Clinton Votes No on FISA Legislation

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 16:52

This is interesting.

The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday. His reversal last month angered many of his most ardent supporters, who organized an unsuccessful drive to get him to reverse his position once again. And it came to symbolize what civil liberties advocates saw as "capitulation" by Democratic leaders to political pressure from the White House in an election year.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was Mr. Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted against the bill.

It's interesting to consider how Clinton would have voted were she the nominee, and there's no way to know now.  Why did she vote properly this time?  She doesn't have a strong incentive to vote  either way this time.  She's going to be a very powerful Senator going forward with a substantial PAC and web operation regardless.  I wonder why she did this.  It's possible she voted this way to embarrass Obama, though it's more likely she just believes that this is a bad bill.  Maybe it's heralding a new Clinton who is less cautious and more willing to fight for liberal principles.

Eh, I don't know, but kudos to Clinton.  It's ironic so far I suppose that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue.

Matt Stoller :: Clinton Votes No on FISA Legislation

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Clinton's statement at mydd (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's statement on mydd.

It's a good one.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

I'm very interested to see (4.00 / 1)
what the new and hopefully-improved Hillary Rodham Clinton will be like. Whatever anyone says, it really does seem like she's rediscovered herself ever since she started losing the primary campaign to Obama. And while she was definitely playing with fire for much of the primary, and got burned a little (but not much), she's been one hell of a class act ever since it's been over.

I've seen suggestions that she could be the Robert Kennedy to Obama's John, but I don't feel I'm a sufficient student of history to make much of that one way or another.

Its weird how that happensq (4.00 / 5)
the same happened for example with Gore. Once they give up the brass ring, they do what they could have gotten them the ring in the first place.  

[ Parent ]
Exactly .. (0.00 / 0)
and as I have stated many times .. if you read Gore's latest book .. it is obvious he has become more of a DFH then he was before

[ Parent ]
Why do you think this is "new and improved"? (4.00 / 2)
If you'd paid attention you would know that Clinton has been against this bill & telecom immunity almost from the get-go.

And progressive? Yeah, let's talk about how progressive Barack Obama is...he's more Republican than a lot of Republicans. Why do you think it is that Independents and Republicans support him, for crying out loud?

He has been telling us for MONTHS who he is. But the left was so caught up in the glamour/rhetoric thing-y that it's like you stuffed cotton in your ears and covered your eyes to the "real" Barack Obama.

Make no mistake: this guy, inexperienced as he is, is NO progressive. And if you think you're disappointed now, just wait until he caves on or compromises away health care, energy independence, NAFTA, etc. Except he's already done this on NAFTA, Iraq, FISA, government agencies (replaced by FBI), abortion/choice. Sh*t, he doesn't even pay his female staffers at Equal Pay Act wages ($11,000/year less, as a matter of fact).

I'm just really irked and deeply, deeply disappointed and disturbed that nobody on the left really bothered to stop and ask questions, or think, before Obama "won" the nomination.

Now, Hillary Clinton shows up and does what she said she was going to do and people act like it's a big surprise. I guess it is true: progress is made in small steps - even a few steps backward...

[ Parent ]
Disingenuous Sour Grapes (4.00 / 1)
Mabelle, I know you were reading and posting here during the primary. If you read a good number of the diary threads on which I saw (and often up-rated) you handle, then you also know that this statement is not 100% true:

"I'm just really irked and deeply, deeply disappointed and disturbed that nobody on the left really bothered to stop and ask questions, or think, before Obama "won" the nomination. "

It simply not fair to say that "nobody" asked questions and/or expressed concerns about the Obama nomination.  I admit, you may not have found the site to be everything you wanted it to be, but such a willful attempt at rewriting recent history has to be called what it is: propaganda.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Disingenuous indeed! (0.00 / 0)
In fact Obama got a lot of cover because people like mabelle attacked so hard with such utter BS regarding both Obama and Clinton's records that this site got bogged down in flame wars rather than focusing on how best to push the nominee in our direction.  

mabelle, please stop flaming.  

