FISA Flip-Flops: Follow Finance Favors and Fools

You want to know why the congress is lying to us about wanting to protect us and our liberties and at the same time give law-breakers total immunity?

Just like any corrupt and illegal group of THUGS, follow the money:

In the House, 94 Dems flipped for an average take from telecom of $8K each. That means that your liberties and freedoms are worth less than $10K to each of these capitulating assholes.

But how about our candidate of ‘hope’? Over $200K in 2008

How about the ‘maverick dickhead’? An amazing $350K in 2008

Rockefeller got over $51K this year

McConnel got $20K

With very few exceptions did our representatives take money and vote AGAINST the FISA bill and retroactive immunity. Hillary should be commended because she took mucho and STILL voted AGAINST it.

The point is that these people have taken money from the very ones they have voted to let off the hook. This means our system has been bought and paid for and this very issue is the proof any thinking person needs to see this plain fact.

We need to clean house.

Grandmother Proud To Have Lived Long Enough To See First Viable Female Candidate Torn Apart

PEORIA, IL—Seventy-six-year-old grandmother Anita Graney told reporters Monday that she was “overwhelmed with pride” for having lived to see the first viable female presidential candidate in the nation’s history so successfully run into the ground by vicious media attacks and hubristic, arrogant miscalculations. “Hillary [Clinton] showed America that a woman can be politically destroyed just as completely and heartbreakingly as any man,” said Graney, a lifelong feminist. “What an amazing example for today’s young women who aspire to fail spectacularly at the highest levels.” Graney expressed hope that one of her granddaughters might someday be the first woman to get utterly eviscerated in a nationwide general election.

Check out The Onion Movie Blog and win a free DVD. Offer ends today.

U.S.A.’s Middle Eastern Affairs Failures Perpetuated by Obama

B’Man: I have come to the conclusion that our meddling in the Israel’s government’s affairs is totally counterproductive to our safety and security. Our unending support of this nation, while turning a blind eye to Israel’s own abuses and hypocrisy (especially about nukes in the area), will not give us further security. It makes even more enemies out of the other Muslim countries in the area.

The more I read and learn about AIPAC and its control over America’s foreign affairs, the more I am frightened and confused. How is it that we have gotten to the “Spike the Bulldog/Chester the Terrier” mindset? I will be writing more about this in the near future. Until then, I wanted to share an email I received from the Nader campaign which highlights how the “Major” candidates are all the same when it comes to Israel and our unending support and defense of their foreign policy which is the reason why I can say that the little dog is wagging the Big Dog tail.

Ralph Nader for President 2008

There is one clear choice this year for peace in the Middle East.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Thanks to your ongoing support, the Nader/Gonzalez peace in the Middle East campaign is aiming to be on the ballot nationwide in November.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans which polls repeatedly show support a two-state solution as a way for peace in the Middle East.

Only Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Doubt it?

Then just listen to Barack Obama’s speech from this morning to the militarist and right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Did Obama make one mention of the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people and the UN-documented resulting humanitarian disaster there?

He did not.

Instead, Obama talked about “a Gaza controlled by Hamas with rockets raining down on Israel.”

Did Obama mention U.S. government supplied Israeli firepower resulting in Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza at a ratio of 400 to 1 (Palestinian to Israeli)

He did not.

Many peace loving Israelis and Jewish Americans will be disgusted by Obama’s speech today.

Like the editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who wrote that the Israeli government has “lost its reason” through the brutal incarceration, devastation and deprivation of the innocent people in Gaza.

Obama told AIPAC today that “we must isolate Hamas.” (In its current form.)

Did he mention that a March 2008 Haaretz poll showed that 64 percent of the Israeli people want direct negotiations for peace between Israel and Hamas, while only 28% oppose it?

He did not.

Instead, Obama said this morning that “Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.”

Did he say that Israel must stop bombing the people of Gaza?

He did not.

Obama this morning told AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?

He did not.

So, in a nutshell:

In this critical election year, Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.

Obama/McCain stand with the hard-line minority position of AIPAC.

