Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama is NOT the President

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SCantiGOP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:23 PM
Original message
Obama is NOT the President
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 01:23 PM by SCantiGOP
Somebody joked about this earlier, but the wingnuts continue to be a parody of themselves. Read it here first from that great source of journalism, Newsmax:

The presidential oath of office should be re-administered to Barack Obama because of his flub during Tuesdays swearing-in ceremony, legal experts say.

Because of a mistake by Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama transposed one of the words in the oath. He should have said he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, but instead repeated Roberts cue and said he will execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully.

Josh White of the Washington Post noted: The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his power, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.

Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, told the Post: He should probably go ahead and take the oath again. If he doesnt, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didnt meet the constitutional standard.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. the 20th Amendment says he is, regardless of the oath
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Exactly. He didn't even take the oath until 5 minutes past noon, but was
according to the Constitution, already President for five minutes!

I know what Turley is saying, but on the other hand, won't repubs and their sheeple denounce President Obama no matter what? That shouldn't be a factor for him to consider reciting the Oath of Office a second time since the U.S. Constitution stands above partisan bickering.

He recited each and every word even if it wasn't in the exact way the oath was written, and that is all that should matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
51. and other presidents have simply said, "I do" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. Actually, the 20th amendment
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:48 PM by Ms. Toad
Governs the term ending and beginning. Article II governs the authority to act:

Article II, Section 1 says, "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

From a constitutional perspective (and not knowing whether Obama privately took the oath ahead of time - as presidents sometime do), it isn't clear to me who had the authority to act as president those few minutes. If there wasn't a private oath ahead of time, it may have been Biden. (The vice president is authorized to exercise the powers of the presidency when the president has an "Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office." In this case, the inability would have been because he had not yet taken the oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. ..."there are going to be people who for the next four years
are going to argue that he didnt meet the constitutional standard.


He means Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. So if is not officially our President that means.....
We can elect him for two more terms, right??????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4_TN_TITANS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
47. I like your thinking....
We may have an FDR in the making, if the Pubs want to make hay over this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. Well I was sure that that was how Bush would try to drag out his term.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:16 PM by demgurl
I was positive they would say he was selected by the Supreme Court and not the people so he never was elected and would get to run another term. I was scared to even post it in case someone from the right would latch onto it!!!

They better be careful what they wish for or Obama could be here a lot longer than they ever imagined!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
59. Sneaky and clever. I like it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
15. And if he does, they'll just keep harping on the birth certificate
And if a court does subpoena the vault copy of his birth certificate, they'll find something else to seize on. President Obama has more important things to worry about than appeasing the lunatic fringe with meaningless gestures, and if he gives them an inch, they'll want a mile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalNative Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. And those wingnuts are already convinced
he doesn't meet the Constitutional standard because he refuses to produce his birth certificate for inspection. So it doesn't matter what they think....they're idiots anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
49. Agreed. Nothing short of Jesus
giving an actual written endorsement of Obama would suffice. Then most Republicans wouldn't believe it was Jesus unless he rose from the dead and turned water into wine for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmilyAnne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. Nope. Even then, they would accuse Jesus of not being a "real Christian."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. republicans aren't people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
37. and we know how the repigs bitch and moan.
I'll go with Turley on this, repigs are just being jerks as always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
getthefacts Donating Member (190 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. I believe
Constitutionally, he is the president at noon on Jan. 20th, with or without an oath. Anyway, there will always be a nut case out there trying to prove that he is not an American citizen. Well, I don't mind. I'm so proud of this country right now that these skirmishes don't really affect me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCantiGOP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. this is the correct answer, but...
I like demgurl's suggestion above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
58. According to the constitution,
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 04:49 PM by Ms. Toad
Bush was out at noon. Obama was in at noon, but may not have had the authority to act until he executed the oath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. (shrug) Genius DUers have been wringing their hands over that non-issue as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. maybe they are only mascurading as DUers or they would let it go n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Belial Donating Member (503 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:26 PM
Original message
I think this has been posted before.. several times before...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. NewsMax is so inept that they actually stated that it was Roberts that flubbed
they are horrible at what they do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flabbergasted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I think Roberts did make the mistake. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WritingIsMyReligion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. He definitely did.
But it's all Big Bad Obama's fault, remember????

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
43. He did, and Obama caught it.
Roberts corrected it, but Obama repeated it the way he said it the first time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. The rapture ready freaks want someone to sue over that...
:rofl:

Of course, though, according to the constitution, Obama was president as of noon whether he took that oath or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. Same assholes that complain about trial lawyers...
and are stooges for "tort reform"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mnhtnbb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. BS. George Bush said all the words correctly and then ignored the Constitution.
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 01:27 PM by mnhtnbb
I say, when Bush is tried for his crimes, then Obama can repeat the oath. Until then, the reich-wingers should all just STFU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Turley said THAT? That doesn't sound like him at all. I see FOX
and Newsmax spreading this BS, but not Turley!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
44. Turley said that he probably should take it over
so the right wing won't harp on it, not that it makes a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. 20th Amendment
"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
13. I wonder if there's some portion of that crowd that's embarrassed by this.
It's just sad.

When you consider the fact that these are largely the same people who claimed Bush was legitimate, despite being appointed by the Supreme Court in such an odious way... it just gets even more strange. They've got a distinctive brand of lunatic hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. The article is simply flat out wrong. He didn't repeat roberts. He
waited until roberts corrected himself & then repeated the correct passage. It's as simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
targetpractice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. He did not...
Roberts flubbed... Obama paused after saying "I will execute"... Roberts realized the mistake and recited the correct passage... Then Obama continued with, "the office of President of the United States faithfully."

Obama misplaced "faithfully" but correctly said "the office of President of the United States." Roberts originally said, "the office of President to the United States."

Confusing, but I'm impressed how Obama caught it and recovered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Roberts put the "faithfully" at the end, Obama didn't buy it & waited for
Roberts to do it right then Obama repeated it the right way. Obama made no mistakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
targetpractice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. With all due respect, watch the video...
Edited on Wed Jan-21-09 02:13 PM by targetpractice
Obama misplaces "faithfully" just as Robert did initially.

I think Obama was more concerned about the "to" vs "of" in his new title.

On edit: I don't think this matters, much. I replied to you in case you found yourself in a discussion with the opposition... I watching your back...to make sure you were on solid ground. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stellanoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
18. trashing the economy, the Constitution, the rule of law,
stealing elections, rampant corruption, committing war crimes and treason are all just fine.

a misplaced adverb. . . frigging inexcusable.

/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. As predicted, the raving right are making more non-issues...
So much for unity...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. And who will decide this issue?
The US Supreme Court. And I think Roberts is gonna side with Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
23. These provocative thread titles are so trite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
61. Yeah really
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
25. He could take it this time on the Quron - that might make them happy
LOL, I know it won't but hey, if they want him to swear again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Still Sensible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
26. I certainly "get" the argument that the 20th Amendment defined
the terms.... however, that amendment did not specifically remove the oath requirement, nor was it intended to. Therefore at the very least there could be a question. I would argue that he said all the words and the order in which he said them in no way altered their meaning or his intent.

For all those so vehemently asserting otherwise, I suggest that had the intent been to remove the need for the oath, the amendment would explicitly say so.

It is a silly little petty bullshit thing the freepers have to bitch about and they will be in grasping-at-straws mode for some time. If they didn't have this to bitch about, it would be something else.

Frankly, I think the freepers making this argument look beyond silly to all but their kool-aid drunk base... let 'em bitch... or as a former Veep used to say "Go Fuck Yourself."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
27. How do we know he DIDN'T already retake it in private?
Not that he needs to, IMHO........

Turley is a fool. I suggest he and his buddies sue all the way to the Supreme Court over this - where Roberts can set them straight - because he's the ultimate authority on that oath, and if it was good enough for HIM yesterday, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
28. So? Obama can't be President anyway.
He was born on planet Krypton, and came to earth at the age of 150 and took on a human form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobertSeattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. You left out the part about virgin birth...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. Hmm. I hadn't realized Krypton had a Muslin population.
We aren't going to be subjected to anal probes when they come to check up on him, are we???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sohndrsmith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
65. ... and if the morans say he's Muslin, it must be so... ; ) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. silly folks...get a life...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
32. He should take it again, just to shut them up, I'm serious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mr blur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
33. "“faithfully execute" is a split infinitive - technically,
it's correct to say execute... faithfully. Perhaps Obama is just literate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
targetpractice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. Brilliant observation! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
48. So much the worse for that so-called rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
34. He should retake the oath
He needs to fix three defects:

- put "faithfully" in the right word order,

- omit saying his name after the first "I", and

- remove the "so help me God",

so that the wording complies with the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #34
63. I think "so help me God" should be taken out.
keep religion and state separate please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
My Good Babushka Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
36. klaatu, verata, nic-*cough cough*
yeah, basically he said 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
41. Spoken exactly, eh?
Josh White of the Washington Post noted: The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his power, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.

Notice (below) that the oath of office does not include any reference to God. The oath administered wasn't the proper oath, flubbed order of "faithfully" or not.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
46. The oath is just a formality. I don't care that it is prescribed word-for-word in the Constitution.
I swore an oath when I joined the Army. It was just a ceremony. The legal obligation began the moment I signed the enlistment contract. If I failed to show up at the MEPS station to take the oath, I could have been arrested. So between the deadlines specified in the 20th Amendment, and the official document signing after the swearing-in ceremony, Obama is President.

So, shut the fuck up, sore losermen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TWiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
50. You will notice that the Joint Chiefs did not join him in the parade box
they came in one at a time and only stayed long enough to salute their troops. What is up with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. The Joint Chiefs have all been replaced with Bushbots. The thinkers were forced out. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
52. He said all the words and made the pledge
So this is a level of technicality that would be bad for the nation and for legal precedent.

He shouldn't do it again because giving in to freepers on this gives them credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mulsh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
54. Pres Obama corrected roberts and repeated the botched words
in their correct order he even said his full name when roberts said Barak H. Obama. That was at the begining of the oath, when roberts rushed the words. watch the video. minor screw ups courtesy of a major tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
60. He took it again today so now they can all STFU
already! x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. BBC says he didn't do it on a bible, now we're gonna have to hear about THIS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-21-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. How about giving this rightwing bullshit a fucking rest?
Redstone
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 Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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