[ Parent ]
No. It's not "disingenuous" and it isn't "sour grapes" (0.00 / 0)
While it's true that "nobody" is a huge catch-all term that I should not have used, it is true that a majority of progressives did not ask questions about Obama. And those of us (like me) who tried in the beginning to have civil discourse and raise important questions and concerns were told, basically, that we were a) Republican trolls; b) racists; c) a bunch of old women who didn't know what we were talking about; d) weren't progressives; and/or e) were given justifications and rationalizations for what Obama did.

Damn right, I'm irked. And I don't need you or anybody else to tell me that it's "sour grapes" when it isn't.

If Obama will "compromise" on basic constitutional rights, what do you think he's going to do on health care? Abortion? Enforcement of other laws?

I know you don't like what I say or the way I say it. But too few seemed willing to listen when those of us who did try to logically and honestly point out our problems with Obama, when early action and intervention might actually have made a difference. And I'm not talking about supporting Hillary Clinton here as an option.

The truth hurts. Live with it and stop accusing people like me of spewing propaganda, of being disingenuous, or of sour grapes.

[ Parent ]
Potato Potahto (0.00 / 0)
The propaganda part is trying to spread the disinformation that nobody was listening to your position during the primary campaign, when it was clear that attention was being paid, by orecisely the site upon which you now complain that nobody was listening.

Maybe, just maybe, your position was not ultimately as successful as you had hoped because the case was poorly made on your part, or perhaps many people listened to the case and concluded it was not enough to prevent them from supporting Obama.  

I don't know what "truth" you figure is hurting me.  I ain't in pain.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
apples and oranges (4.00 / 3)
It's ironic so far I suppose that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue.

One is running a national campaign (and having to prove that he's a real American and not a secret Muslim.) One is a sitting Senator in a safe seat in a blue state. We really have no idea how Clinton would have voted were she the nominee. It would have been nice to see her team up with Dodd and Feingold and put up a real fight.

Obama's position is a huge bummer. I'm glad Hillary voted the right way, but I don't see any irony.

Like I keep asking (4.00 / 2)
when I see arguments like this, where is this huge national outcry for Telco immunity and warrantless spying? The only constituency for this bill is Bush and the telcos. Which Obama apparently has decided he has to cower before.

[ Parent ]
I keep asking the same thing. (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean to appear to be justifying the mentality in question. But it is a common inside the beltway mentality. I don't think we know whether Hillary would be immune to such flawed conventional "wisdom" if she had more at stake.

[ Parent ]
True. (0.00 / 0)
But we do know that Obama has no immunity at all, and I know I'm suffering the worst buyer's remorse ever.

[ Parent ]
Why don't we make Obama 'cower' before us? (0.00 / 0)
I want to see the ads targetting Obama, and slapping him down HARD (verbally). They should be done in such a way that it's clear that moveon nevertheless infinitely prefers Obama to McCain, FISA capitulation and all.

It makes no sense to me to expect politicians not to cower when their would-be critics are too, well, cowering, to take them on in the most public way they can. The problem with progressives taking aim just in progressive blogs is that it amounts to preaching to the choir. Would Obama have voted the way he did if the average John Q. Public knew what most of us here know? I don't think so.

Obama is not a choir boy, and we shouldn't try to be a Saint Francis. If he's such a wuss that he can't take the hard criticism that's being leveled at him in progressive blogs, but in a more public arena (like national TV), then boo hoo. If we treat Obama like a wuss, we encourage that type of behavior. If we treat him like a grown up, who just did something incredibly stupid (not to mention morally wrong), maybe he'll think things through a bit more next time.

If Obama is not smart enough to figure out how Congress came to have approval ratings lower than one of the worst Presidents in history, why don't we help him out?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa

[ Parent ]
Yes, kudos to her (0.00 / 0)
I think three points are probably fair.

