Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton would use violence against Tehran

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
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:34 PM
Original message
Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Clinton would use violence against Tehran

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday October 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Hillary Clinton today moved to secure her position as the most hawkish Democrat in the 2008 presidential race, saying she would consider the use of force to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear programme.

In an article for Foreign Affairs magazine intended as a blueprint for the foreign policy of a future Clinton White House, the Democratic frontrunner argues that Iran poses a long term strategic challenge to American and its allies, and that it must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

"If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table," Ms Clinton said.

Elsewhere, Ms Clinton took the edge off her steely posture by saying she would abandon the Bush administration's policy of isolating its enemies, and would deploy diplomacy.

more


Article:

Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century

By Hillary Rodham Clinton
From Foreign Affairs , November/December 2007

<...>

We need more than vision, however, to achieve the world we want. We must face up to an unprecedented array of challenges in the twenty-first century, threats from states, nonstate actors, and nature itself. The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system. Moreover, the next administration will have to confront an unpredictable and dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies. Finally, the next president will have to address the looming long-term threats of climate change and a new wave of global health epidemics.

<...>


The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

more


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. I love Hillary, and she's my senator, but little-by-little, I'm getting a vibe from her that...
...reminds me more and more of Margaret Thatcher.:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. no woman will ever win a presidency by appearing 'soft and weak'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't need to be a thug to appear strong and tough
I'd rather have tough and smart as opposed to tough and loud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. she's not being a thug. she is being tough and this is all part of tough talk.
its why poor kerry had to go hunting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #6
56. In my opinion she is
Shouting out about getting ready for another war and making threats when we have no means to do so fits my definition quite neatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. Most of the candidates would use force against Iran
I don't know where anyone got the idea that the Dem Party was a pacifist party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-17-07 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. I'm not talking about pacifism
Where did my post advocate pacifism?

I mean its DAMN stupid to be picking yet another fight when we're already fighting two wars and are barely keeping our heads above water in the bigger one and have numerous other commitments around the world. Using language that could spark off a war is in that situation stupid, forget pacifism and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. So Is It The Case That Women Must Cause Wars To Get Elected?
That would be sad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. they dont have to cause wars, but they cant look like the are afraid of going to war.
there is a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Big Difference!
But Mrs. Clinton has a track record of going out of her way to actually start war. I would infinitely prefer a president who walked softly and carried a big stick, to one who ran around hitting people with a stick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. what war did clinton personally start?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. She Personally Helped To Start The Iraq War
Most Democrats in COngress voted against the IWR. Clinton voted for it. If you say "it would have passed without her vote", then you need to give equal slack to every other member of Congress, D or R, who also voted to start an unprovoked a war.

In addition, she voted against the Levin Amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #19
53. But you gotta admit, when Hillary drove that tank across the Iraqi border
she looked a lot better than Dukakis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. If Hillary loses, the prime cause will be her rampant hawkishness.
The last thing we need is a repeat of the disaster she helped bring to Iraq. Every last bit of the rhetoric we are hearing on Iran is almost word for word what we heard on Iraq. Why should we believe it now? Why does she want to kill more people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. No woman will ever make a decent president by being
strident, bullish and by trying to fit into the pants of a war hawk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. The assumptions in this statement are staggering
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 04:25 PM by jgraz
1. You must be pro-war or you're viewed as "soft and weak"
2. No woman has the political skills to win without pandering to the pro-war crowd
3. A majority of American adults will not vote for a woman unless she's pro-war


And on and on and on.

I swear, it's starting to look like Hillary's candidacy will set the cause of feminism back 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. ...or do a good job in the White House by trying to APPEAR tough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Really disgusting saber rattling
It's frightening to see. even if you believe that Iran is arming Shi'ite groups in Iraq, it's our presence that's the proximate cause.
Iran presents no real danger to us, and she doesn't even claim it does, yet she's building the scary monster. She does sound like bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Who are these comments for?
Since she doesn't open her mouth without taking a poll, the only conclusion I can come to is a large number of the public at large approves of bombing Iran even though it would be an immoral act of violence.


Are these comments for AIPAC, undecided Republicans, your neighbors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. do you remember when kerry was criticized because he was going to wait for the UN to give permission
before going to war? it was a huge deal? outsourcing our security etc?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. The thousands and thousands of people throughout the
world protesting the Iraq invasion were pleading to use common sense before bombing Iraq. That include most members of DU. We knew that Bushco was chaffing at the bit to bomb Iraq into oblivion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
41. It was a huge deal to the right noise machine. Who really knows
what the people actually thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. What Britain needs is an iron lady ... Margaret Thatcher
Ladies and Gentlemen of The United States of America, meet your iron lady, HRC. :scared:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. How is Clinton's position different from this:
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 02:56 PM by seasonedblue

snip: At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.

The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel’s border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.

I cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap. Syria needs to go long way to prove it is ready for peace. It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn’t make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Like Clinton, Edwards Likes War
Most Democrats in Congress voted against the IWR. Clinton and Edwards voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. Trust her. She's only saying this to get elected. Afetr that she'll
actually do the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. OK
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 03:32 PM by daninthemoon
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
37. I do not trust people who say one thing and then do another.
Like Geo.Bush did in campaigning. I believe it falls into the rhelm of being dishonest to pretend to be something just to gain a point. People who use tactics like that are easily manipulated. It is unnecessary. The only diplomatic plan that Hillary has put forth consists of "either or- do as I say" threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
43. That's what the repubes thought about bush. It didn't work out so
good for them or the Iraqi's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. worst. reason. ever.
to vote for Hillary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
18. Barack Obama Speaketh
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran



"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

-Barack Obama


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Other than Kucinich,
aren't they all saying the same thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Then they all should own up to their hawkish position. Why pretend? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Yes. They should own up to the real reasons for their hawkishness.
Standard Oil, and Haliburton, and Hunt Oil, and Blackwater...And yes, just to look tough for the mindless masses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
39. No furking way am I voting for Obama either.
God I can't stand politicians when they try to please all and every one to get into office. Wishy washy to say the least. Even Nixon campaigned better than this and he wasn't even cute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zandor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
23. You want her to state flatly 'no strikes'?
That would be foolish and irresponsible for any candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
42. The only 'strikes' the thinking American Constitutionalist
would approve of would be in defense against attack upon the US. Oh, sorry I forgot, George Bush tells us the world has changed after 9/11 and we are living in a new age of trying to police the world. Therefore we must bomb the shit out of every country that might possibly be a threat to the rest of the world or maybe even the US. Hillary might have a better chance if she had a diplomatic plan and if she dropped her brass balls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zandor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Name me a Democratic candidate that has dismissed the possibilty
Kucinich doesn't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Of course Kucinich counts. Why wouldn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
25. An honest question, do we really have the right to tell another indpendent country
that they cannot possess that of which we ourselves have unlimited access to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. When talking about nuclear weapons yes
what the hell are you smoking? You honestly believe countries like Iran or Ethiopia should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

we should be doing everything in our power to rid the world of these destructive weapons, not allowing more production.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daninthemoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Iran says they don't have them. Our govt has lied too much about
such things lately to blindly trust them, either. If Iran wanted to nuke Israel, they could already have attacked them with conventional missiles. Why haven't they? Because Israel and we would then utterly nuke Iran until not one stoned remained upon another. Iran would not benefit from having a nuke. They could never get enough to counter what Israel already has, and certainly not what we have. If Iran developed a nuke, they would be committing suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. I never said we should believe this administration, you are putting words in my mouth
I am saying Iran should not be allowed to posses those weapons. The point has nothing to do with Iran wanting to bomb Israel, it has do to with them having a nuclear weapon so that they couldn't be invaded. If we stop acting like we are going to invade them tomorrow I'm sure they would work with us to drop their nuclear program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. Might impress more people if the US retired their own nuclear
weapons and discontinued researching better ones; the US has proved it's hypocrisy and bloodlust when it invaded Iraq and lost tremendous trust througout the world. What are the coutries of Iran and Ethiopia LIKE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. "Why would the world listen to us if our own words do not match our deeds?"
"Why would the world listen to us if our own words do not match our deeds?" John Kerry

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pawel K Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. You are missing the point
You can give this speech all you want, I agree with you. But that is not what I am saying, no matter how hypocritical we are we can not afford Iran, or any other country out there for that matter, getting a nuke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-16-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
54. what's the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons? . . .
and who wants to bet against that country being the first to use them again? . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'll be damned if I will vote Hillary Clinton. We cannot afford to
have another hawk who speaks out of both sides of the mouth running the White House show. She is following the war hawk right wing Israeli line of crap right down the line. On the other hand she declares that if Iran follows the incentives (i.e.dictates)of the US, i.e. support Middle East peace (whatever the hell that is) help in stabilizing the mess we made in Iraq, then the people of Iran will know our quarrel is not with them and is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.
In other words she is asking the impossible and appears to be lookig forward to use brute force to show that she is a 'tough cookie' and stop Iran in it's tracks just like George Bush's brand of 'diplomacy'. She is nothing less than a godamn forked tongue pretender like the shitbrain sitting in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
34. Did anybody bother to read the whole article?
It's no more "hawkish" that the other 2 front runners.Realistically, Americans will not vote for anyone,woman or man, who will allow a shaky theocratic government to pursue a nuclear program. She doesn't call for war with Iran . She lays out a very practical set of benchmarks for a sane Iranian policy which includes our allies and the U.N.She doesn't take war with them off the table,but neither will Obama or Edwards. She also promises to start removing troops from Iraq within 60 days of her presidency and involving all surrounding countries in the peace process .The rest of her foreign policy objectives are very reasonable and well thought out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
35. what do you expect from someone beholden to israel?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. Nice. Clinton smearers say the darndest things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. aaaaaand there goes her inevitability
Unless I guess, she wants to switch to Republican.
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 Nov 13th 2024, 01:15 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