and respecting a court decision that generated (as least some) constitutional clarity."

I would agree with you if Obama had said "I disagree with the Court on the merits, but I will support their decision." He first said that he supported the ban, and then that he agreed with the decision.

"...he supported expanded welfare benefits, but to build bi-partisan support, he offered language withholding those benefits to parents who abused drugs."

I didn't realize that expanded welfare for crackheads was a liberal value.

egarber said...

And he indicated something else during an interview. Hence the flip-flopping charge. You can't avoid the charge by simply disregarding one piece of evidence.

I understand. But on this issue, I don't think it was a flip-flop; I'm convinced it was a fuzzy message and a bit of a balancing act.

1. Scalia wrote the majority opinion. Are you suggesting that Obama's general philosophy is aligned with Scalia's?

No. I'm simply saying Obama is comfortable with this decision. He also likely supports Scalia's dissent in Hamdi. But these examples don't mean their overall philosophies are aligned.

Really, the DC ruling was pretty narrow, compared to how it could have gone. It establishes an individual right precedent, but it offers all sorts of qualifications. So it aligns nicely with Barack's general 2nd amendment thinking. That's the main take-away in all of this.

I didn't realize that expanded welfare for crackheads was a liberal value.

Good one. The point here is that he likely went against some or many liberals -- leaving his caucus to seek compromise.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

It is the holic gold which makes me very happy these days, my brother says holic money is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually holic online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the cheap holic gold back and give me some holic online money to play the game.

kutyhgvd said...

I am so happy to get some kal geons and the kal gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the kal online geons is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should kal online gold with the spare money and I gain some kalonline Geons from other players.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

酒店經紀ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,姐.,便服/,,

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
فوائد الحلبة فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد البصل فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم فوائد الزعتر قصص جحا تعريف الحب علامات الحمل