1. She probably thought it was a bad bill and voted against it for those principled reasons.

2. Were she the nominee, I don't know whether she would have voted against it.  But I doubt she would have voted against it had she determined that it would be a very damaging move politically.

3. Were she the nominee, opposing FISA would have been easier according to the conventional wisdom than for Obama, simply because national security credibility is seen as a bigger weakness for him than for her.

Its all hypothetical anyway.  What's important is that she's with progressives on this issue and seems eager to lead from the senate on other issues such as getting real universal health care reform passed in the next few years, not the fake Obama version without mandates.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

Don't be fooled.. (4.00 / 1)
Pr4ivate Insurance mandates are a very Republican idea... It's Romney's awful vision in MA, and is the vision of Republicans like Schwartzenager and even gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell... yes, our favorite guy in Ohio...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
forgot to add.... (4.00 / 1)
..forcing people to buy health insurance at any cost is not very progressive... in fact, it's a great giveaway to the insurance industry...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Wow (4.00 / 1)
I couldn't disagree with you more.  I would like a single payer system, but it is not going to happen any time soon.  That's just the cold hard reality.  So the only way to get to UHC is through mandates, preferably with a government run plan competing in the marketplace against private insurers.  This kind of idea is supported by tons of liberal public policy scholars and is not a "republican" idea at all.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
She would have voted NO as the nominee (4.00 / 1)
She's partisan, remember? Just as John Edwards would have voted NO too.  

That makes no sense. (4.00 / 1)
"Partisan" means you stick up for your own side. Which is what she is doing now, instead of voting to protect telecoms and George Bush.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Dangit. (0.00 / 0)
I misunderstood your comment. I am so used to people using the word "partisan" as an insult that I spring to its defense reflexively, even when it is being used correctly!


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
How many examples do we need to show that defeat has a "liberating" (4.00 / 3)
effect on Democrats?

Why can't other Democrats who aspire for higher office see this? That when you vote on principle and phrase it that way, people see it as a strength?

Equivocating doesn't, and never will, cut it with voters on a matter of principle: like going to war, like standing up for the Constitution

It's interesting . . . (0.00 / 0)
how often a Democratic candidate becomes outspokenly progressive after losing--Edwards and Gore come to mind most immediately.  Other examples?

Kerry too (0.00 / 0)
though maybe not to the same degree.

[ Parent ]
Because she lost... (0.00 / 0)
I strongly suspect this is the effect of losing her presidential bid.  I saw the same thing happen with John Kerry, although of course with him I had a much longer time to observe.  I wrote about it in a blog post on Blue Mass Group after he announced that he would not run again for 2008: Do we get Senator Kerry back?

Majority Leader Run? (4.00 / 1)
What if she is starting to vote on issues that matter to progressives because she would like to be Majority Leader?  Standing for principle on issues that matter to progressives would help her in that effort, I think.

I, for one, think she would make a fantastic Majority Leader.  She is reputed to be great at working with people on a personal level and she doesn't back down in a fight.

What do you all think?  

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
I do think she'd make a formidable Majority Leader.  At least I would hope so.  

[ Parent ]
She's been voting (0.00 / 0)
the way some of us more foolish ones imagined Obama would vote. She deserves to be rewarded with the ML spot, just as Reid deserves to lose it.

[ Parent ]
John Kerry has a long history (0.00 / 0)
For most of it he was a progressive...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
did you read my post? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I think there is a political aspect to it (4.00 / 1)
She wants to win favor with the netroots. What better way to do that than to actually vote their way on an issue they deeply care about.

I supported her, and I believe that this is not a straight-cut political calculation. If she didn't agree with the netroots she may have not voted the way she did. But I think there is some political calculation going on here. So I think with a giant loss, there is also a tiny victory.

Congrats to Clinton (0.00 / 0)
With all eyes on Obama, Clinton did the right thing when nobody was looking.

