« Memo: Power On "CW V. CWN" | Main | Edwards Hopes Good Works Will Give Him The Ticker »

At YearlyKos, Clinton Defends Lobbyists

04 Aug 2007 03:34 pm

CHICAGO -- After dozens of forums in the last four months, it seemed as if the presidential candidates had run out of new things to say, and despite the promise of Netroots sparkle, today's YearlyKos roundtable, held in a poorly lit, cavernous convention hall, was kind of dingy.

And then Hillary Clinton was forced to explain to why she accepts contributions from federal lobbyists.

Twice in the debate, Sen. John Edwards challenged his fellow candidates to refuse to accept contributions from federal lobbyists. The second time he brought up this demand, the narrator, Matt Bai, asked Clinton whether she'd continue to take money from lobbyists.

"I will," she said.

"A lot of those lobbyists whether you like it not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers" -- here the audience began to boo -- "and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people." "I just... I just ask you to look at my record." Never, she said, in her 35 years of public service, had she bowed to the will of a lobbyist. But she would not change her mind.

Two hours earlier, Clinton spoke to a convention of police officers in Chicago and might well have pointed out that police officers employ lobbyists; unions in Washington use dozens of them, as do non-profits, colleges, universities, towns and cities.

Sen. Barack Obama, who, like Edwards does not take donations from federal lobbyists, jumped in. "I just disagree" with Clinton's notion that lobbyists don't have a disproportionate influence on the system. "Now Hillary, you were talking about your [health care] effort back in 1993, and you can't tell me that money didn't make a difference, and you can't tell me that the money they are spending is just to contribute to the public interest."

Rep. Dennis Kucinich saw an opening to tweak Edwards. "Would Sen, Edwards expand that to be willing to include all Wall Street hedge funds?" Edwards, who earned millions from New York-based Fortress Investments, wouldn't go that far. "As long as we don't have public financing, I think we have to raise money from nurses, teachers and doctors, people who work on Wall Street in New York City."

Although the headline-making exchange will probably unsettle Clinton's campaign, her refusal to disavow the culture of Washington was not surprising. Her platform aims to restore competence to government, to work within government to produce solutions, and to bring the Democratic Party back to power. John Edwards is running as an anti-institutionalist, taking on the Bigs. Barack Obama has placed on a pox on both houses of Congress and both political parties. Clinton seemed to relish the challenge of disagreeing with the audience, joking with them as they began to boo her. It was hard to here precisely what she said, but it sounded like "I'm here. This is real. It's what you were waiting for."

After the forum ended, reporters clustered around Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson. Wolfson would not address the political significance of Clinton's admission, saying only that "all the campaigns have made their decisions, and we've made ours." Sen. Obama, he noted, took money from state lobbyists and allowed the spouses of lobbyists to contribute and solicited donations from employees of major lobbying firms. Edwards, he said, "takes money from hedge funds."

The first three quarters of the debate were fairly mundane. Bai persuaded Obama to acknowledge that he would tolerate short term budget deficits to fund domestic priorities. At one point, Obama referred to the U.S. presence in Iraq as an "occupation." Gov. Bill Richardson risked and received boos when he bragged about balancing the budget five times in New Mexico. Bai tried to tease out the differences between Sen. Clinton and Ex-Sen. John Edwards on Edwards. Edwards again said the country was not safer; Clinton said it was a little bit safer, but not safe enough, and certainly not safe as we needed to be.

The Netroots crowd did not want to be condescended to, but their spontaneous applause at predictable, well-worn pander standards suggested that they enjoyed the attention. There was no crowd favorite, although Obama, who turns 46 today, was introduced to the loudest cheers.

The candidates dispatched with a few blogger preoccupations. John Edwards said that his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, was prepared to be his official White House blogger. (Sen. Mike Gravel vowed to blog himself.) HIllary Clinton praised Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, "which was exactly the right thing to do." The candidates were asked about media consolidation and none except Dennis Kucinich committed to legislation. Richardson said the Democratic Party should push for verified paper ballots, same-day voter registration and work to fight Republican attempts to challenge minority voters at the polls.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/15638

Comments (51)

The more I hear Hillary, the more I like her. She is strong. She stands by her convictions, and she does not pander, not even to the Kos crowd.


