Thursday’s Mini-Report

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* After Republicans successfully blocked consideration of a better bill yesterday, the Senate returned to the fiscal stimulus again today: “Senate Democrats have agreed to an amended version of a House-approved plan to spur the economy, making swift passage of a final stimulus measure likely. The new Senate plan, which will likely get Senate approval by Thursday evening, would pay one-time rebates to more than 100 million low- and middle-income households, 20 million senior citizens living off of Social Security and 250,000 disabled veterans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had hoped for a more expansive package. He said Thursday afternoon that the Senate had an obligation to improve on the House bill and ‘we’ve done that.'”

* The Clinton campaign is pushing back very aggressively against the notion that it’s experiencing financial trouble. In a conference call with reporters today, the campaign’s finance team explained that it’s collected $7.5 million is since Feb. 1 (none of which includes loans from the candidate), and $6.4 million of that total has come since the polls closed on Super Tuesday. The campaign also emphasized that “all” of the campaign staff has been “100% paid.”

* The annual CPAC conference, arguably the leading national right-wing political gathering, kicked off today in DC. Apparently, CPAC attendees were specifically encouraged not to boo John McCain, who turned down an invitation to attend last year’s conference. The instructions didn’t work — McCain brought up immigration, and was quickly met with boos anyway.

* NYT: “At the time that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda, a federal judge was still seeking information from Bush administration lawyers about the interrogation of one of those operatives, Abu Zubaydah, according to court documents made public on Wednesday. The court documents, filed in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, appear to contradict a statement last December by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, that when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 they had no relevance to any court proceeding, including Mr. Moussaoui’s criminal trial.”

* The vast majority of House retirements are Republicans this year, but not all: “Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore.) announced Thursday that she will not be running for reelection, becoming the first Democrat from a competitive seat to announce her retirement this election cycle…. The six-term congresswoman was a leading centrist in the Democratic caucus, winning a Salem-based district that narrowly voted for President Bush in the last two presidential elections. The district gave President Bush 50 percent of the vote in 2004.”

* Are McCain’s far-right critics putting his age on the table? “‘The whole question of securing his base and the Republican disquiet with him makes it almost mandatory that McCain consider going with a conservative running mate who would get those people energized,’ [American Conservative Union head David Keene] said. ‘And given his age, he’s likely to be a one-term president anyway.'”

* TPMM: “Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) wanted some clarity during his questioning. Was the attorney general really saying that anyone who acted pursuant to a Justice Department legal opinion was ‘insulated from criminal liability?’ Mukasey wanted to say it more carefully. ‘I think what I said was that we could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a Justice Department opinion.'” If the Justice Department made a mistake and gave the wrong advice, it wouldn’t matter, Mukasey said, those who broke the law wouldn’t be prosecuted.

* We haven’t heard much from Jack Murtha lately. That apparently is about to change: “A top Democrat said Thursday he is preparing legislation that would give President Bush the war funding he wants this year, but on the condition that troops leave Iraq by the end of the year. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, said he’ll propose that the House vote this March on the spending measure. In addition to the troop withdrawal, he said he’ll ask for other conditions such as that all deploying troops must be fully trained and equipped. Similar bills scraped by on party line votes in the House last year only to fail in the Senate, where Democrats hold a more narrow margin of control and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Murtha, speaking to reporters following a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he’s confident this bill would pass the House, but he’s not sure about the Senate.”

* And finally, Fox News personality John Gibson heralded the recent arrest of Christopher Holder, a Florida teenager, who was arrested for disorderly conduct and breach of peace for rapping the lyrics of a song that included the word “motherfu**er.” (The teen pleaded guilty and received six months of probation.) Gibson was pleased, but wants more: “If the rap song is bad enough to cause Holder’s arrest, why is it not bad enough to cause the arrest of the guy who made the recording?” Gibson asked. He concluded, “I say … Book ’em, Dano. Book ’em all.”

Anything to add? Consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

Obama is a runaway train!!! Chooo Chooo!!!

Clinton’s are going broke, people are tired of their games.

FINALLY!!! A Democrat we can be proud of!!!
FINALLY!!! We don’t have to mumble that we are Democrats under our breath!!!

Obama will put an end to the dark cloud that hangs over the Democratic Party that is the name Clinton.

  • Okay Clinton supporters, I must admit…you have a serious infestation of anti-Clinton trolls around here.

    I can see why you all get so touchy about criticism of your chosen candidate.

  • “CPAC attendees were specifically encouraged not to boo John McCain”

    The good news for McCain was that for the most part people were clapping. That bad news is that there was one person woo-ing it up, and you could hear him over the rest of the crowd like a cuckoo clock in a library.

  • “…there was one person woo-ing it up, and you could hear him over the rest of the crowd like a cuckoo clock in a library.”

    Was it Lieberman?

  • Todd, I’ve never been anything but a loud, proud liberal Democrat. Too bad about you.

    The Senate made some improvements in the “stimulus” package, but basically it seems like the Democrats caved in again.

    At 72, McCain would be the oldest man ever to assume the presidency. The current record-holder, Ronald Reagan, became president at 69. McCain is also a melanoma survivor. His running mate can’t be mere window dressing to supposedly unite the Republicans; he has to be credible as a president. Good luck with that, Republicans.

  • What can we do to eject Reid and get Dodd to head the Senate? I swear Reid couldn’t negotiate his way out of a paper sack.

  • The good news for McCain was that for the most part people were clapping. That bad news is that there was one person woo-ing it up, and you could hear him over the rest of the crowd like a cuckoo clock in a library. — Danp, @3

    Seeing as how Repubs are “borrowing” so many communist regime tactics (wiretapping, torture, etc), I’m surprised they haven’t yet learnt one which was a favourite during my salad days in Poland: clap-out the speaker. Booing would get you ejected in no time flat but, enthusiastic clapping? I’ve been to a couple of gatherings where the speaker wasn’t permitted to go beyond “good evening, citizenesses and citizens”, for the storm of enthusiasm which greeted those words 🙂

  • “what I said was that we could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a Justice Department opinion”

    In other words, “If the President’s hand-picked crony signs off on something, then it is not illegal”.

    Why didn’t Nixon think of that defense???

    The constitution has been burned to a crisp, and Nancy Pelosi is fine with that. Impeachment is only for people who… I have no idea.

    Jesus F***ing Christ our “leadership” sucks. Mukasey should be impeached immediately, but I am sure that would be too harsh. Get out the wet noodles.

  • Chooo Chooo!!!

    Seriously?!? Do you “Choo Choo Choose Obama”? I think this campaign stuff is fun but you shouldn’t use Ralph Wiggum sayings in your comments if you’re at all trying to be serious. Clinton has her nutbars too – like the NY NOW.

  • The stimulus package is a bit suspect to me … I have a hard time thinking of our country as a place where, to keep our economy going … the government has to give us $160 billion dollars and then wants us to spend it on “stuff” and we will then be better off. There ought to be more to our national livelyhood than how much stuff we buy (from China usually). Granted, I suppose people can pay medical bills and mortgage payments and pay for heat … but is that going to do much? I think there should be more thoughts and actions about the long-term situation.

  • NYT: “Obama to Clinton: About That Loan …”

    “As I’ve said, I’ve disclosed my income tax returns,” Mr. Obama said, when asked again about the matter. “I think we’ve set the bar in terms of transparency and disclosure. That’s been a consistent theme of my campaign and my career in politics.”

    Later, he added: “I’m not going to get into the intricacies of [the Clinton’s] finances. That’s something that you’ll have to ask them…”

    Clinton campaign officials said on Thursday that she would release her tax returns if she won the Democratic nomination…”

  • Clinton campaign officials said on Thursday that she would release her tax returns if she won the Democratic nomination

    Q: If Clinton has nothing to hide, then why not release her tax returns now?
    A: Because she has something to hide.

    Despite what she says, Senator Clinton won’t release her tax returns now or later. Fool me once, …

  • Ditto Racer X #9 big time. I can hardly contain myself waiting for a strong plan of action proposed by one of those Wimp Donkey Presidential Candidates.

  • Yet Missy @13, if she has something to hide now and wants covered up during the primary season – wouldn’t the disclosure in the general season do more damage? When there is even less of a chance to spin the damage.

    I venture that the returns are not being offered now – to try to get the discussion back to valid issues, etc.

    And no Missy, my first choice for the nomination is not Hillary, but Obama. YET – that is not due to negative thoughts about her, but better impression of Obama. Earlier – it was Kucinich.

    Nonetheless, IMHO, both are great candidates and I will support either who gets the nod.

  • Marian@11 said:
    There ought to be more to our national livelyhood than how much stuff we buy (from China usually).

    You forgot the all-important haircutting, housing and latte-making segments of our economy. Remember when they told us not to worry about manufacturing and textiles leaving the country because we’d all have groovy high-tech jobs? Right. Now the only growth industry is reassurance and the politicians have that one sewn up – at least until the Chinese learn the words to “Don’t Worry – Be Happy!”

  • …if [Senator Clinton] has something to hide now and wants covered up during the primary season – wouldn’t the disclosure in the general season do more damage?…I venture that the returns are not being offered now – to try to get the discussion back to valid issues

    Answering you question, if Clinton has something to hide, then disclosure during the general season would be more damaging to Democrats—not necessarily to her. But you missed my point. If she gets the nomination, she won’t disclose her tax returns. She’s saying she will now, to shut us up.

    Personally, I think ethics (she belittled Obama’s landmark ethics legislation), transparency and disclosure are valid issues.

  • Okay Clinton supporters, I must admit…you have a serious infestation of anti-Clinton trolls around here.

    I can see why you all get so touchy about criticism of your chosen candidate.

    Thank you, John. No more snark for you. : )

  • Ah…Missy @17, thanks for your reply. The “..or later” . Me being a software engineer, I’m constantly getting thumped by my co-workers for ignoring all clauses in a conditional statement. Grimace.

    I agree that ethics, transpaency, and disclosure are valid issues.

    I see how downstream, damaging(?) returns (if they are such in fact) could hurt others, but why not primarily to her? More factual ammunition for the re-puke-licans. Also – if she does get the nom. , and then doesn’t disclose – that would be more fodder for the re-pukes as well.

  • I was just wondering whether Obama or Clinton will be the first to call for the re-commissioning of the USS Missouri so that we can properly sign our surrender to the terrorists, on her fantail, after one of them is elected.

    [Ducks, runs out of room]

  • John S #2 – Yes, but it ought to disturb Obama supporters, too. The vitriol spewed against Hillary is simply over the top. As one who leans toward Hillary, I would be just as incensed if I saw Obama being attacked so relentlessly and viciously as Hillary is. As a matter of fact, I blasted our main newspaper in Idaho for publishing a letter that made those false claims about Obama.

    Marian # 11 – Good for you. The stimulus package is nothing but shameless election year pandering. Buying trinkets at Walmart with tax rebates won’t do a thing for the economy, but our spineless politicians think it will buy votes.

    Robert Scheer had a great column yesterday about runaway military spending in the United States: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020608G.shtml

    This is what Dwight Eisenhower had to say on the subject in April of 1953:

    “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children.”

    Can you imagine any politician having the guts to say that today? We are being held hostage to this madness for political reasons only. The Republicans simply can’t win without the war crazy crowd and the Democrats can’t win unless they vigorously compete for the same group of crazies. And of course there’s the little matter of all the money the defense contractors are accustomed to making. And so we go on and on and on feeding the voracious appetite of the military industrial complex, which is cannabalizing us just as it did the Soviet Union.

  • “[Reid] said Thursday afternoon that the Senate had an obligation to improve on the House bill….”

    The Senate has an obligation to clean up its act and quit the folksy old rules which enable a minority party to make a mockery of democratic procedure. I can understand requiring a two-thirds vote to change the rules of the game, but otherwise a simple majority should carry the day.

    I dislike the Clintons, but I dislike Hillary-bashing even more.

  • –* And finally, Fox News personality John Gibson heralded the recent arrest of Christopher Holder, a Florida teenager, who was arrested for disorderly conduct and breach of peace for rapping the lyrics of a song that included the word “motherfu**er.” (The teen pleaded guilty and received six months of probation.) Gibson was pleased, but wants more: “If the rap song is bad enough to cause Holder’s arrest, why is it not bad enough to cause the arrest of the guy who made the recording?” Gibson asked. He concluded, “I say … Book ‘em, Dano. Book ‘em all.–

    I guess the channel has decided that it is pointless to mask its totalitarian leanings any longer.

  • In regards to Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-Ore) announcing her retirement… Although she is not from my district, I do know that she was sick and in the hospital for a while during the holidays. Her lungs filled up with fluids.

    If she says that she’s retiring for health reasons, I’d consider that a very valid one, and not one of those ‘republican’ excuses.

  • It’s good to see that we commenters are lightening up on the negative campaigning.

    Well, a house divided against itself cannot stand.

    I’ve been seeing a lot of negativity coming from both sides (Balloon Juice has a lot of anti-Obama crowd, here is a lot of anti-Hillary), and while a good spirited debate is healthy, some of what I’m seeing is not.

    We all have our reasons for supporting the candidates we have chosen, but there is no need to demonize the opposition – if you can even really call it that. In the end, we should be committed to bringing an end to this dark and dreadful episode of American history. The only way to do that is to vote for the Democratic nominee.

    May the best man or woman win. Either way, they have my vote.

  • CLINTON HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE, THAT IS WHY SHE WILL NOT SUBMIT HER TAX RETURN.

    URANIUM MINES AND PARDON SELLING RAISES SOME SHADY STUFF ON A TAX FORM.

    CRIMINALS

  • For the record her and Bills tax return would show you nothing incriminating. If you have investments you only have to report gains not the value of them and interest you earned. Remember all of her personal are in blind trusts as per the law. So if there was anything you can bet the rethugs in the senate would have been all over it. Obama’s wife has millions that she has earned does she have to disclose where it is?

  • [John, can you quit shouting? As soon as I see all caps, I don’t even bother to read the comment. On second thought, having just read what you wrote, nevermind – please go peddle that trash somewhere else]

    As I was driving home tonight, I was listening to POTUS 08 on XM – they were covering the CPAC meting in DC, and interviewed former Senator Bob Barr, who is now a libertarian. He was scathing in his comments about McCain – I almost could not believe how much contempt he was showing. The interviewer asked Barr what would happen if McCain was the nominee – would conservatives still get behind him? Barr said that as long as the GOP continued to follow the nominee just to win, the party was going to suffer. Said McCain is not now, and never has been, a conservative and remarked about how often McCain drops that word into his comments and speeches. Barr said that it was his opinion that the more someone used the term to describe himself, the less likely it was that the person actually was a conservative.

    Also interviewed was Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party, who also had nothing good to say about McCain. Cory said his members would love to see Ron Paul run as a libertarian, and also could not guarantee that they would get behind McCain if he is the nominee.

    It was an interesting 15 minutes or so.

  • Okay Clinton supporters, I must admit…you have a serious infestation of anti-Clinton trolls around here

    Are you kidding? It’s gotten so bad so fast that I’m stuck with the idea that these are either Hillary people trying to drum up sympathy for her or Obama people reminding us of how crappy politics were in the 90’s. That stuff made the anti-lib rants of the past seven years look civil.

    And in the end, I think it’s a tie. Some people will support Hillary to spite the trolls, while others will oppose her because they don’t want to hear the creeps anymore. Other than that, I can’t imagine what these people hope to accomplish and I pray they’re not serious.

  • Chooo Chooo!!!

    I’d put it in 6 point Comic Sans font if I could.
    And between html “dim” tags if they existed.

    After reading Zeitgeist’s takes on earlier posts…
    I see no reason to abandon my prediction:

    Hillary versus McCain in the Fall.
    And McCain winning by an Ohio or a Florida.
    If Sir Edmund Hillary should eke out a 50+1 victory…
    (and this could happen)
    the Dims (used affectionately of course)…
    Will lose their majority in 2010.
    Health care? DOA.
    The Iraq war? It will continue on in a muted form…
    Got to protect those pipelines remember?
    The Solar Grand Plan?
    No vision for that.
    And also…
    I get the feeling the Clintons have already secretly opted for uranium.
    I think the dialog that matters have already occured…
    We will be building reactors again.
    It is a quick and dirty solution both parties can agree on…
    And their corporate masters will insist upon.

    Lastly, for the most part…
    We will have classic gridlock again with a capital G.
    That is after all..
    What Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ping pong is all about…
    Throw the poor folks a skimpy bone…
    Take it back…
    Throw the poor folks a skimpier bone…
    Take it back…
    Throw the poor folks an even skimpier bone…

    Like it or not:
    Our good and decent body politic…
    Likes that game.
    It is a deep rut that has claimed their consciousness.
    Chances of escape are highly unlikely.
    Indeed:
    By 2016: Jeb will be looking mighty sexy.
    Go Hil. Go Jeb. Go America.

    Solar grand plan:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
    Secret uranium deal:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

  • By 2016: Jeb will be looking mighty sexy.
    Go Hil. Go Jeb. Go America.

    You evil bastard.

    I am absolutely terrified of Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush. This would be 36 years of rule by two families. That isn’t democracy – it’s farce.

    That’s precisely why I feel that the only chance we have of stopping it is Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton Obama.

  • Doctor Biobrain –

    I’d be willing to bet that most of the worst of the recent anti-HRC commenters are not even registered to vote.

    It’s very hard to take them at all seriously.

  • I’m still confused as to why anyone supports Hillary. What is it that she has to offer? On the one side, we have Obama’s supporters saying that he has a plan for dealing with Republicans and getting his policies passed. And on the other side, we have Hillary supporters saying we’re naive fools for thinking any plan will work because the Republicans are just too tough, so we need someone who already has the bunker mentality to wait these thugs out. Or something. Frankly, I don’t get it. How exactly does Hillary “fight” to get anything passed? Because it seems to me that their only plan is denying Republicans the Whitehouse for four years while we allow them to gain more seats in the mid-term.

    Don’t get me wrong, if a guy with a decent sounding plan hadn’t come along, I’d support Hillary. But I’d prefer the guy with the plan. Maybe it won’t work, but Hillary looks like surrender to me. Perhaps they know of some secret plan she’s got up her sleave, but from my perspective, she’s got nothing. She’ll just have at least as many problems as Barack does, but without any chance of making it better. Forget about why you don’t think Barack’s plan will work. Tell me what Hillary’s plan to get legislation passed is.

  • I think it is impossible to miss the lessons of today from Washington:.the Mukasey testimony, the Senate stimulus bill, the FISA “debate.” It’s all depressing as hell. And as clear as it has ever been. The way, the only way, to beat the reThugs is to destroy them, to run them out of town. Kevin Drum and digby came the same conclusion:

    Kevin Drum: “The moral of the story is this: Republicans have no intention of ever working with Democrats on anything remotely like a bipartisan basis. Even on something as trivial as this, they filibustered and won. They will do the same thing next year no matter who’s president. They will do it on every single bill, no matter how minor. They will never stop obstructing. Period. Presidential hopefuls, take note.”
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013074.php

    digby: “And they will make damned sure the villagers proclaim the Democrats to be weak and loathsome losers whose refusal to reach across the aisle is failing all Americans. I wish I knew how either Clinton or Obama planned to deal with this, but I confess I haven’t the vaguest idea. ”
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/they-will-not-stop-by-digbgy-what-k.html

  • Okay Clinton supporters, I must admit…you have a serious infestation of anti-Clinton trolls around here

    Are you kidding? It’s gotten so bad so fast that I’m stuck with the idea that these are either Hillary people trying to drum up sympathy for her or Obama people reminding us of how crappy politics were in the 90’s. That stuff made the anti-lib rants of the past seven years look civil.

    And in the end, I think it’s a tie. Some people will support Hillary to spite the trolls, while others will oppose her because they don’t want to hear the creeps anymore. Other than that, I can’t imagine what these people hope to accomplish and I pray they’re not serious.

    Now, you see where I’m coming from.

    Nothing like a few wingnuts to come in bring back the brotherly love. (sniff). GROUP HUG!!!!

  • wvng @ 35 – What are you talking about? Both of those quotes sound like Drum and Digby have no idea what we should do. Digby made that clear. How the heck do we “run them out of town?” I remember after eight years of seeing them attack Bill and Hillary, and they ended up owning the town (with no small help from the SCOTUS).

    That’s why I support Barack. He at least has a plan for dealing with these jerks. Whether or not it can work, I keep feeling like Hillary’s only “plan” is to get back in the siege mentality we had in the 90’s, where we kept expecting them to literally storm the castle with torches. If anything, we were the ones about to be run out of town. With Barack, we not only have someone who clearly can go toe-to-toe with Hillary, but who has an actual vision to lead us forward. That’s the way to do it. It’s not enough to fight off the infidels. We need someone who can fight for our causes; not just for their own survival.

  • When a candidate polls with such high negatives I’m shocked there are people on this discussion board who are surprised that others come out of the woodwork to abuse Hillary. I’m not saying that it’s acceptable, but it’s an unfortunate fact of life if you’re going to support any of the Clintons. For full disclosure, I’m supporting Obama. However, I’d find Hillary a perfectly acceptable Democratic candidate if it wasn’t for her husband. I only picked Obama after it became perfectly clear that Hillary would involve her husband in political campaigning and decision-making. Some Democrats (especially those who lived in red states) will never forgive him for having sex with one of his employees in the workplace, lying about it under oath, and then portraying the outrage as unwarranted.

    Some of us who actually lived through the 90s don’t remember it very fondly. The personal excesses of our Democratic president ruined any chance to promote a progressive agenda in this country. We lost Congress, and we had to defend reprehensible fund-raising tactics that would be completely unacceptable to any Democrat if a Republican attempted the same thing. Bill has an uncanny ability to contribute to partisan mud-slinging by engaging in the dumbest personal decisions imaginable.

    In other words, maybe a little Clinton-bashing among Democratic friends might help us avoid spending the next 4 years being hypocrites.

  • I wish I knew how either Clinton or Obama planned to deal with this, but I confess I haven’t the vaguest idea.

    The bully pulpit works wonders.

    All either would have to do is get up there every other day and decry the Republicans denying an ‘upperdown’ vote on good legislation for the people!

    And then, wail about how they won’t allow the majority to rule — and — isn’t that what democracy is all about?

    With the public whipped into a frenzy, the Republicans will back down. Oh sure, they’ll protest, but good luck explaining the nuances of the Senate rules to the general public before they go bonkers on you.

  • Nothing like a few wingnuts to come in bring back the brotherly love.

    Whatever dude. I spent almost six years of my life defending the Clintons against these kind of jerks during the last Clinton presidency. You get no sympathy from me. You’re the suckers who they’ve got working the defense line again. I’m on the easy side with all the momentum and fewer attack trolls. I’ll join you if I have to, but it’s much nicer on the other side.

    But it’s not too late. You can still join us and make sure this grudge match never takes place. The trolls are just coming out of the woodwork now. By the time the general election is going full-steam, we’ll be drowning in them. I’m telling you, Clinton hatred is like nothing else. It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s a better way.

  • Doc – “Hope” is not a plan. “Change is not a plan.” A fiery speech in 2002 is not a plan.

    You continue to ask what she has to offer. In debate after debate, in campaign appearances and town hall events and interviews, she has spoken clearly and in detail about what her plans are, what she wants to get done.

    In my opinion, her grasp of the issues, her ability to process information and still be able to see the big picture puts her in a better position to work with the Democratic leadership and the rank-and-file to get her plans enacted. I see her as working from a position of strength and resolve, as opposed to working from a position of compromise right out of the gate.

    And, as zeitgeist has reminded us, she knows how the WH works, and has no learning curve getting her bearings.

    Clinton has worked on a bi-partisan basis in the Senate – she is no stranger to working across the aisle. I think Clinton in the WH means a greater chance of improved leadership in the Congress – I think you will see the last of Reid and Pelosi, and HRC working behind the scenes to get the most effective majority leaders who can advance her agenda.

    It’s really time you stopped pretending that he brings some greater advantage to the presidency – he doesn’t. Whether you want to admit it or not, or give any credit for it or not, her years in the State House in Arkansas, and her years in the WH – even if they were “just” as Bill’s wife, have taught her a lot about how to get things done from a leadership position.

    You continue to push this false meme that she has no plan and Obama does, and that flies in the face of reality. It’s okay to say that you like him better than her – you don’t really need a reason why you are voting for him, you don’t have to justify your vote, and others do not have to prove why they are voting one way or the other in a way that meets with your approval.

  • wvng:

    The way, the only way, to beat the reThugs is to destroy them, to run them out of town.

    Ugh.
    A Bush-Clinton cultist with a love of lead-paddle ping-pong.
    My friend… you are deep deep deep in the Clinton-Bush mindset rut.
    How does it feel down there?
    Let me know when you run them out of town…
    Because they seem to be firmly entrenched on their own web sites:

    The way, the only way, to beat the Defeatocrats is to destroy them, to run them out of town.

    Good stuff. Good smash-faced ping-pong.

    But I do have two questions for you–
    Neither of which, I am sure, will stop your rampaging charge:

    Whatever happened to statesmanship?
    And do you ever dream of seeing it again?

  • The bully pulpit works wonders.

    Uhm, where were you in the 90’s? The bully pulpit isn’t so loud when everyone in the media hates you so much that they think a BJ is grounds for impeachment, and scoff whenever you speak. It wasn’t so easy to push a liberal agenda back then.

    Otherwise, I actually agree with what you say. I’m just saying that it obviously doesn’t work for everyone.

  • Doc, from looking at our trolls, I’m not how one can be sure it is Clinton Hatred as opposed to Obama Mania. It may be as much your “problem” as ours.

    And I know you’ve been on at least three threads in the past month where I have explained in detail “why Hillary.”

    As wvng @ 35 points out, the Republicans aren’t going to change their stripes. But Obama’s “plan” is predicated on his being able to “change politics.” If that predicate fails, it is hard to see what he has left — and my fear is that to make sure the plan works he will increasingly placate and accomodate. I have more faith that the Right’s abuse of HRC will have stiffened her spine when it comes to dealing with tactics like they showed today.

  • Whatever dude. I spent almost six years of my life defending the Clintons against these kind of jerks during the last Clinton presidency. You get no sympathy from me. You’re the suckers who they’ve got working the defense line again. I’m on the easy side with all the momentum and fewer attack trolls. I’ll join you if I have to, but it’s much nicer on the other side.

    But it’s not too late. You can still join us and make sure this grudge match never takes place. The trolls are just coming out of the woodwork now. By the time the general election is going full-steam, we’ll be drowning in them. I’m telling you, Clinton hatred is like nothing else. It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s a better way.

    I guess seconding all these jerks crap about the Clintons and believing it is the Obama strategy? Fight fire with fire?

    Clinton-hate is a prerequisite to join the village, but sue me if I’m not willing to suck Broder cock to become a member, ass hole.

  • See, Doc, THAT’s how you treat ass holes when they kick you in the balls after you offer a hand of friendship.

    Knees hurt yet? Jaw getting tired?

  • Anne @ 41 – This is absurd. So Hillary can reach across the aisle and be bi-partisan, yet you think it’s a problem that Barack will compromise? I fail to draw any distinction between these ideas. Everything you just wrote is what Barack says he’ll do. And no, his plan isn’t “hope.” His plan is to work with Congress, including Republicans who will be bi-partisan, and get his policies passed. And that’s what you say Hillary’s plan is. Tell me what you think she’ll do differently.

    And my big problem with the Clintons is that I think they entirely lack any Big Picture. They see daily squabbles and get so tied down that they end up scoring points for the other team. That’s what we saw repeatedly during the 90’s as well as during this current campaign. Heck, I keep finding you Hillary supporters often scoring points against her. For example, telling everyone how harsh Obama’s attacks are or telling everyone she foolishly trusted Bush when he said war was a last resort. That only helped Obama, yet you guys get so wrapped into defending her that you forget what your narrative is. And that’s exactly what I’ve always seen from the Clintons. They know how to fight, but they just keep forgetting what they’re fighting for. That’s not who I want running my team.

  • I have more faith that the Right’s abuse of HRC will have stiffened her spine when it comes to dealing with tactics like they showed today.

    And how is that going to work? I’m sure Republicans are trembling in their boots that they get to reinstitute gridlock with a Clinton in the Whitehouse. As much as we see the 90’s as successful, it was awesome for the wingnuts. The worst thing that happened was when GW took over the house and they had to actually defend plans rather than attacking them. But these guys aren’t afraid of her in the least, no matter how stiff her spine is. Perhaps you’re right that Obama’s plan will fail, but I can’t imagine why you think it’d be any different with Hillary. Perhaps you see a little kid when you look at him, but he looks fucking sharp to me.

    And sorry if I ask things you’ve answered before. It’s too hard to keep up with everything here. But…I do have a blog and I LOVE to debate, so if you want to talk, you know where to find me. I promise not to hurt you too much.

  • Ah, come on, Doc, isn’t the Obama strategy to start grovelling for my affection now? Shouldn’t you try to be my friend now? Meet me halfway? Maybe you should start navel gazing about what you did to bring this on yourself?

  • Here’s an idea, Doc — I think it would be real smart to agree that all your fellow Obama supporters are cock suckers, and that because I hate them, they can’t possibly be electable.

  • My, but I did stir things up (at 35). My “hopes” are with Obama, that his unique (and it is unique) ability to walk into the lion’s den and get it to share its steak will work with the repubs. I really desperately hope for that, because that would be the best way for America to recover from these dark years.

    But I also watched some of the Senate hearings today on the stimulus package and FISA, and listened to some of the very best and most eloquent Dems laying out in clear and measured prose why certain things are in the interests of America (not party) and why some are not in our interests, fully supported by the facts, with no hope whatsoever of gaining either reason or compromise from the other side. My head says that a President Hillary would be better at knocking heads, and marshaling Democratic resources to beat the repubs in a fight. (and yeah, doc, it’s a given that Hillary hatred is a uniquely dark and intractable thing.)

    I don’t know, and neither does anyone else commenting here, which of the two would actually be better at moving our country forward again against the entrenched opposition that will still be too firmly in place. As Kevin said: “They will do the same thing next year no matter who’s president.”

    But I do know that Hillary and Obama are both extremely talented, and that either of them would be light years ahead of McCain or any other repub.

  • “I don’t know, and neither does anyone else commenting here, which of the two would actually be better at moving our country forward again against the entrenched opposition that will still be too firmly in place. As Kevin said: “They will do the same thing next year no matter who’s president.”

    But I do know that Hillary and Obama are both extremely talented, and that either of them would be light years ahead of McCain or any other repub.” — wvng @51

    I’m so happy to see a grown-up has returned to the comment section.

  • I am absolutely terrified of Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush. This would be 36 years of rule by two families. That isn’t democracy – it’s farce.

    My thoughts on this are that one, up until Bush 43 the President didn’t “rule” and two, we can’t lump the Bushes in with the Clintons.

  • Thank you for returning civility to this thread, wvng @ 51.

    It is true that we are faced with two very talented people competing for the Democratic nomination. And they ARE BOTH TELENTED.

    I really don’t mind if some don’t agree with my choice, and I really don’t mind that people feel passionately about their chosen candidate, but really, do we have to call each other maniacs, jerks, cocksuckers or whatever?

    Won’t we see enough of that in the general election?

  • I have had very up-close personal insults flung at me over my choice in this election … not to mention the crap on these blogs where the rancor flies. Today I was thinking about how great it would be if there was only one well-liked candidate for our party. How much fun we would have ragging on the Republicans and predicting the ass-kicking we are going to give them in November. Instead, it feels like it did 4 years ago and 8 years ago where I have to continuously experience hatred for my candidate. This sucks.

  • I think Dr. Biobrain makes some good points. Notwithstanding all the declared detail of her plans, what would Mrs. Clinton have as a ‘strategy’ to get her legislative proposals passed? I doubt that congressional Republicans re-elected in 2008 would have any particular fear of her, in that she could somehow diminish their future prospects for re-election. In the face of an economic recession, an unpopular war and eight years of an enormously unpopular Republican administration, the Republican reps and senators who make it through this fall are probably fairly ‘bulletproof,’ as long as the terms of debate remain the same as they have been for the past 20 years. And why would off-year Republican senators (who are not up in 2008) be any less pleased at battling the Clintons now than they were in the 1990’s when they achieved and maintained their majority?

    Is she going to somehow ‘re-frame’ the debate to make the Republicans more vulnerable? She’s been in public life for decades, including a very high-profile initiative in the early 90’s, and I’ve yet to see her have that kind of ability. In fact, I think her husband is a much better speaker than her, and more capable than her of setting the terms of public debate, but even he had limited success against the Republican majority in the 1990’s (most prominently by “triangulation,” or co-opting Republican themes such as ‘welfare reform’ that Mrs. Clinton herself was thought to oppose). With the Democratic congressional majority so narrow, will she end up also triangulating between the Republicans and her own congressional party? Why not? Like her husband, she will be expected to get SOMETHING done, and unlike Mr. Bush she is unlikely to have the fortune of initiating another war.

  • Regarding the question above (#59), I believe a critical issue is whether Mrs. Clinton can appeal strongly to independents and Republicans, who provide the votes that keep the opposition in power and provide the numbers that, if things stay the same in Congress next year, will block her proposals. Alternatively, where are the new constituencies or voters, ones not previously interested in politics and voting Democratic, that she will bring into the electorate and give her new allies in Congress? Bill Clinton had two tries in the 1990’s and was not especially successful in expanding the Democratic base, why would his wife do better?

    I think in the 80’s the Republicans were successful in Congress partly because Reagan had enough personal appeal that he couldn’t be effectively ‘demonized’ in the Democratic base, and that made it harder for Democrats from right-leaning districts to oppose his policies. But I think the Clinton’s are far less appealing to the Republicans now than Reagan was to the Democrats back in 1980. Where are there districts, which states are there, represented by Republicans, that don’t already have an extremely intense, enduring hostility toward the Clintons? Sure, the Republicans have lots of Senate seats to defend in November, but the Democrats need to pick up quite a few to have a strong working majority, i.e., at least sixty. Which are the 9-10 states where the Clinton’s have more appeal, and less opposition, now than they did ten years ago? Which ones will the Clintons help with more than they will hurt?

  • Um… It’s too late at night to start digging for the appropriate “thread” to comment on but here’s a bit of a something, to turn away the course of the discussion (maybe!) from the Obamaniacs versus Clintonistas slug-fest…

    DH watches TV and reads a newspaper; I read blogs and the same newspaper (NYT). At the end of the day, we compare our “gleanings”. So, today’s main subject was Romney’s dropping out and “The Mystery of the McCain’s VP”. We duly rehashed the speculations circulating in our respective spheres of info-sources. And then he tossed in this bit:

    “Did you see who sat, right there at the dais behind them, when Romney gave up and when McCain spoke at that nut-hatchery?”

    Well, no; I hadn’t. One of the reasons I don’t watch TV (or listen to the radio) is that it’s much easier for me to process English visually rather than aurally. So, he says: “Macaca Allen. Scares the bejesus out of me, in respect of possible implications”.

    Personally, I think this might be a good time to drive a stake trough Macaca’s ambitions once and for all and, his losing alongside McCain, might just be the right-sized stake to achieve the goal. But I really don’t know enough about US politics — I haven’t been paying much attention before ’00 — to be sure.

    So… What do all of you (y’all) think? Macaca Allen *is* much younger than MacaCain… And, until his Macaca Moment — pushed into full blooming by Jim Webb’s campaign — he was the Repubs’ golden boy and the party’s heir apparent. Running as MacaCain’s VP *might* be the back-door allowing him to re-enter the political arena, while, at the same time, giving MacaCain a shot in the political arm…

  • Look, the moment Clinton steps out of the limelight the trolls will latch onto Obama, and we’ll be hearing racist stuff instead of sexist and unimportant junk about legacies and whatnot.

    Super Tuesday is over. What’s the national totals now? Is Obama ahead in the total?

    We don’t need your troll slime. Anyone who ‘hates’ Clinton will find a reason not to be there on election day come November, no matter who the candidates are.

    Argue positions and platforms, not insults and platitudes from fairweather friends.

  • Hark wrote: “Can you imagine any politician having the guts to say that today? We are being held hostage to this madness for political reasons only. The Republicans simply can’t win without the war crazy crowd and the Democrats can’t win unless they vigorously compete for the same group of crazies. And of course there’s the little matter of all the money the defense contractors are accustomed to making. And so we go on and on and on feeding the voracious appetite of the military industrial complex, which is cannabalizing us just as it did the Soviet Union.”

    Sigh! So true. And if we had Gore as President in 2001 he would have treated al Qaeda as a criminal enterprise rather than a military threat, and probably have Osama in prison right now.

    Declaring the Global War on Terror only served to elevate these Wahabbist lunatics in their own minds and the minds of the Muslim world. If nothing else, this proves just how unfit George Bush and John McCain are for high office.

    This thread started so amusingly, with John S. finally noticing just how shrill Hillary-Hatred is (yes, I know you oppose the extension of the dynasty John S.). It went down hill fast from there.

    I haven’t read all of it, but really BioBrain, WE’VE EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY. Stop asking us to explain support or williness to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the nomination or the presidency. It’s just rude.

  • yes, I know you oppose the extension of the dynasty John S.

    Just remember, there is only one thing I oppose far more than that:

    Another Republican president.

  • My thoughts on this are that one, up until Bush 43 the President didn’t “rule” and two, we can’t lump the Bushes in with the Clintons.

    1. I use the term ‘rule’ very loosely. I wasn’t referring to the consept of a unitary executive, but merely the figure seen as the leader of this country when in office, which is always the president.

    2. When you are watching a decades-long match of ping-pong in politics, you most certainly CAN lump the Bushes and Clintons together, if for only one reason — They are the only two families playing the game.

  • Re #32. John S., it’s only not democratic if Clinton doesn’t get a majority or plurality of the vote. You know, like was the case with Boy George II in 2000. If a majority of Democrats want Clinton to be their nominee and a majority of Americans want her to be President than we are still a Democracy.

    Re #55. Good point IT. I’d really prefer to discuss this without the constaint ‘You’re supporting HER‘, ‘you’re supporting HIM‘ implications that we are either insane or just vicious in our choices.

    But even more I’d like to totally table the argument that someone who will never vote Democratic anyway ‘hates’ one of our candidates. So what?

    Re #57: Marian, I really don’t understand the logic in the Obama family. Why now? Wouldn’t it have been better for the girls to wait? Did they think Clinton couldn’t do it? Did a Black Man have to go before a Woman? With the white boy clutter gone, I now have really begun to wonder.

    Re #62. OhioDem. BGII has shrunk the size of the Republican’t party, and we now have a clear advantage in party identification. John McCan’t has to move right to obtain the support of a wingnut base that HATES him. That should (if Dean, Obama and Clinton are on their game) make it possible to seperate him from the moron independents who think he’s ‘authentic’ but will betray his own conservative principles in the White House. That being the case, and Senator Hillary having higher positive than negative ratings, I really don’t care how much of the wingnut base she can pull away. She ought to do fine with independents and especially well with women, who are after all the majority of voters.

    Re #63. Libra, I agree that ex-senator George Allen is probably McCan’t’s most likely choice for VP. Young, unchallenged by the wingnut base, tall, seemingly personable (though we know better, he’s got that same John Cage smile therapy smile). I’d love to see him go down in flames with McCan’t to.

    Re #64. Crissa, I agree that the RNC is warming up their branding irons for Obama. They’ve already branded him the ‘most liberal senator’ and they have promised more, more even than the Clinton campaign has thrown at him. There is no benefit to having him over Senator Clinton in the “they’ll smear our candidate” contest.

    Obama is on the TV again. He’s spending hard to win, which is good.

  • John S. wrote: “They are the only two families playing the game.”

    Correction. They are the only two families playing the game successfully.

    Gore was from a political family. His election was just as much dynastic as BGII’s elevation.

    John McCan’t on the TV now.

    John McCan’t is from a family of Admirals. Considering his military carreer, it’s no surprise he had to become a politician. He was never going to get a broad stripe.

    You are right that Obama is a break from dynastic politics. But then, William Jefferson Clinton was a break from dynastic politics too. And Hillary is first generation. It’s not like Chelsea is running.

    If you think like Chris Matthews that Hillary could never have been a successful politican without being Bill’s wife, then I understand your position (not that it moves me). If however you can accept that Hillary is a successful senator from New York who simply got an opportunity to serve because she’s Bill’s wife, then I think some introspection on your position will allow you to accept that as a first-generation Clinton, Hillary is not really the beneficiary of dynastic advantage and deserves to be considered on her own merits.

    Please think that over (which is the definition of introspection, which is the primary cognitive tool that George Walker Bush lacks).

  • it’s only not democratic if Clinton doesn’t get a majority or plurality of the vote

    I realize that you are a Clinton supporter, but please don’t sit there with a straight face and tell me that having the same two families dominate our political landscape for decades exemplifies the best practices of democracy, when it clearly fits the definition of an oligarchy.

    They are the only two families playing the game successfully.

    Um, maybe in terms of politics in general. When it comes to the game of ‘Clinton/Bush White House Ping-Pong”, there are NO other players.

    Gore was from a political family. His election was just as much dynastic as BGII’s elevation.

    Wow, man. You are really reaching here. If you want to compare the Bush and Gore families and place them on equal footing, be my guest. I think that comparison looks pretty absurd,

  • Please John S., explain to me how it’s Hillary’s fault that the SCOTUS put Boy George II in the White House in 2000?

    Yep, I think it sucks that we’ve had seven years of BGII and are looking at another. That doesn’t do much for my belief in democracy, considering he wasn’t elected to be president.

    But that doesn’t mean a democracy can’t vote in Hillary Clinton.

    As for Albert Gore Senior. He certainly is not much like BGII’s grandfather, Senator George (Nazi-cuddling) Prescott Bush. But he’s not much different from George Herbert Walker Bush, who for all his faults is not an evil man (if an indifferent parent). So while Al Gore Jr. is clearly a vastly better man than BGII, his election was just as much a dynastic oligarchical transfer of power as BGII’s ascension.

    For our parallel to George Prescott, I suppose you have to go back to Joseph Kennedy.

    And do you really think it would have been better for America to have Bob Dole as president in 1996?

  • This thread is what scares me about Hillary, she brings out a group of people, many D’s that just can not get past their hate.

    Who gives a damn about her tax return ? People who want to bring her down. Not one of you asked for Rudy’s return, and potentially, he had a lot more to hide.

    Who cares about the Bush/Clinton ‘legacy’ ? I would vote for a Bush if they were a viable candidate.

    I was leaning towards Obama, but the way Hillary has managed to deflect so much non-sense, is pulling me over. I am so tired of bipartisan politics, but I think it’s here to stay, and Hillary is, IMO, the least likely to make un-necessary compromises. Harry Reid is driving me bananas, and Obama seems to have that compromise attitude which surmounts to us giving them whatever they want just to make progress.

  • Lance, I applaud your efforts, and your patience (which I have been pretty short on lately), but you can obtain the same results by banging your head on your desk.

    John S – presidents don’t come off assembly lines, and they aren’t stamped out of the same mold, just because they have the same last name.

    Take Lance’s advice – think a little more.

  • Upthread people were asking what Hillary’s “plan” is to work with Republicans in Congress, and arguing that because they wouldn’t fear her (in an electoral sense) they wouldn’t cooperate on anything — arguing this as if she had no track record.

    I understand the concern, but the only real evidence we have is that (a) she successfully won over a lot of Republican voters in upstate and western New York, and (b) she has won accolades for her work across the aisle with many Republicans, with whom she has co-sponsored legislation.

    So I’d say her “plan” is to keep doing what she has already successfully done.
    There is a lot less actual evidence to support the argument that she cannot do it.

  • Can we PLEASE — at least most of those of us who are Hillary or Obama supporters — agree to the following:

    1: The enemy is JOHN MC CAIN, not each other

    2: Mc Cain can’t WIN the election, but it is barely possible — with our intramural sniping — that we could LOSE it. (The more likely result will be to hurt ‘down-ballot’ candidates, particularly Congressional ones, by turning off voters, and that is more serious.)

    3: [remember, in saying this I am someone who dislikes Hillary intensely] Either candidate will make a good President. We differ in that we think our candidate may become a GREAT one.

    4: The main problem we have with the (Bill) Clinton Presidency (other than a certain sexual episode) was his cowardice and refusal to push for his ideas against opposition. The greater our Congressional majority, the less this will be a problem.

    5: (Particularly to my fellow Obama supporters) We have valid problems with Hillary, yes, but we’ve got to stop buying into the Falwell-Scarfe libels. They were not criminals, they were not evil.

    6: (To Hillary supporters) Please try, if you have influence, to get Bill to STFU — his campaigning (and McAulliffe’s) has not done your candidate any good. Again, you have valid worries about Obama — nobody’s perfect, anyone has problems that can be used against them — but LIES only help the Republicans. Leave the lies to them.

    7: The MSM has flaws — gullibility, laziness, and being afraid that if they confront a conservative they’ll be hit with months of ‘the media is all liberal, pinko, traitors who hate America.” And yes, they give too much credence to (frequently) once-great ‘pundits’ who have lost their edge through too many years of ‘living on their reputation. But there is NO great conspiracy against us. Leave the conspiracy talk to the Republicans and Paulistas.

    8: “Liberal” is a GOOD word. Let’s stop being so afraid of it and start explaining what it means and start wearing it proudly, instead of acting like pre-Stonewall gays from rural America.

    I have watched my fellow liberals, for years, acting as if ‘winning’ was the same as compromising our pinciples. We’ve lost the guts we had in the pre-McCarthy era — no, I’m not quite that old, but I read a lot, and I once had William Fitts Ryan as my Congressman. (He was right on almost everything, but anytime he got more than 25 votes for a proposal he worried if he was ‘selling out.’)

    We’re going to win this time, and with a majority big enough to actually pass our ideas. The country is behind us, and hate our opponents. Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot — again.

  • I have to come to the dynasty arguement in a differenty light (following Lance’s excellent commentary on the subject). I am a married woman. I have been married to my husband for 20+ years. I am no more like his brothers and sisters than I was 20 years ago. I am from a very different family. Hillary is from a very different family and upbringing and perspective in many ways than Bill is. For those of you who are in a long-term relationship … have you really become the other person? Really?

    My husband and I do share our political ilks but if he were in charge of some major endeavor one time and I was another time … they would transpire in very different ways. I think we can better surmise what Hillary will be like as a president by looking at her past work than by looking at Bill’s past work. Arkansas, New York and the US Senate (and the House) have supported her very well. She must have been doing the right thing by them or that would not be the case.

    I would also like to voice my thoughts that coming to some sort of “truce” between the Clinton and Obama sides needs to happen. The problem in part, as I see it, is they really have very similar platforms (although her’s is more clearly defined IMO) and sides need to have something to disagree about or why not be on the same side? We need to be on the same side eventually … how are we going to get there?

  • Lance and Anne-

    When you two get a chance, look up the definition of what an oligarchy is. Then get back to me with your pearls of wisdom regarding how awesome having yet another Clinton in charge will be and how it is the best thing for our democracy.

    Thanks.

  • John S, then I take it you were disgusted with the Ted & Caroline endorsements of Obama and felt it besmirched his good name? Because I see lots of favorable Obama references back to Camelot, which is a prettier name for the purest “dynasty” this country has ever had. And the Clintons on their worst day look like rank amateurs compared to Joseph, who was as manipulative and conniving as they get. (Note I am assuming that if you believe oligarchy/oligopoly is bad, you would agree that dynasty/monopoly is worse)

  • John S, then I take it you were disgusted with the Ted & Caroline endorsements of Obama and felt it besmirched his good name?

    You got it. And a fat load of good it did him, anyway.

    And the Clintons on their worst day look like rank amateurs compared to Joseph, who was as manipulative and conniving as they get.

    No doubt. I loathe Joe Kennedy. He was a bootlegging piece of shit.

    (Note I am assuming that if you believe oligarchy/oligopoly is bad, you would agree that dynasty/monopoly is worse)

    Right again.

    Too bad you’re such a huge fan of the oligarchy. But hey, I don’t have to look at your face in the mirror when I wake up in the morning, so whatever floats your boat.

  • Comments are closed.