In contrast, having 20K plus people whining at MyBO, and whose votes are in-the-bag for Obama, was about as effective as the idea of having 100 people sit-in at Obama's campaign offices across the country. Yep, that really persuaded him to do the right thing.

Apparently (0.00 / 0)
nothing but telco money and a pat on the head from Bush can persuade Obama to do the right thing.

[ Parent ]
and what would have (0.00 / 0)
The surest thing is knowing what the right thing to do is in the first place...and maybe he was only voting with progresssives in the primary becasue it would get him the nomination?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Reliably wrong and bad. (0.00 / 0)
"Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama, at least on this issue"??

Obama is not an ally of any kind on this issue. He is the enemy, and with no good reason, morally, constitutionally, or even partisan-politically. Judging by everything he's actually done since getting nominated, I was horribly wrong about him. Welcome to the next installment of The Lesser Evil.

Hillary was like this before (0.00 / 0)
this is not the new improved Hillary Clinton.  This is the same old progrssive Hillary Clinton.  I think that even as the nominee she would have voted against this legislation....especially when you read her report on's thorough and clear. I know she wouldn't said anything to place doubt about women's capapcity to make moral decisions in terms of  abortion;  and she would have meant every word she said about NAFTA.

I said in this space and in every other venue that of the 2 candidates she was the more progressive.  Always was, always has I said in one of my posts we boomers actually particpated in and grew up during the second progressive era of the 20th century.  

Here's the voting spectrum of the last 2 congresses ...the one on the nost left is Hillary clinton...Obama is in the middle.

What I said about her just last week

Obama grew up under Reagan with dominant right wing frames

He absorbed them.  he had to learn about progressivism more intellectually.

We boomers grew up and came of age during the second great progessive era of the 20th century.....Kenndy and Johnson.  That means we absorbed a more traditional, but expanded, kind of FDR progressivsim.  
Richard Nixon passed and signed more progressive legislation from the EPA to OSHA to Medicaid, hell he had price controals even,  than much of Obama's  platform now.

So that is why when Hillary was in the primary,  I would point out that she was a 60's liberal, with a subconscious residual sense of the wider parameters that liberalism encomplassed back then. That was a touchstone for her and lots of us political boomers.   Now she changed out of the political necessity wrought by Reagan, but she knew they were changes to adjust to that era. She didn't unconsciously and uncriitically absorb Reaganism like Obama did. She is capapble of understanding the wide ambitions of progressivism. Her accomodatiopns are political not necessarily inherent to her world view.

The dilemma with Obama is he really thinks the sixties were about DFH's and that the reason the right wing hated Bill Clinton and the 90's and the reason we had so much "awful partisan politics"  is that the Clinton presidiency was the ascendence of the DFHs....and he shares their visceral distate for them...and it's why he's always trashing boomers.

My take is that we boomers actually remember what the goals, ambitions and principles of liberalism and progressivism can be.

we are going to keep having this problem with's a function of his zeitgeist.  

She is a real champion.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

DFH's? (0.00 / 0)
Dirty fucking hippies?

Anyway, you make a persuasive case, but there's one glaring flaw: why was the Clinton regime such a waste?

Maybe the question re Hillary becomes, what might she have been without Bill?

[ Parent ]
why was the Clinton regime such a waste? (4.00 / 1)
which didn't you like, was it the peace, or the prosperity?

[ Parent ]
In a word, (0.00 / 0)
triangulation. Plus of course the incredible arrogance that destroyed his effectiveness and ruined whatever legacy he might have had. And, I believe, Hillary's chance to be president.

[ Parent ]
Triangulation against a STRONG Republican Party (4.00 / 1)
is regrettable, but understandable.

Triangulation against a battered and weakened one, sorry, but there's just no excuse.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I won't blame Obama any more than I blame Clinton (4.00 / 1)
These past two years as the party in power have been a completely disappointing show for our two recent front runners.  Had Obama never run or just disappeared early in the primary no would be talking about his votes.  Clinton on the other hand was the face of the party and the past two years she has done little but sign on to other's legislation and make her votes.  Where were the courageous floor speeches demanding her Senate colleagues show some fight against the Bush junta, especially considering we are in the majority?  Where, as our party's leading personality, were the filibusters and backroom arm twisting that she should have brought to bear on the sh*t they have passed?