Lobbyists are humans too. They are representative of real American people!

Good speech Hillary, congratulation for validating your Bush-Cheney-Lite.

The biggest fan of Hillary’s position should be Bush and Cheney, considering that they gave Halliburton all the contracts without bid.

Was Obama implying that lobbyists were the reason for Hillary’s 1993 Healthcare failure?
Now that Hillary is again partnering with more lobbyists, will she be able to show us a sample of what her Healthcare plan would be if she’s elected?

Mark, what is there to like about Clinton taking money from lobbyist? Its the easiest position, just take their money! Clinton is a sham.

I thought Edwards did the best.

Clinton just admitted she will sell herself to lobbyists?...........She is not going to be the next president.

Team Obama are such fakers. Everyone in the DC political world knows that Obamas fundraisers have been working hard to line up K streeters. Back in January there was a concerted effort to get DC lobby folk to give to Obama - but to put the donation in the spouses name, This has even been reported in the news media. Fake, false and useless.


Hillary is leading by double double digits. If she loses 15% of the vote - she would still win in a primary landslide.

Maybe Barrack should have majored in math, instead of of Intl Relations. Well, actually, after this week....and how little he seems to understand the world...maybe he should have majored in gym....since he is so proud of his basketball skills. He sure aint wowing us with his political and policy skills.

Hillary is not a sham; she's just experienced and ready to lead on day one.
The only problem here is that between Bush and Hillary, there's no much difference.

Hillary has no and is not planning any healthcare reform; not with the millions she collected from the pharma/insurance/healthcare companies and their lobbyists in campaign contributions.

Would the lobbyists control Hillary in White House if elected? Who knows? They once did and that was why she failed to help the uninsured Americans when she had the instrument of power by her bedside for 8 years.

I believe that America should elect Hillary in 2008 if they wanted more of the same (Bush-Cheney in a female clothing) for the next 8 years.

On Hillary's leading by double digits, I want to say that the important states this early are in contrast to the national polls. Those early state number decides the nomination.

Hillary's current national lead is meaningless right now.

If Hillary is good enough, she should refund all the lobbyist money and reject their contribution henceforth. If not, she'll lose the nomination.

F.Igwealor,
I wish someone would have followed up about health care. I wish someone would have also followed up on why is it good to pander to lobbyists when what they might want isn't good for the overall country. Like, again, healthcare.

The hypocricy of you Obamna folks is only equalled by your ignorance of this years political calender.

Why no comment on Obama's efforts to raise money from lobbyists whilst pretending that he does not? Huh? Wanna see a ugly picture....look into the Hyatt Corps work history and ask why Obama put Hyatt heir Peeny Pritzger in charge of his fundraising....oh yeah....cause he want money from rich folks. Over half his $ has come in checks of over $1000. Hypocrisy indeed...

With all the states moving up the primaries, we will have had a National Primary by the end of February. 36 States. I dont expect the news media, who know nothing about real politics, to understand this....but one of my close buds over at Obamaland understands this and knows like I do - that Obama has NO chance.

Too bad he now has no chance for the VP slot now either.

But keep pretending...enjoy your moment, it will soon be over.

Hillary is the Nixon of the Democratic party, and just proved it again with her ridiculous defense of lobbyists. She knows that lobbyists have influence; that's why her healthcare reform was shot down. However, her response was just to cozy up to those same lobbyists and sell out. Now she ranks second in receiving contributions from the big pharma/big insurance crowd. Anyone who expects real healthcare reform from Hillary is fooling themselves.

That's the correct headline:

"Clinton defends lobbyists."

Clinton receives more money from the health insurance companies than anyone else, as people's health care costs shoot up through the roof.

Edwards did not earn "MILLIONS" from that hedge fund.

Hillary Clinton offers the "STATUS QUO." It's always been that way, which is why she does not represent change.

She seems to believe that her gender constitutes change. I wonder if Mary Matlin agrees with her.

