Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clark is part of the Clintons' diabolical plan to seize power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:44 AM
Original message
Clark is part of the Clintons' diabolical plan to seize power
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 09:47 AM by Woodstock
so says William Safire.

NY Times Op Ed

...What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Democrats unite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Better Clark & the Clintons...
Than the Bushies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Definitely
I'll take a Clinton-connected guy over Bush any time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Amen... If the Clintons are Clark's puppetteers then that means..
we'll have 8 years of peace and prosperity. I don't have a problem with that. Guide Clark on the domestic stuff while Clark manages the internatinal/war stuff. It works for me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pltcl_jnky Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. oh you mean
peace and prosperity such as:

the 1993 WTC bombing?
The Oklahoma City Bombing
The Barracks in Saudi Arabia
The embassies in Africa
or the USS Kole

or maybe perhaps how the 2001 WTC Attacks had been in the works since at least 1996 according to the guy (Mohammad Kaliad) who helped plan them???

or maybe you mean the peace and prosperity of being in Kosovo for that imminent threat to the US there?

or perhaps those Somalians who were on the verge of attacking us

so where exactly did we have peace and prosperity????

George W. Bush should go down in defeat next year, no question about it. But before you go throwing that Peace and Prosperity bullshit around remember all the death and destruction and needless, useless military engagements the holy annointed one Bill Clinton got us into. We dont seem to remember those because everyone was too caught up in giving him oodles of credit for the Dot com explosion in the US which sparked the economy for most of the 8 years.....of which Clinton had nothing to do with and the recession that came about in the late 90's when that dot com bubble burst of which Clinton had nothing to do with and neither did the guy in the office today!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. So say a lot of people at DU, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. so somebody poll DU then
let's get the dirty laundry out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. How about this:
There is not diabolical plot to seize power. Hillary means it when she says she's not running. They will support the nominee.

As Bill himself said in Indianola, Iowa a week ago, "Go ahead and fall in love with a candidate, but after the convention, fall in line behind the nominee." Yeah, I guess that could be seen as a hint he plans to put his wife in the White House, but I'm more inclined to hear it as wanting all of us to support the nominee and get that person elected in November 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
5. HELL YES! Seize that power, we need peace and prosperity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. Safire's article is just a nasty swipe to set the tone for Tweety's "Hard
Ball" and Faux/Msnbc to rattle on about the Clintons this week thereby overshadowing what all the candidates are doing. Also the Chimp gives his "Speech" to the UN tomorrow......They know he will fall on his face...so they've gotta keep Clark/Clinton story going to cover it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
8. that's just silly as hell no matter what one thinks of Wesley Clark.
Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woodstock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. I agree, but it's what the other side is saying
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 10:02 AM by Woodstock
So we need to think about it at least so far as coming up with a comeback for the guy in the office who hits us with it.

Did you catch these lovely bits:

"the Clinton-Gore mafia"

You'd think at some point their Clinton obsession would subside.

and

Dean is "Dr. Lose-the-War"

Oh, no, dear, your man Bush has managed to do that all by himself. Dean is the one who didn't want to go to war at all, remember?

That's the way, paint the opponent as the devil. How utterly childish.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disgruntella Donating Member (983 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Man... someone's been eating too much pizza
before he went to bed, to be dreaming this shit up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kusala Donating Member (864 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
11. I've heard this one a few times already
when Rush referred to Clark as "Hillary's sock puppet" I knew this was a new talking point..But's what's the motive? Are they trying to keep mod repubs from jumping ship to Clark, by attempting to brand him with the Clinton name. That may help stop the tide of those who bought into the anti-clinton propoganda for all those years, but I would think it would have the opposite effect on mod and swing voters that remember the good clinton years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. This has got to be
William Safire's wet dream senario. He and the rest of the RIght Wingers have to create some conspiracy around Clark to muddy the waters.

So what is it? Is Clark a BFEE plant? Guess that would make the Clinton's part of the plan. Is Clark a stalking horse for Hillary? Maybe Clark is really a Dean plant. He'll get a bunch of attention then jump on Dean's bandwagon as VP. Maybe Clark is really part of some alien invasion and he really isn't Clark but an evil clone.

So many conspiracies. So little time.

MzPip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GainesT1958 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. Oh, so to Bill Safire...
It's now the "CFEE", huh? :tinfoilhat:

Why am I NOT surprised?

Hey, Bill, which is more like Dub? To allow his tax breaks for the wealthy to sunset, so that the economy--and the deficit--have SOME chance of being in better shape when it's time for Jebbie to run, or to help his buddies get all they can while he's still in? :eyes:

Don't expect any brotherly charity, Jeb! x(

B-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sagan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. Oh, Please God...