Obama has been a revelation mainly because of his prior obscurity.  Now that he is the face of the party his record and his actions look much more disappointing than they would have for a junior senator and backbencher.  Clinton on the other hand has only her Progressive Punch scores to show any mark of her passing.  She had the power and prestige to make her mark as a leader during her short tenure in the Senate.  

She played it safe by acting as a backbencher and not being the face of the party during our short time in the majority.  A Feingoldian or Doddian filibuster here or there would have made a huge difference not only in terms of policy but in terms of showing leadership.  She could have easily rectified her Iraq vote by demanding strings on military appropriations.  She could have defended her vote (or at least made her vote look less pandering) on the war and helped put a stop to it by saying the administration couldn't wage war effectively and that Congress won't pay for their continued ineptitude.  It might not have passed, but she could have at least acted like a leader who cared about foreign policy enough to know that Bush is too incompetent to put the blood of our citizens in harm's way.

[ Parent ]
Chelsea said thisa about her parents (0.00 / 0)
That her mom would be the better presidient than he was.

1. she was more prepared

but 2. she, her mom was more progressive than her dad....

and if anyone should know how either one of them would really think...or what their real political priorities would be would be their much loved daughter.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
Republican Congress (4.00 / 1)
Clinton was stymied in any new programs by Congress.

He was always playing defense after the 94 elections.

Conversely, the Republicans were stymied in their tax cuts by Clinton.

That's why the budget went into surplus.  

[ Parent ]
Call me cynical (0.00 / 0)
...but is it possible that this is Hillary throwing some red meat to the netroots in hopes of us stepping up involvement in helping retire her campaign debt?

data (4.00 / 2)
Do you see a strong 'let's retire Hillary Clinton's debt' on Actblue or on any blogs?

Me neither.

[ Parent ]
I doubt it (4.00 / 1)
While I'm sure gaining the support of the netroots was part of the calculation, I doubt she expects fund-raising drives because of one vote. I think it would be dumb if she did.

I think she personally opposed the bill and didn't think it would get her or Obama anything by her voting for FISA. Obama will still be attacked for being a flip-flopper, and his vote is enough to raise the ire of anyone against the bill. Her voting with him would have just dragged her in the line of fire.

[ Parent ]
Call me naive (4.00 / 1)
but isn't it just possible she took her oath "to protect and preserve the Constitution" at face value?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
she kept her promise (4.00 / 5)
Why did she vote properly this time?

back in January when Dodd first made an issue out of this both Obama and Clinton promised that they would support a filibuster and oppose immunity. Clinton kept her promise and Obama didn't.

her FISA statement from Jan. (4.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton Statement on FISA
By: Jane Hamsher Monday January 28, 2008 9:25 am  

Statement of Senator Clinton:

Today, I will vote against Republican efforts to shortchange the debate on the FISA Amendments Act, 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. Rather than allow the Senate the opportunity to consider important amendments to this vital legislation, Republicans are instead blocking meaningful debate on this bill by playing procedural games, choosing instead to score cheap political points at the expense of our Homeland Security.

This legislation deserves a thorough debate. Several provisions - including those which would have a profound impact on the civil liberties of Americans - need to be the subject of careful deliberation. For example, the bill under consideration gives telecommunication companies blanket retroactive immunity for their alleged cooperation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I continue to believe that a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong, and I have cosponsored Senator Dodd's amendment to remove that provision from the bill. The Bush Administration has blatantly disregarded Americans' civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans' privacy rights. With the temporary Protect America Act set to expire on February 1st, I strongly believe that we need to pass balanced legislation that protects our civil liberties and the rule of law while giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our country.

I've also contacted the Obama campaign for a statement from Senator Obama.

Many thanks to everyone who have faxed their Senators over this.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"

[ Parent ]
i hope it is a strategy (0.00 / 0)
there are all kinds of opportunities coming up, especially if we luck out and Obama wins. energy policy, farm and food policy, health care. taking a leading, liberal role gives her status while still being a team player and unity rah rah rah stuff.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Why did she vote properly this time? (4.00 / 2)
Some might think this is splitting hairs but why must we assume the worst of Hillary Clinton?  She voted against the flawed bill because that's what she promised to do.  The myth of the conniving, calculating, witchy Hillary Clinton is part of the misogyny that Melissa wrote about here on this blog the other day.  Overall, Clinton has more experience and a better progressive voting record during her seven years in the Senate than Barack Obama does and her spirited campaign demonstrated this -- this is not a "new" Hillary that just materialized.  Right now, at Progressive Punch she rates as the 20th most progressive Senator while Obama is the 26th....

Bravo, Hillary (4.00 / 2)
She did good.  

Extreme Caution Zone (0.00 / 0)
Clearly Obama doesn't want to get elected with a mandate to do anything but try to get re-elected.  100% empty rhetoric.

Pelosi...Reid...Obama. Three politicians in search of a spine.  (On the bright side, at least Obama voted this time.)

Anyone who was actually listening (4.00 / 3)
to the things that Clinton, Obama, Edwards, et. al, were saying during the 20-odd debates starting last summer, should not be surprised by Obama's vote or Clinton's vote. I usually start by taking someone at their word: and Obama's words, starting in summer 2007, were clearly more conservative than Clinton's words. Obama ran a better campain, be he is, and always will be, more conservative than Hillary Clinton.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

Absolutely accurate (4.00 / 3)
People tell us in ways conscious and otherwise who they are and what they believe. Obama hasn't misled anybody. He isn't tacking to the center - he's going back to the center.

I honestly could never understand why the "lefties" thought he was so progressive. He ISN'T and he really has told everybody this, although not always directly and he has hedged (like on FISA). But if you look at the guy's voting record in the U.S. Senate and Illinois; if you look at the votes he has ducked; if you listen to his answers carefully, there can't be any surprises.

Frankly, I'm still very disappointed and angry that progressives got caught up in his glamour and his rhetoric and basically threw Hillary Clinton under the bus for the "new guy."

And, really, if you look at Clinton's record - really look at where she has been on issues, there is NO question about her progressivity. Yeah, okay, she's been more hawkish than Obama on national security/foreign affairs -- but this has even been tempered going back as far as 2005. Where has Obama been? Nowhere to be found in a disconcerting number of instances.

Here's the real concern, though: progressives are talking about how disappointed they are (and are going to be) in Obama, to which I say disappointment will be a nice way of describing it. He's more Republican than a lot of Republicans and this is just the beginning.

And still, I just don't get it. How in the world did progressives get sucked into believing Obama was the salvation of the progressive movement?

BTW: Clinton has been opposed to telecom immunity since 2007 and she supported early efforts to draft FISA in a way that was more transparent, that provided more oversight and checks/balances AND that removed telecom immunity.

Here are the links:

February 2008:
Clinton's February statement on FISA & Telecom Immunity

December 2007:
Clinton's statement on Senate effort to improve FISA, without telecom immunity

So much for the "spin" that she's just another calculating, dishonest, "evil" Washington insider who will "do and say anything to get elected."

I think Obama was projecting...

[ Parent ]
Talk about deflating your candidacy (4.00 / 3)
Where will all the Obama excitement come from now...independants? Maybe from the the Versailles press, now that he's proven his bonafides by having  his Sister Souljah moment (ie: flipping the base of the Democratic Party the bird)?

This election should have been a cakewalk for the Dems after 8 years of a disastrous GOP reign, but we seem to be very good at handicapping ourselves...

If she were the Nominee (4.00 / 1)
She would have voted "no", of course.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox