Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Myth: Hillary Clinton gave us NAFTA. Truth: DU's biggest saint and Bill did

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 » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 01:52 PM
Original message
Myth: Hillary Clinton gave us NAFTA. Truth: DU's biggest saint and Bill did
 
Run time: 02:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PJ2KT0RVI
 
Posted on YouTube: December 07, 2006
By YouTube Member:
Views on YouTube: 0
 
Posted on DU: February 26, 2008
By DU Member: jackson_dem
Views on DU: 1202
 
In 1993, Gore debated Ross Perot on CNN's Larry King Live on the issue of free trade, with Gore arguing for free trade and the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and Perot arguing against it. Public opinion polls taken after the debate showed that a majority of Americans thought Gore won the debate and now supported NAFTA.<49> The bill subsequently passed 234–200 in the House of Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore

Two biographies of Hillary state that she opposed NAFTA and tried to convince Bill to oppose it. If there is one person not named Bill, George, or Ronald who deserves blame for NAFTA it is the man who is now the biggest saint in the blogosphere.

I am a big fan of Gore but the hypocritical selective criticism and fake outrage toward Hillary over all things bad during the 90's is irrational and annoying. You can't rail against her for NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, DOMA, welfare and then pine for someone who supported all four and was instrumental in getting the first two done to "save" us from Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. That administration's support of NAFTA was always a horror to me
They all have to face blame, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. NAFTA?
NAFTA was a great idea, and similar to the EU's taking in Eastern Europe, which will probably ensure their future as a force in the world market. Let's face it, NAFTA had the promise of developing Mexico to a point where it would no longer need to export its excess population. The problem is that Mexico was forced to join WTO prior to NAFTA, and has since lost most of its manufacturing to China as a result.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Europeans (or countries on any other continent, for that matter) have never abandoned free trade. But they don't encourage their enterprises to offshfore profits or jobs. Nor do they encourage themselves to consume excessively, or import more than they export. The European governments continue to invest in what they see as strategic industries. Sorry to disagree with those on this board who feel that immediate cessation of imports will bring back Hudson Automobiles and Zenith TV's, but our government could have done much to encourage US manufacturing and investment in America, even while supporting free trade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. Listen, one thing everyone conveniently forgets is that NAFTA
was fast tracked by Bush Sr. before he left office. Clinton passed it only because it had already been approved and he wanted to make changes to it. Unfortunately, those changes were never implemented. I'm never, ever going to bash NAFTA without bringing up that fact. They can try all they want to say this was a Clinton baby, but it simply was not! Ok, having said that, there is no excuse for keeping NAFTA since we know it is a failed policy NOW.

Another thing, I keep hearing also that Hillary approved the new NAFTA baby with Peru...and please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Obama do the same darn thing?

I'm so sick of these two pointing fingers over this. They are so similar it's downright scarey. I am an Edwards supporter and so far, not one thing has made me move on to support either Hillary or Obama.

Am I the only person who thinks these two have far more in common than they do not? All I can see is that Obama is a newer, younger face, is all. My state already went thru the primary, so I guess it really doesn't matter for me. I'm going to get what we're all going to get....:shrug:

The thing that bothers me with all the "my candidate's better than yours" is that we have all long forgotten that two previous elections have been stolen. I'm probably not going to feel real good about democracy until that little problem is solved. Frankly, everything is BS without ensuring clean and fair elections.

So what's the big deal? You all should be hoping that Hillary and Obama join forces, because this party is going to be forever split if they don't start working together. How about a nice showing of having a cabinet with Edwards, Kucinich & Biden thrown in for good measure? Now THAT is certainly something get excited about. I'm honestly feeling the best guys were squeezed out. :cry:

I think it's high time our "unity" candidates start showing some.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Yes both Clinton and Obama supported NAFTA's baby in Peru
Edwards even attacked Obama for it in the South Carolina debate. People here remember his criticisms of Hillary but not of St. Obama....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hillary was pro-NAFTA up until the point she started losing the nomination
The real problem is that, like with every other issue, you never know where Hillary stands -- or if she has a stance at all outside of political expediency.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. That's plain garbage, I distinctly remember it being brought up at
Edited on Tue Feb-26-08 03:01 PM by mother earth
the very first debate. I remember because I am an Edwardian and this is front and center in my eyes. Talk trash elsewhere. If you are bringing up a valid point, that's different, this is no such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quantass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yea Hilary flip-flops and was indeed in support of NAFTA -- she is a mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Here's a link that says BOTH Obama and Clinton supported the
Edited on Tue Feb-26-08 03:10 PM by mother earth
last Peru vote.

http://www.citizenstrade.org/pdf/gtw7aperusenatefin.pdf

What's Obama's excuse? They are both made of the same cloth.