With your generous help, Nader/Gonzalez will work to make the voices for peace heard throughout this election year.

Together, we will make a difference.

Onward

The Nader Team

PS: We invite your comments to the blog.

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

Richard Noggin’ Saturday: (Young) Hillary Clinton

She apparently never grew up…

U.S. Manufacturing Productivity Has Negative Affect on Employment

In an editorial for the Washington Independent, lawyer and author Charles R. Morris wrote that many “are attacking both of the likely presidential candidates…for their complacency in the face of American ‘deindustrialization.’” According to Morris, the “anger is fueled, in part, by the absurd expansion of ‘Wall Street’ over the past decade.” He explains that “the United States is the world leader in manufacturing output by a huge margin,” and that as “manufacturing productivity grows rapidly,…manufacturing employment invariably shrinks.”

Morris noted that the problem with this trend in the U.S. is that “the productivity drive has meant downsizing millions of workers, and treating most of them badly.” While “[i]nvestors, private equity companies, [and] CEOs…happily reap the profit and incomes from improved productivity,” laid off workers “reap mostly fear and insecurity.” For instance, “[t]he rapid ‘human-resources adjustments’ of market-responsive companies…entail near-absolute cutoffs of health insurance,” and provide little in the way of unemployment benefits and retraining opportunities for former workers.

The Lie vs Truth

We should at least give people a “gas tax holiday” to relieve some of the pain families are feeling at the pump, as Sen. John McCain has proposed. But what we really should look at doing long-term is abolishing the federal gasoline tax altogether, or at least lowering it substantially. Let the states handle transportation, not the federal government.

Doing away with federal gasoline taxes for even a short period of time will do serious damage to the economy as we head into a recession and as high gas prices affect our commuting patterns. Federal gasoline tax dollars go into a trust fund that helps pay for roads, bridges and mass transit. According to the federal government’s own calculations, every $1 billion spent of the gasoline tax revenues creates nearly 35,000 jobs. A summertime “gas tax holiday” could cost the nation almost 350,000 jobs and would halt work on vital improvements to roads and bridges, as well as mass transit systems stressed by new riders leaving their cars at home. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we’re already falling behind in our ability to pay for our transportation needs. The bigger issue is this: An economy that depends on the efficient interstate movement of goods and services can’t afford to continue starving the maintenance and growth of our transportation network. But that’s what we’ve done under the Bush administration, which opposed moves even from within its own party to increase transportation spending enough to match actual needs. Dumping the burden on already-strapped and unevenly equipped states won’t solve the problem. A transportation system that allows the economy to operate efficiently and save precious fuel is a national priority; we should all share in the costs and the benefits.

More Pro vs Con here

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: “The Family”

The Family: Hillary Clinton’s fascist spiritual guide

Barbara Ehrenreich writes:

There’s a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the “Fellowship,” aka The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells” — their term — and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family’s home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners — alone.

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes — knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper’s in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa’s postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century’s most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

At the heart of the Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family’s young women’s group. And, at the Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics. …

Hillary Clinton: “Tide Is Turning,” Expects to Win Democratic Presidential Primary By 2013

From my friend at How Insane Is John McCain: a post explaining Hillary’s purpose in this race for President.

Hillary Clinton: “Tide Is Turning,” Expects to Win Democratic Presidential Primary By 2013

WASHINGTON - After besting Barack Obama by 9 points in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton declared to a crowd of ten supporters on Wednesday, “The tide is turning. By 2013 I expect to have overtaken Barack Obama and I will be thrilled to take on John McCain’s corpse in the general election!”

In a seemingly interminable primary battle that has left both candidates bruised and battered, Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania did not seem to alter the fundamentals of the Democratic primary or Barack Obama’s insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

According to Clinton advisors, this overlooks some key fundamentals of the race.

“You’ve got it all wrong,” said Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe. “2008 doesn’t count.”

Clinton advisors point to her victories in “big states that count” such as California, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania as evidence she can eventually beat Obama given enough time and do-overs, while dismissing Obama’s victories in Illinois, South Carolina, Missouri, Virginia and Maryland. They feel that Clinton’s support among the minority of Democratic voters who matter makes the case that Clinton can be the best Democratic candidate to lose to John McCain.

“Who better to lose to McCain than me?” Clinton declared. “I am the only candidate who can bring America together and unify the Democratic party to vote against me in the Fall.”

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Wednesday that he increasingly feels that he is trapped in a bad zombie movie.

“I wake up every morning thinking people are going to finally admit she’s dead and this race is over. And every day I open up the newspaper she’s got a new zinger about Barack that’s not even remotely funny. I mean, look at this one today: ‘It’s a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania.’ I mean, seriously. Who writes this shit? Carrot Top?”

According to Bill Clinton, Hillary has not yet begun to lose.

“Hillary is a fighter,” Clinton said. “She can go down in flames with the best of them. Remember ‘94 after the health care debacle? Ha ha! We had to lock her in the basement she was so radioactive.”

Moment of Zen - Hillary’s Holy Spirit | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Hillary’s Holy Spirit

Uh- huh

What is that noise when your anal leakage spurts out from busting a gut laughing so hard?

If I could spell it, I would put it here

_________________

 

MoveOn.org

This is one reason why I LIKE MoveOn.org:

 

Subject: Enough is enoughHi,If you missed the Democratic presidential debate on ABC Wednesday night, Editor & Publisher called it “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” Moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about–gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channeling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously! I just signed a petition to ABC and other media that says: “Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and ‘gotchas’ that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions–ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people’s daily lives.” Want to sign it too? We need a bunch of signers for ABC to take this concern seriously. Click here to sign: http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?r_by=12458-6834635-2DM6Sd&rc=paste Thanks!

Had enough of the MSM distractions and sleight of hand tactics? Then sign the petition and add your comments. I did.

Richard Noggin’ Saturday’s 1st Female: HilLIEbermann Clinton

When you have the MSM forming the candidates for us, is it any wonder that we hear hardly anything about this? Whether or not one agrees with MoveOn.org, this is a huge contingency of Hillary’s base in which she simply disregarded as unserious. Hillary is a war monger just like McCain and anyone who thinks different should wake up.

Clinton Slams “Activist Base of the Democratic Party”–Private Remarks Reveal Contempt for Dems

by Dean Powers

 Almost 24 hours have passed since the Huffington Post published a damning audio of Clinton disparaging the “activist base of the Democratic Party,” and the New York Times has absolutely ignored it. By this time last week, the Times had written about 258 stories about Obama’s “elitist” views, as revealed in, like, 16 words in San Francisco.

Just after her defeats on Super Tuesday last February, Hillary toldthe VIPs, “We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

To me, this is about the stupidest thing her campaign could have done, and I am not the only one.

Talk about elitist…When are we who believe the Iraq War is bad for our treasury, bad for our soldiers and their families, bad for the environment, bad for Democracy, bad for our foreign relations, bad for gas prices, and bad for American jobs, green collar or otherwise, going to stop being treated like third-rate citizens? When will our opinions have an audience with a Democrat in Washington, let alone the Republicans? When will the millions of Americans, diverse in race and gender and gender orientation and socioeconomic status, stop being lumped together in the “kook fringe” category and dismissed every time they decide to think differently than well-connected Washington insiders? It’s degrading, and offensive to be reduced to a category box and written off. People of color in America deal with it every day, on a far more emotionally challenging level, and women deal with it, but it is offensive and degrading nonetheless. I’d expect this breathtaking haughtiness from a Republican, but from Hillary Clinton?

If there are any Democrats left in Pennsylvania who still think that Clinton cares about their interest in pulling out of Iraq, to escape war with Iran, to escape the American escalation of conflict throughout the world…reconsider now. After running a campaign that openly shuns the “activist base of the Democratic Party,” how can we expect her to differ substantively from Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.)?

Well, Dean, should I explain it to you? There is virtually no difference between Trent the Scumbag Lott and Hillary the Scumslut Clinton. They think, vote, adhere to the same war mongering Bush-Lite, neocon driven, Big Money (Big Military Spending) in the guise of America’s protection.

“Activist base of the Democratic Party.” “I don’t agree with them.” “Activist base of the Democratic Party.” “I don’t agree with them.” “I don’t agree with the activist base of the Democratic Party.”

Let’s break out the microscope that the media used to dissect Obama’s “bitter” comments because I don’t quite understand what she’s really trying to say here.

Where is the media now? If they love controversy, they have the biggest, most newsworthy controversy since the primaries began. Here is Clinton basically repudiating her base, and its coming out on the eve of THE BIGGEST Pennsylvania primary ever. This tape is going to absolutely destroy the Clinton campaign.

The calls for her resignation will treble by the end of this weekend. With every new sign of her contempt for the very voters she wants to step on in her ascent to the presidency, it ought to be clear that these voters are voting for their own silencing and negation when they vote for Clinton. It ought to be clear that they are voting against the very beliefs that make the Democratic Party the greatest party in the world. If Clinton isn’t proud of that tradition, then she shouldn’t be running as a Democrat. If Clinton isn’t proud of the Democratic base, then the Democratic base in Pennsylvania ought to leave it up to the Republicans to win Clinton the primary nomination.

As I have said countless times, I am no Democrat, but a woman who is touting the presidential qualifications she continually stresses on us should, at the very least, stick to the Party that brung her to the dance. HiLLiebermann in action.

Clinton ought to know that the Democratic base doesn’t split…not these days. In the last several years, the Democratic base has grown strong together, united by the disparagements of the right wing, which for too long and too often mocked and taunted “Northeast liberals.” We grew stronger together, and we stood strongly together when we all shared in the victories of 2006. All of us, united as a party in a way we had grown unaccustomed to.

In Washington, allies and foes are perhaps mutable and changing every day. That may explain how Clinton can do shots with John McCain one night, and with blue collar workers at a bar in Indiana the next, but the Democratic Party doesn’t split today. Not today. Not now.

We are Democrats all, united in brotherhood and sisterhood, who watched George W. Bush steal the elections in 2000 and 2004. We are Democrats all who opposed this useless, wasteful war in Iraq, whether at rallies or in spirit. We are Democrats all who care about green energy, and good jobs and health care and peace and the end of corporate intimidation, recklessness and hegemony. We always have stood together, through the high opinion polls for George W. Bush and the low. And we always will.

Not this redneck. If Hillary gets the Dem nod, there is no chance in a million years I would vote for her. I, of course, can not vote for McCain, so I am looking very closely at third party candidates. For if this country allows the bogus Big Money media to pick our candidates for us again this year, without an “Awakening” of our own, I will be convinced of our impending doom as a nation.

So Clinton keeps showing us exactly how she feels about us, but she keeps forgetting that the primaries aren’t over yet. She keeps forgetting that before she can dismiss the Democratic base and rehire Mark Penn, to negotiate free trade agreements; and forget about ending the war in Iraq and begin a new war in Iran, that she has to win OUR nod. The nomination of OUR PARTY: the proud “activist” party of the civil rights movement; the proud “activist” party during the grape strikes for Cesar Chavez’s laborers; the proud “activist” party that lobbied for de-escalation in Vietnam.

Our “activist base” is every registered Democrat because to even register as a Democrat in these days in America is to invite ugly homophobic attacks from the right wing; is to invite comparisons to Communists and Stalinists. To register Democrat is to display courage when the overwhelming majority of media pundits and journalists slant to the extreme conservative branch of the corporate Republican Party.

Clinton ought to apologize to the supporters she has fooled so far, and explain clearly to Democratic voters in Pennsylvania that their opinions will not be welcome anymore after their ballot has been cast. She ought to apologize to the Democratic Party for confusing its visions of peace, and energy independence and international respect with those of William Kristol. Clinton must account for her remarks and her attitude toward the Democratic base.

But, alas, it has never been about the Party for her. It is about power. Period. Someone who wants power this much, one that will allienate her base to gain political advantage from the right is not deserving of the office.

Obama Flips Off Clinton and Laughs About It (LOL: Me, Too… snicker)

Hillary Clinton and Political Expediency (Flip-Flopping to the Whitehouse)

Hillary has found herself caught up in lies and stretches of the truth, trying to gather more support for her failing campaign. Signs of desperation? It seems that with every day there is another dumb-ass move.

I almost expect this from presidential candidates, for they all will seemingly do or say anything to obtain the position (with the exception of a few talented and honorable 3rd party candidates).

Jonathon Turley notes that Senator Clinton is now pushing the meme that she is all about the electoral college and that delegates can vote any way they so desire, especially the Super Delegates. The electoral college and the Super Delegates scheme basically work very similarly:

Hillary Clinton’s superdelegate strategy has highlighted the flaws in our electoral college system — and the need to finally embrace democracy in its truest form in the selection of the President of the United States. The column below explores the controversy.

Granted, Professor Turley’s article isn’t a bash against Clinton (at least, fully frontal), but is more an evaluation of the electoral college system, which he deems (and I agree) a “Constitutional Relic”.

HEADLINE: Unequal votes;
The Electoral College is a relic of elitist Framers who didn’t fully trust ‘the people.’ Yet the Democratic Party’s superdelegate system relies on the same disturbing principle.

It appears that the Electoral College has finally found a passionate advocate. Indeed, the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton has been talking so much about the Electoral College, one would think she was an alumna.

In her campaign for superdelegates, Clinton has been insisting that it is irrelevant whether Barack Obama receives the majority of votes or even the majority of states. It is all about the Electoral College; therefore, voters in red states who chose Obama do not really count because, as Democrats, they will not have any say in the general election.

Clinton is, of course, correct.

And she is correct. Not correct that this SHOULD be the way, but that this IS the way it is (and I agree that it should be changed). It was derived because the elitist founders didn’t trust the citizenry with electing the upper house (originally, they were elected by the House of Representatives).

The Electoral College and the superdelegate system work on the same premise: Citizens sometimes cannot be entirely trusted to choose the next president. Clinton last week even dismissed the notion of “pledged” (or non-super) delegates as a “misnomer,” suggesting that they are free to disregard the will of voters in choosing a nominee.

The senator of New York has stressed that such delegates would not be swayed by the “passion” and oratory of Obama. Since many of Obama’s states are locks for the Republicans in the Electoral College come November, her campaign has called on the party leadership to recognize that she is more electable in a system that does not recognize the national majorities.

Clinton would have found great allies in the Framers. Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry warned that “the people are uninformed and would be misled by a few designing men.” Even George Mason, the great advocate of the Bill of Rights, dismissed direct election due to the inability of ordinary citizens to actually see and hear candidates, given the country’s size: “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper magistrate to the people as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”

Now, they may have had a point for the time and the lack of communication in comparison to today. But, today, even Mrs Clinton can’t take a dump without the world knowing it. She certainly can’t make up a “sniper story” without the world having access to the truth on tape (something the founding fathers probably couldn’t even imagine, much less use to form a election/voting system).

So, was there a time that they may have been correct in their assessment? Entirely possible… or they may have just been elitist assholes in need of power. Kind of moot, now.

What is not moot, is how Sen Clinton can flip-flop about her feelings regarding this issue only when it seems to affect her negatively.

Despite our immense respect for the Framers, they were not perfect. Even so, they did possess the humility to acknowledge that time could prove them wrong and created a process by which we could amend the Constitution. We have proved them wrong about the ability of ordinary citizens to make decisions directly about their government; we have proved better than their expectations.

One politician understood that in 2000, stating, “We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. … We should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

It was Hillary Clinton.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of the USA TODAY board of contributors.

Prof Turley has one of the most excellent blogs on the net (in my opinion).

Democrats and ReTHUGlicans: Just Two Faces of the Same Big Money Party

Freaky Sex Friday: Comparing Political Whores

WARNING: Rough Language