Dem Dem comments are afr from the truth but I am thinking he is a clinton sychophant. Obama is a true leader who does not rely on soundbites for political score. Hilary knows what lines to use and she is every part the establishment. She is also an angry woman and I do not think that this will pay well with the American people. Obama is here to sat and just get used to it. As for the polls, they never poll those with cellphones but only those with house phones. Most of us do not have house phones hence nevr get polled. If they take into account cellphones, Obama would be leading comfortably. Wake up Dem Dem or is Rep Rep.

stop with the hypocrisy you silly folks....so Edwards "only" made $500,000 a year "consulting" for a hedge fund....for what? How much per hour? Stop pretending that Hillary is a bad actor and your "fave" is spotless and special.

It is so ridiculous...

OBAMA IS HERE TO STAY!!! GET USED TO IT!!!!!!!

hey anthony...name one thing I wrote that wasnt 100% true. One thing. The problem with you fan boys is that you really dont understand politics - but - you actually think you know everything. Ha.

I know and worked for President and Senator Clinton. I am a political pro.

I know this stuff, i suggest you actually learn the facts and then youll have something to contribute.

Cell phones....what a common and tres bogus excuse from the obama kool aid klub...

I certainly gave Obama a try. I have watched all debates and forums that have been televised. Unfortunately, Obama has not been an articulate speaker, and Hillary has clearly won every debate.
Hillary is not perfect, but in my opinion, she is the best and most electable candidate on the Democratic side. Recent polls of match ups between Hillary and the leading Republicans show her finally winning all of those pairings.
Between her debate performances and leads over the Republican contenders, I finally am very comfortable with Senator Clinton.

It would be great if the Democratic supporters would stop getting so personal and cut throat against different Democratic candidates. One of these candidates will be our man or woman and any of them would be better than any Republican.

I think all these naive bloggers have some lobbying groups that they love.

Human Rights Campaign (gay rights)
Planned Parenthood (reproductive freedom)
People for the American Way (progressive values and courts)
AARP - senior citizens

to name a few. The idea that government officials shouldn't involve themselves with lobbyists is absurd and would be detrimental to a progressive agenda.

Edwards is again a hypocrite about money (last instance with his statements about News Corp.). He wouldn't exist as a political entity if it were not for the Association of Trial Lawyers for America. We all know what a big lobby trial lawyers are.

Some Obama supporters might be inerested in the following article.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

Bottom line, National polls is meaningless right now.
Traditionally, the democratic nomination has always been decided between the winner of Iowa and the winner of NH.

Obama is tied with Hill in NH and leading in Iowa. Obama would be the nominee; take this to the bank.

The trend is your friend and Obama is currently trending up where it matters.

Hillary has lost the nomination and that was why she became angry and attacked Obama the other week.

And Antony made a valid point there; most of Obama supporters that I know don't even own a land-line phone. So when you add that, Obama would be winning landslide.

Anyway, it's good for Obama that Hill is leading in the national polls; that way his supporters would be more energized and give him more money to beat Hillary again in the quarterly fundraising primaries.

The once inevitable candidate is now a pathetic loser - defending the lobbyists, maybe they are all the donors she got left.

Sorry Hill; we do love Bill but we just wanted a fresh face. No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

James, why would Obama's supporters care about that article, again? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the problem with lobbyists. Its not that they exist, or even that they influence legislation...the problem with lobbyists is when they purchase that influence, either by bundling contributions for a candidate, taking them on expensive business trips, buying them big lunches, golf games, flying them in chartered jets, etc etc. I.e. de facto bribing.

The article does not show at all that Obama ever took money in exchange for legislative favors, and the whole point of not accepting PAC or lobbyist money is to not be beholden to any of these groups. If you can demonstrate that some lobbyist is bundling for him, or if you can demonstrate that those lobbyists had in fact bought the influence described in that article, you have a point.

Otherwise, you really don't. The article as it stands is vacuous garbage.

dem dem:

I know and worked for President and Senator Clinton. I am a political pro.

ROFL. Yeah, posting in the comments section on The Atlantic's blog. And establishing your credentials by claiming you're a "pro".

Seriously, that's hilarious.

Important point to note here is that by this time in 1992, Bill Clinton was nowhere to be fond in the national polls and only won the nomination by winning NH.

If Obama could win Iowa and NH, he'll be the automatic nominee. Remember Obama has always scored best on the likeability polls; so the February 5 voters would just go with the winner and that'll be it.

Sorry Hill and Co. We're just very tired of the lobbyist writing the laws and us getting stuck with the bills.

As a side, lobbyist don't control governments, -- nice try Hill, dogs don’t really bark.

my god. you amateur "fan boys" are as annoying as you are clueless. Hillary in 2008 is quite a bit different then Bill in 1992. (Like the buy one get one free idea is a lot more helpful) But one thing is for sure, both were frontrunners in August and both went on to win both the dem primaries and the White House.

fyi F...Bill didnt win NH in 1992...but we didnt care...just like we dont care if Edwards wins in Iowa this time...we are leading in 34 of 36 primary states...try to learn and understand these things before you comment will ya...

The main thing to know is that there are perhaps two candidates who are not beholden to large well funded corporate and wall stree friends. With the caving on FISA by the Senate, you might find a bit more reason why Mike Gravel supports the national ballot initiative. The true progressive who's not beholden to big money is Dennis Kucinich. Take a good look at what he believes and what he says he'll do. You know he'll stand behind his beliefs to the bitter end.

Go Dennis and Co-Sponsors of H Res 333!
http://dennis4president.com

lol

dem dem. You might want to mention that Obama has a larger national organization than Hillary, more offices in more states, more volunteers, and more money to advertise in all the primary states when the time is right. He's only been campaigning for, what, 2 months now, and already seeing movement in every state he's hit.

"we are leading in 34 of 36 primary states..." I wonder why that is the case. Since Mrs. Clinton did not have the VISION to see what was going to happen in Iraq after we went in...and she DID know that Bush was going to go to war, just like everyone else. She did know that we sold weapons, possibly some of the same biological weapons that Saddam had in the early 90's, to him. She was part of the 10 years of sanctions in Iraq that killed a few hundred thousand people and had Iraq on it's knees. Why is it that many people were questioning the intelligence that was forced upon us, and seeing loose ends, but she somehow missed that? The NIE that she didn't read was for Senator's eyes and alike only, not for her staffers to read..so she didn't read it. Hillary is not what our country needs at this point in time, she has proven that she doesn't have vision to make us the country we all claim it to be. Her 8 years in the White House was like sending a first time offender to jail...they just pick up the tools of the trade.

You know, if you think that the fragile infrastructure of Pakistan right now in regards to their government they seem pretty similar to Iraq in many ways. I ways believed that a country divided against itself cannot stand, would you agree? How can Pakistan think is possible that they can root out terrorists in their own nation when their government is falling apart like Iraq and Afghanistan? Open your eyes and do some research I because I truly believe Barack Obama is on to something. Why do you think its been so difficult for the Bush administration to agree on how to fight terrorism in both Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? Its because there is no effective communication or unity with their separate governments. How can you tell these governments not to use nuclear weapons if we have some intention of using them ourselves. Do you think there is a possibility that if Obama says no nuclear weapons, he could be saying to both Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, if we will not use nuclear weapons, how about you? I think most of us are humble caring people, if this is true, what reason would you have to use these weapons of mass destruction? I do not want another Hiroshima. Would you?

If Hilary admitted to lobbyist support, you know she's up to her elbows in it. It looks more and more like she is nothing new, and that she'll do anything to get elected.

The more I see the candidates together, the clearer it becomes that Senator Clinton is so beyond them all in terms of experience, intelligence, wisdom, and--today--candor. This is another example of Hillary's ability to see the complexity of issues. All lobbyists are not good, and all lobbysist are not bad. They represent so many of us--firefighters, police, teachers...

Clinton is a strong candidate but she is still "same old same old". Only Edwards and Obama represent real change. They are not perfect but they are the ones who will lead us away from Bush legacy which no one except for 30% Bush sycophants like.

The MSM will love their own like Hillaries and Giulianis but America is looking for a real change which only Edwards or Obama can bring.

Everyone is missing the really obnoxious thing Hillary said and the line that got her the biggest "boos." It's not her statement that she would continue to take lobbyist money. What got her soundly booed was when she said, "I've been in a public life for 35 years and no one would ever think that I would take a position just because a lobbyist made a contribution to my campaign." That statement captures the essence of the self-righteousness, arrogance and imperiousness that justifies much of the intense dislike of her among not only Republicans but independents as well. It's the attribute of her that makes me think she's the only leading Dem who could blow the 08 election. Let's deconstruct it: First there's the self-regard and condescension: "I Hillary am above reproach, so while it might make sense for peons like Barack and John to refuse lobbyist's money, there's no point in me not taking their money, because, well, I'm me and they are not."

Second, there is the flat-out self delusion. I, for one, do not trust Hillary on faith; I don't see her 35 year career (especially the more important last 10 years of it) as untainted by her close association with the Washington culture. The thunderous boos in response to this line showed I am not alone. I don't know where to start, but the Marc Rich pardon is as good as anywhere. Rich was a fugitive, who makes Scooter Libby look good, because at least Libby showed up for his trial. Rich went to Switzerland, but because his wife gave generously to Hillary's Senate campaign and the Clinton library, Mr. Rich got a pardon.

RaymondA, the Marc Rich pardon you bring up, next to her statement about not letting money influence her decisions...is damning.

One last thing:

Found this quote, from Obama at YearlyKos, and he's right, he and Feingold did do this, so I'm gonna laugh at those trying to call Obama a hypocrite on this matter:

“Here in Illinois, I passed the first campaign finance reform in 25 years right here in Illinois. We just passed an ethics reform bill which is going to allow you to see who is bundling and the reason is because myself and Russ Feingold put that revision in. And by the way, was resisted not just by Republicans but by some Democrats. So we can take concrete steps right now and I agree that our long-term goal has to be public financing but let’s not suggest that until we get there that there is nothing meaningful we can do.”

Like I was saying in an earlier post, what matters is when lobbyists contribute money (hard or soft) to a politician, or bundle for them. And we're gonna have transparency for that in the future...thanks to Russ Feingold and Barack Obama. LMAO at those who try to paint him as anything but a champion of transparency and good government.

I wish I were at Kos to ask Hillary about her record on the bankruptcy bill. Do you know the story?? Well you should. As first lady she intervened and stopped Bill from signing the bankruptcy bill. She was influenced by the work of the Harvard law professor who has done research on middle class financial situation in general.

Fast-forward to her a senator, having received money from the financial services industry.. What do you suppose she did?? She voted for an even worse version of the bill, which was written by the financial services industry.

Never influenced by money Hillary?? Really. This is what you ware going to get form her and not much else.

Hillary should be applauded for just showing up conidering she knew that the crowd would be hostile.
Hillary was being honest about lobbyists-they are not all bad. Unions have lobbyists as well as Wall Street..
And anyone who believes Obamam will be the nominess are livingin a dreamworld. Hillary has a 20 point lead and it is growing.

And you're living in a dreamworld if you think Hillary, or any politician, isn't influenced by lobbyists money like she claims she isn't.

Biden was the only Democratic candidate with enough integrity to refuse to pander to the nutroots by speaking to a Kos gathering . This blog/website's author said of our soldiers killed in Iraq 'Who cares about them... screw'em all'...although he didn't use that word, but one starting with F.

Many professionals do belong to professional organizations and we use some of our money for lobby funds. Would you say that it's bad for a politician to take money from a social worker? Or do you just take issue with politicians taking money from certain types of organizations? At least she is honest.

For such a seasoned politician and campaigner, Hillary sure lost her mind with the lobbyist comment. And it comes at YearlyKos, no less! Amazing...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

The LA Times reports today that even after presidential hopeful Barack Obama made a show of standing up to Washington insiders by returning donations from lobbyists, he received help raising campaign money from at least two of them.

Even as he shuns donations from lobbyists, Obama has taken more than $1.4 million this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama4aug04,1,4742821.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=2&cset=t rue

Further, the Des Moines Register reports that Obama's fundraising team has used state lobbyists, former lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists and partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients to reach the rich, the Washington Post reported in April.

As a U.S. Senate candidate, Obama was no stranger to PAC donations. From 2001 to 2006, he received $1.8 million, or about 8 percent, of what he raised from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS09/708030378/1001/NEWS

Maybe these totals from the FEC will shed light on who REALLY is the benefactor of lobbyist/PAC money.

Hill's at over half a million and rising, Obama is still at $0.00.

And also who gets the majority of their campaign cash from large donations ($2k plus). Hill has over $36M in large donations, Obama has $27M. However (unlike dem dem's inaccurate statement a few posts back), a large amount of Obama's donations per the totals below are under $200 each ($16M vs. $4M for Clinton).

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

Hillary Clinton

Contributions:
Individual: $51,999,822
PAC: $532,046
Party: $1,000
Candidate: $0
Transfers-In: $10,000,000
Disbursements: $17,306,036
Cash On Hand: $45,226,832

Size of Donations:
$200 and Under = $4,627,408
$200.01 - $499 = $1,426,933
$500 - $999 = $2,015,033
$1000 - $1999 = $7,596,507
$2000 and Over = $36,880,268

Barack Obama

Contributions:
Individual: $58,495,873
PAC: $0
Party: $0
Candidate: $0
Transfers-In: $0
Disbursements: $22,356,424
Cash On Hand: $36,263,688

Size of Donations:
$200 and Under = $16,554,783
$200.01 - $499 = $ 2,802,170
$500 - $999 = $ 3,758,580
$1000 - $1999 = $ 8,437,333
$2000 and Over = $27,063,693


Clinton is trying to make the argument that she is proud to take lobbyist money because these lobbyists represent real Americans? Oh, that's a tough sell.

While lobbyist money is perhaps sleazy, I suppose you can say it isn't enethical because it is business as usual. What I'd be more interested in seeing is Clinton's justification of continuing to fundraise for her Senate accounts and taking cash from kids.

The Senate account sent over $10 million to her presidential account, and she's continuing to accept money for this Senate account - from people who already reached presidential donor limits. And yet there's nothing stopping her from transferring more from Senate to presidential accounts in the future. She's using this to get around the legal limits.

And likewise she also is using donations from kids to get around these limits, too, from what I've read. An adult who reaches legal limits can simply send in more in his/her child's name.

Contrasting with this practice, Obama has pledged not to take donations from children.

Most of the Dem candidates disgust me to no end. Hillary is the worst of the bunch. She's a traitor and a sellout to the progressive agenda. About the only one I could stomach from an integrity standpoint would be Kuchinich.

None of this lobbyist BS gets solved though, until you have public financing for election campaigns....that the only way you can remove the influence of powerful PACs.

No, Richardson was booed because he said he supported a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution - not because he touted his record as NM gov.

How many millions did John Edwards earn from his hedge fund account? I thought it was in the $500,000 range. How much did he earn as salary form a hedge fund? You statement is unclear.

Posted by Dem Dem (or should that be Dum Dum?):

"hey anthony...name one thing I wrote that wasnt 100% true. One thing. The problem with you fan boys is that you really dont understand politics - but - you actually think you know everything. Ha.

I know and worked for President and Senator Clinton. I am a political pro.

I know this stuff, i suggest you actually learn the facts and then youll have something to contribute.

Cell phones....what a common and tres bogus excuse from the obama kool aid klub..."

Spoken like a true Hillaryoid. Arrogant. Condescending. Pure Bush-light Bushit.

Congratulations! You just highlighted precisely why so many thinking people cannot abide cHillary. She's a total establishment tool who believes you and I cannot make our own decisions. She is every bit as authoritarian (if allowed).

And for the record, if she was so wise and experienced, I highly doubt she would have voted to give Bush the greenlight to invade Iraq. 'Course, anyone with half a brain knows that she voted for it, hoping she would not be seen as weak come time for the election. Anyone who believes otherwise is well, utterly naive. But hey - YOU keep drinkin' that swill you call kool-aid, Dem Dem.

28 years of Bush and Clinton? NO THANK YOU!


One more thing. Hillary Clinton would not be running for president right now if it weren't for the fact that she is MRS. BILL CLINTON.

Furthermore, people need to stop with the line that she's so much more qualified than the rest. That is complete and utter BS. Just because you're married to a Marine for 20 years, does that mean you're qualified to go into combat? NO! So why are people dumb enuff to fall for that experience meme?

WAKE UP PEOPLE! She was SO experienced, she helped Dumbya & Tricky Dick get their endless war. There will never be any running away from the fact that she has cHillary has just as much blood on her hands as those cretins do.

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

Sorry, but what is kimerikas?

Jane.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.