Since I don't support either of them, you can duke it out with the others.
But the facts speak volumes, LOL. You are throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Two thumbs up to you refuting your original point.
However, you left out some key points about Obama: He does not support NAFTA and has very specific reasons for supporting the Peru agreement -- because it contains important language on environmental concerns and labor.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/09/obama_says_only_outsider_can_b.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. What point might that be? I merely stated some facts, I was
waiting to hear what Obama supports, since it's not always clear. ;) I think they both need a good knock on the head. It's all of us who are losing jobs because of their stances, or lack of stances on NAFTA.

I truly feel if you think there is any salvation in the Peru NAFTA agreement, you need to read up on it and Public Citizen might be a good place to start. These agreements are set up to benefit corporations, the propaganda is blatant. If Obama buys into it, then that's a count against supporting him, for me. The other one being he supports the need for more nuclear power, another dismal stance that speaks volumes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I see your points on the Peru agreement, and I'm not in a position to debate it with you.
On the nuclear issue, however, if you were to take your arguments to the Energy/Environment forum, you'd see a very intelligent discussion both pro- and anti- nuke generated electric power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mother earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Perhaps there are pros and cons for nuclear power, my problem
is there is no safe way to dispose of the waste, not to mention the lack of safety at facilities. Sure, we need alternative energies, we do NOT need more nuclear. Again, I refer back to John Edwards who is very much against more nuclear energy facilities.

You see what I mean, Buzz Clik, all this back and forth with HC vs. BO is not worth the in-fighting and the hate being dredged up in the name of democracy. Please...give me a man (or woman) who can say I was wrong and learn from the past, and one that isn't afraid to say I don't know all there is to know. I know I've got lots of company, lots of good company.

NAFTA is failed, let's learn from it and move on. Let's stop trying to pin the tail on the donkey that first dreamt it up...er...make that elephant, lol. Since it is a BushSr baby, and it sure smells like dead elephants. Just channeling some Matt Taibbi for good measure ;). Have a nice evening.:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Of course he is going to say that. The AFL-CIO and fair traders knew it was a sham
It was more of the same but every Democrat is going to claim h/she wants those protections. Even the DLC does. You have to look at the details to separate the fair traders from the "free" traders. Clinton and Obama are in the latter camp. Edwards was in the former...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
9. and Hillary just sat behind Bill the whole time and screamed "Don't do it!!!"
But she is just a woman...in a world run by men! Oh woe is the world!!! They didn't listen to her!!! It was obviously the menfolk who wouldn't let her stop this evil that she OBVIOUSLY had nothing to do with...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Hm. I think we all know that First Ladies often have strong opinions on matters of policy...
Edited on Tue Feb-26-08 03:55 PM by Buzz Clik
... and they do not express them publicly. Although Hillary's opposition to NAFTA was news to me (and, clearly, to the Obama campaign), one cannot rule out that she could have opposed it and her voice could have gone unheard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
14. GORE BROKE W THE DLC IN BY AUGUST 2000:
Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. He changed his rhetoric in his campaign. He policies were DLC through and through
It was Gore, not Hillary, who was the consistent voice in policy debates in the White House for the "New Democrat" view. Funny how one is now lionized by the folks who hate the DLC while the other is blamed, wrongly, for playing the role Gore actually played!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Go to the DLC website-Look whose picture is on the leadership team & read their policy
papers on trade-IT'S FREE TRADE!

HAS SHE PUBLICLY DENOUNCED THE DLC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I know what the DLC stands for. That is why I supported Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Your avatar says Hillary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I switched to her after Edwards dropped out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. HILLARY PRAISING NAFTA:
Meet the Press discussing Hillary backing NAFTA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0swdRvYgw



Hillary Clinton Pretends She Never Praised NAFTA
Posted February 14, 2008 | 06:20 PM (EST)

-snip
The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House.

What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools.

Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.

On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."

The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

Yes, we are all expected to just forget that, so that Hillary Clinton's campaign can manufacture supposed "outrage" that anyone would say she supported NAFTA - all at a time her chief strategist, Mark Penn, simultaneously heads a firm that is right now pushing to expand NAFTA into South America.

-snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/hillary-clinton-pretends-_b_86747.html



FROM BLOOMBERG:

Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. ``The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,'' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. ``Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.''

Praise for Nafta

At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting ``a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.'' She added: ``It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.''

Clinton ``is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,'' said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. ``She would absolutely do the right thing as president.''

There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton's trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children's health care, and wasn't a major voice in trade-policy debates.

-snip
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics





FROM TIME:

SOME FACTS ON CLINTON’S SUPPORT FOR NAFTA:
 
2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton’s Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, “Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy.” Newsday wrote in 2008, the word “boon” was their “characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements.”
 
2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. “Creating a free trade zone in North America—the largest free trade zone in the world—would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once . I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances.”
2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a “Victory” For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, “Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn’t hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill’s successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA.”
1996: Clinton Said “I Think Everybody Is In Favor Of Free And Fair Trade. I Think NAFTA Is Proving Its Worth.” A questioner pointed out that UNITE opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement, backed by the Clinton administration, on grounds it sends American jobs to Mexico. In March 1996, three years after President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, Hillary Clinton said, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth,” she said, adding that if American workers can compete fairly, they can match any competition. “That’s what a free and fair trade agreement like NAFTA is all about,” she said.
 
1996: Clinton “Vowed That Her Husband Would Continue To Support Economic Growth In South Texas Through Initiatives Such As The North American Free Trade Agreement.” AP wrote, “Mrs. Clinton vowed that her husband would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Rio Grande Valley empowerment zone, which allows tax breaks to businesses that relocate to the border.”
1996: Hillary Clinton “Touted” President Clinton’s Support for NAFTA, Saying it Would Reap Widespread Benefit. On a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton “touted the president’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region.”
 
 
COMMENTATORS AGREE CLINTON HAS SUPPORTED NAFTA AND FREE TRADE
Sirota: “What A Total Joke” That Clinton Camp Tries to Argue She Did Not Support NAFTA, “Clinton Has Made Statements Unequivocally Trumpeting NAFTA.” In response to Barack Obama’s attack on NAFTA, the Hillary Clinton campaign has gone into meltdown mode…The Huffington Post has followed along with a laugh-out-loud piece in which the chief architects of NAFTA (many who are now wealthy corporate lawyers and lobbyists) are now saying, no, no, Hillary Clinton was really opposed to it. These are the same people, of course, who are looking for jobs in the Hillary Clinton White House. What a total joke, really. This campaign clearly thinks we are all just a bunch of fools. Hillary Clinton has made statements unequivocally trumpeting NAFTA as the greatest thing since sliced bread.“
Bloomberg: Clinton “Praised” NAFTA, Friends Said She Was “A Free-Trader at Heart.” Bloomberg News reported, “Clinton promoted her husband’s trade agenda for years, and friends say that she’s a free-trader at heart. ‘The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,” she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. ‘Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.’ Praise for Nafta At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting ‘a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.” She added: ‘It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun.’ Clinton ‘is committed to free trade and to the growing role of the international economy,’ said Steven Rattner, a Clinton fundraiser and co-founder of Quadrangle Group LLC, a New York buyout firm. ‘She would absolutely do the right thing as president.’ There was little evidence of a protectionist tilt to Clinton’s trade views during either her 2000 campaign or first years in the Senate. She stressed issues such as homeland security and children’s health care, and wasn’t a major voice in trade-policy debates. As she began to gear up for a White House run, Clinton became less of a free-trade booster and more skeptical about the payoff of globalization.”
Ø Clinton’s NAFTA Rhetoric Is Not Driven By Policy. Bloomberg News reported, “Clinton’s positioning on trade reflects the changing nature of the debate in the U.S., which increasingly focuses on concerns over outsourcing and the shift of jobs to other nations such as China and India rather than on the benefits of tariff reductions. It also — as with Republicans grappling over illegal immigration — demonstrates the extent to which grassroots sentiment can alter candidates’ platforms. A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted in January found 39 percent of Democrats believe free trade hurts the economy; only 18 percent say it is a benefit. Both parties agree that a backlash on trade helped Democrats in the 2006 elections. West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said U.S. workers have been ‘so decimated’ by unfettered competition that ‘I think the American people understand they will be hit by it.’ Clinton promoted her husband’s trade agenda for years, and friends say that she’s a free-trader at heart.”
 
SF Chronicle: “Add to this Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton’s coolness to the idea. Her husband moved earth and sky to win passage of the NAFTA trade pact with Mexico and Canada in 1993. Now she favors periodic reviews to continue such deals, a “timeout” on new ones, and more federal officials to oversee complaints. It’s clearly a flip-flop favor to unions and industry sectors hit by layoffs and cheap imports and bid to outflank her rival, Sen. Barack Obama, who is more favorable to free trade.”
BILL CLINTON CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR NAFTA
JANUARY 2008: Bill Clinton Says “A Lot Of People Think NAFTA’s A Bigger Problem Than it Is.” During an event in Las Vegas, Clinton said “She believes that NAFTA, she believes that all our trade agreements should be reviewed in the first 90 to 120 days of taking office. She would have a total moratorium on all new trade deals until we conducted a review. And one of the things that we have to examine is the point I made earlier. That is, is the trade agreement basically fair, but we just don’t enforce it. A lot of people think that NAFTA’s a bigger problem than it is. Our problem with Mexico, our trade deficit with Mexico is mostly because we buy oil from them.”

-SNIP
http://thepage.time.com/saturday-obama-campaign-release/


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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos 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