Let the Clintons diabolically seize power...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. The Clinton connection
is a distict liability, considering Clark's target audience would seem to be the swing voter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starpass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
17. Gee, did you see him on Meet the Press??
He is in "hate" with Clark because he's scared shitless of him and of course, so was Novak. But because the other panelists kept debunking and shooting these assholes down they were squirming in their chairs. One did not have to pick up a paper today to know what he was going to write. Man he hated to have his reasoning shot to hell on national tv; but that never stops these whores. I loved watching Novak. When he is alone he struts and puffs about these things, but when in a crowd of people who won't put up with his bullshit, he draws back and saves his venom for when he can hit in the 'dark'. You could smell the fear on these two of Clark's appearance in the race...in fact, they were trying to talk up Dean (seems for some odd reason they really luv da' guy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Novak reminds me of
a barnyard rooster strutting his stuff until the barn cat decides to have a little fun.

Safire's senario would have to go something like this:

Bill: Hey, Wes. Hil and I have a plan. We need your help. We want you to run for president this year and lose. That's right LOSE!!! Then in 2008 Hil can run and pick you for her VP. Doesn't that sound swell to you?

Wes: Terrific idea. I will be happy to subject my career, family and associates to unrelenting attacks and scrutiny so I can be VP for Hilary in 4 years. If we serve 2 terms I can run for President when I am in my 70s. What a plan. Count me in.

MzPip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. SAFIRE: "the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush"
They seem pretty sure Dean is gonna be a loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakfs Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
20. Safire has long been a senile tool
of the GOP.

He implies that the Clintons are up to no good. This from a man who continues to defend Nixon!!

God forbid these media flunkies find any fault with their precious Rethug sponsors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. I rather like the idea/notion although I feel its not likely true
Come, we promote the idea.

Peace and prosperity is much better/preferred to Madness by Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
22. Substitute "DLC" for "Clinton" in Safire's article
Re-read what Safire said substituting "DLC" for "Clinton" and think about it.

Clinton is the DLC's poster boy, their "success" story. Clinton's ties to the DLC are still strong. DLC support (financial and otherwise) is the key to the Clintons' political future. Dean's success is eroding the DLC's hold on the Democratic party.

I don't know if the Clinton's don't know about or are in denial about the neo-con's influence on the DLC and New Democrats. The future PNACers' influence on the Clinton administrations are clear - especially in foreign policy like North Korea in 1994 and Iraq in 1998.

Remember Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" comments? I don't think they want to suport the Bush led cabal. Maybe the Clinton's are in so deep they think they would have to go the way of Al Gore and withdraw from politics to break away. Maybe they think they can overcome the neo-cons from the inside. Maybe they don't see the DLC/neo-con connections.

But when I did substitute DLC for Clinton, I had a whole different view of Safire's comments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zekeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
23. I'll take a Clinton Family Evil Empire
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 11:21 AM by zekeson
I got kind of addicted to peace and prosperity, freedom of thought, etc.

I think this does beg a larger issue. Are we better off with a brand new face that is anti - all that is the old DLC group (i.e.; a Dean), or, would we be better with someone who is supported by and connected like a Clark or Kerry?

Washington is increasingly hostile and whatever Dem goes in to replace The Big Bush Mistake is going to have to hit the ground running and take charge in a big way. They won't be able to do it alone. Visions of Jimmy Carter come to mind. He had all the equipment to be one of our finest presidents but he surrounded himself with outsiders who weren't used to the lay of the land. Coupled with a hostile press and a bitter and vengeful Repuke party the perception is that he stepped on his dick big time. Perception is all that matters in DC.

Is getting the support of Clintons a bad thing? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
24. Safire and Limbaugh are now soul mates
Safire is a disgusting prick. Saw him on MTP yesterday talking about the "vast leftwing conspiracy" to get Clark to run.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
25. Rightwing tinfoil
I think it's silly and I'm a Machiavellian scholar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Sometimes they are so ludicrous
one has to wonder if they turn off their own camp. This was definitely an eye roller. Have to think that to some traditional republicans and moderate independents, who might usually read Safire and the like, are starting to recognize the 'trick' of demonizing anything and everything by "Clinton Association"; and if so if they are starting recognize what it represents: empty complaints because nothing better can be found to complain about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shanty Oilish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Beelzebubba
So they call him. That says it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. LOLOL
And the irony kills me.

If any Bubba fits that characterization... it might be the one pushing folks to act in ways that are closer to 'satan' than 'God' (for those who respond to religious messages) - in the encouragement of Greed, in the fostering of idolotry (to 'nation' and to 'money') - in the blessing of lying (bearing false witness) etc.

When that contingent starts talking about Clinton as the anti christ it always cracks me up. Isn't the antichrist supposed to appear amidst false profits er prophets (and who were the false prophets for Clinton), and to appear to 'save' the people.... If they are trying to interpret current events through the bible (a silly little habit they are prone to do)... I would think they would be a little more nervous about today's bubba.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peachhead22 Donating Member (798 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
26. Occam's Razor in reverse
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 11:23 AM by Peachhead22
If there's a simpler, more logical explanation and a more convaluted reason that involves an imaginary Clinton "plot" some of these idiots will chose the "evil Clinton plot" reason everytime.

edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
29. the DLC and Democrats
The Dems I talk to have no idea what the DLC is. I can't beleive how much you all hate them here. They are our conservative wing but when compared to any wing of the GOP they look like commies!

I saw Safire on Meet the Press. He sounded nuts. His argument made no sense.

Clinton was popular. They spent untold millions of dollars and 8 years trashing Clinton and they never got more than about 30% of Americans, the hard core haters who are a lost cause anyway, to go along with their venom.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IkeWarnedUs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Why I hate the DLC
People wonder why the Democrats in Congress don't stand up to the Bush administration's agenda. When you understand the neo-cons' influence on the DLC and New Democrats (what DLC members are called) it makes sense.

Many of the main players in the Bush administration are founders and/or members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), including Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Much has been said on DU about PNAC and how its agenda is being carried out before our eyes.

PNAC has issued a number of official statements, including their Statement of Purpose (6/3/97), Letter to Clinton (1/26/98), Statement on Post War Iraq (3/19/03) and their Second Statement on Post War Iraq (3/23/03). Each of these statements are specifically signed by 20-30 people.

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and former Policy Director for the DLC is a signer on PNAC's two statements on Iraq. PPI was created to set policy for the DLC and is very closely connected to the DLC.

Tod Lindberg, published by The Blueprint (DLC magazine) also signed both PNAC Iraq statements, as did James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

Marshall Wittman, another Blueprint author, is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute (Richard Perle, trustee) and former aid to Ralph Reed.

There is another group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) that was formed in the fall of 2002. Its Mission Statement says:

"The regime of Saddam Hussein has attacked its neighbors, acquired weapons of mass destruction, and directed those weapons against innocent men, women, and children. It has supported international terrorism and has savagely murdered and repressed the Iraqi people. The current government of Iraq poses a clear and present danger to its neighbors, to the United States, and to free peoples throughout the world."

Where have we heard that before?

It says they "will engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people.

Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda.

Who are The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?

CLI Officers

Chairman of the Board Bruce P. Jackson

Executive Director Randy Scheunemann

Treasurer Julie Finley

Secretary Gary Schmitt

(Jackson, Scheunemann and Schmitt all signed the PNAC Statements on Iraq. Schmitt is also a founder of PNAC.)

Advisors include PNAC'ers Dr. Eliot Cohen, Robert Kagan, Peter Galbraith, William Kristol, Will Marshall, Josh Muravchik, Richard Perle, Danielle Pletka and James Woolsey. All were part of the select few who put their names to one or more of the PNAC statements above.

Note, Will Marshall, policy director of the DLC, is an advisor to CLI.

Finally, take a look at what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11.

America s New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&con...

The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&con...

And this one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it s Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&cont...

------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Perle's lips move.

I doubt that most of the New Democrats are aware of these connections and how the DLC works to further the PNAC agenda. I am, and that's why I hate and fear them and want to make sure other people know too.

------------------------

PNAC links:

The President's Real Goal in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9/29/02 By Jay Bookman
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman...

A copy of the Project for the New American Century's September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses; Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDef...

A copy of the National Security Strategy of the United States dated September 2002 can be viewed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

PNAC Statement of Principals
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples...

PNAC Letter to Clinton
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC Statement on Post War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903....

PNAC Second Statement on Post War Iraq
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803....

Link to CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
30. And this is worse that a Poppy Bush dynasty HOW?
So we have Dumbya in the office with Poppy behind the scenes. Then they run Jebbie, then Neil, then Jebbie's idiot get-caught-screwing-in-the-back-seat son, then....

And this is somehow better than the Clintons somehow positioning Hillary for a 2008 run for the Oval?

I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
32. Funny Safire is so popular on DU these days...
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 11:39 AM by robbedvoter
A previous NYT article noted that Clinton was skeptical about supporting Clark until the draft movement showed his potential.
"Clark said that as recently as last week, the former

> president and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) both encouraged him
> to run, as did many of their close friends. He said the former
> president initially was cool to the idea but warmed to it as the
> draft-Clark movement grew."

Also, I heard Limpball, Novak and Safire (so far) feeling Dean's pain...That should be a clue for you that a new meme is being sent out to divide the dems (maybe after Joan Walsh's offering in Salon :"how sweet would be that Clark would lose and the Deanies would have overcame the dreaded DLC...
I want to make it clear - I am not accusing Dean of contributting to this. I'm merely cautioning his followers agaist falling for the Rove ploy of interjecting themselves in our primaries.
Before pushing Safire's "deliciously Machavellian" plots (man whote for Nixon), you may want to think: it was fellow activists - many of them DU-ers drafting Clark to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leetrisck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
33. How many and who
were involved in the diabolical plot for power for the bushies - there really was a plot and it worked
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC