Is Hillary hurting her 2016 chances by not backing peace with Iran?

Hillary Clinton, arguably, sunk herself with progressives during the 2008 presidential campaign by voting for war with Iraq in 2002.

This is not to say that Obama’s hands are clean, or cleaner. In 2008 he could only fall back on a statement he had made about what he would have done, but was never called on, up to that point, to do — support or oppose a war. Still, that was enough.

Clinton’s defense of her pro-war vote in 2002 certainly did her no favors, and may have swung the primary against her. M.J. Rosenberg, writing at the Huffington Post and the excellent Washington Spectator (online edition), is certain of it:

There can be little doubt that Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 nomination for president because she voted to authorize the Iraq War. If she had opposed it, there would have been no rationale for the Obama candidacy. It is likely that she, not President Obama, would now be in the White House.

Then he adds, “It seems crazy. But Clinton might see history repeat itself.” Intrigued? Read on.

How close are we to war with Iran?

The recent State Department–brokered peace deal with Iran seems almost assured, but not quite. Rosenberg (my emphasis and paragraphing throughout):

Today President Obama’s effort to achieve a peaceful resolution of our differences with Iran through diplomacy and not war is under serious attack by the same neoconservative claque that promoted the Iraq war. Almost a veto-proof majority of senators is supporting new Iran sanctions that would, if implemented, almost surely cause the Iranians to walk away from the negotiating table. According to the White House, that would greatly increase the chances for war.

Obama, for his part and to his credit, came out strongly in support of peace with Iran in his State of the Union address:

If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

That’s pretty forceful, not weak-willed at all. But notice that Rosenberg wrote “almost a veto-proof majority”. Just a few Senate votes could swing it toward war. And make no mistake about whose water those warrior senators are carrying — the heavy water of AIPAC and the pro-Likud Israel lobby. (There are anti-Likud pro-Israel lobbyists as well, but they are much weaker in terms of funding and influence.)

On that upcoming Senate vote, here’s Robert Naiman, writing in the Huffington Post:

Now comes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbying the Democratic Senate for war with Iran. AIPAC wants the Democratic Senate to pass S. 1881, a new Iran sanctions bill, over the strong objections of the Obama administration. The administration and ten Senate Democratic committee chairs, along with the U.S. intelligence community say that passage of S. 1881 would blow up U.S. diplomacy with Iran and put the U.S. on a path to yet another disastrous Middle East war.

At this writing, S. 1881 has 54 co-sponsors: 38 Republicans and 16 Democrats (counting Menendez, the lead sponsor.)

As of a few weeks ago, 54 senators supported S. 1881, the War with Iran bill (which they call something else, I’m sure). That number could be even larger today. And keep in mind, war with Iran would be a disaster, and not just because of the shiny new price of gasoline.

Is Clinton really vulnerable on Iran?

Back to Hillary. So far she’s been silent on increased sanctions with Iran — in other words, silent on peace with Iran, since the purpose of increasing the sanctions is to sabotage Obama’s peace initiative. Does she need to speak? Back to Rosenberg:

But where is his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton? So far she has had nothing to say about the congressional initiative to block Obama’s Iran diplomacy. But she has to know that if she forcefully supported what President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are trying to do, unsure Democrats would likely follow her lead.

I happen to agree. This is an excellent chance for Hillary Clinton to correct an old mistake, her support for Bush’s Iraq War. If you’re a Hillary supporter, you should be cheering for her to seize that opportunity.

But it’s another opportunity for her as well. According to Rosenberg, she could sabotage or save her own next chance to be president:

Hopefully she will support President Obama and make clear that the United States will pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran — not war, by us or Israel — if she becomes president. If she won’t do that, if she makes the same mistake twice, progressive Democrats will need to find another candidate. Just like we did last time.

And given that she tarred herself the first time with a pro-war position, she’s especially vulnerable again this time. People won’t forget.

What should Hillary do? What should her supporters do?

If Hillary wants to put to rest the ghost of the 2008 campaign, she can support her Democratic president’s initiative to bring needed peace to the Middle East this year. Would she not want that support herself, if she were president?

If Hillary’s many supporters want to strengthen her hand in the run-up to 2016, they can encourage her to speak, now, while it still matters.

Because if she doesn’t put that old dog to rest, it could waken to bite her a second time. If you need help remembering, here is where she got bit the first time. A sample:

Expect to see this whole speech on a loop in 2015 and 2016 if she’s not proactive. Tick tick tick? If you support her now, you may want to help her now.

Ask Hillary to support peace with Iran

If you want to do her a favor, ask Hillary Clinton to support peace with Iran. Tell her the Straits of Hormuz are whispering in your ear.

The easily blocked Straits of Hormuz

The easily blocked Straits of Hormuz

Tick tick tick …


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

54 Responses to “Is Hillary hurting her 2016 chances by not backing peace with Iran?”

  1. Pluto Animus says:

    Ratification of the treaty is ‘peace’?

    Failure to ratify is ‘war’?

    Pretty unsophisticated thinking. Sounds more like the way conservatives ‘think’.

  2. Naja pallida says:

    The image neglects to note that the US Navy Fifth Fleet essentially occupies all the waters just outside their territorial limit, and even frequently travels through their territorial waters. No ship can come or go from Iran without first being cleared by at least two carrier strike groups and at least a dozen other support vessels.

  3. Bill_Perdue says:

    Thanks. I missed them both. And welcome.

  4. Robert Barsocchini says:

    You may have seen this, too, from the Wall Street Journal, regarding Hillary’s involvement in the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan and the pipeline deals the US had been working on, with the Taliban, for over a decade:

    “…both Chevron and Exxon-Mobil expressed interest in TAPI [the pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan]. Turkmenistan President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow received a letter backing Chevron’s project from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”


    The president of Turkmenistan had wanted signed proof of US government commitment to the project, so Hillary guaranteed government backing for it, and supported a massive influx of troops into Afghanistan – very clearly, given the wider context, less for “enduring freedom” than “enduring Chevron”.

    It’s that good old WalMart pragmatism.

  5. Bill_Perdue says:

    Thanks, I had skimmed that but must have skipped over that sentence. One of the dangers of having taken a speed reading class as a youth. I’ll file the citation along with the info about attacks on water treatment plants in my H Clinton file – The Senator from the great state of WalMart.

  6. cambridgemac says:

    Iran has never been belligerent, nor Persia before it. It’s been over 200 years since Persia/Iran launched an aggressive war. We, on the other hand, have launched dozens.

  7. Bill_Perdue says:

    “the US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, which she helped oversee, and which killed at minimum 500,000 Iraqi children… ” What is the source for helping to oversee the embargo? I haven’t seen it before.

  8. Bill_Perdue says:

    ‘If possession of a nuclear weapon by an unstable and belligerent regime was unthinkable and unacceptable, we’d have already gone to war with North Korea the zionist bunkerstadt.

  9. Bill_Perdue says:

    ‘ should stay away from the clintons’. And any Democrat or Republican.

  10. Bill_Perdue says:

    She is. In addition to being a Islamophobic racist and a supporter of the zionist bunkerstadt she’s in bed with Obama and his crew of bankster enablers.

    Democrats, all of them, are Republicans in disguise. That includes Warren and the latest tool at Fox, Kucinich.

    Warren voted to confirm John Brennan to run the CIA. Brennan is a war criminal. “President Obama has expended extraordinary efforts to protect from accountability all Bush-era officials responsible for torture, rendition and warrantless eavesdropping, programs that numerous human rights groups have insisted constitute war crimes and violations of U.S. criminal law. … The president’s nomination on Monday of John O. Brennan, a Bush-era C.I.A. official, to head the C.I.A. illustrates how complete this disturbing process now is.”

    Warren also voted for the confirmation of Obama’s billionaire friend Penny Pritzker as Secretary of Commerce. ” Why ‘unions don’t like’ Penny
    Pritzker – Pritzker’s nomination as Secretary of Commerce shows how the
    Democratic party is leaning towards the rich… She raised some $745m
    for Obama’s 2008 presidential run, and was influential in 2012 as well
    though quieter. Perhaps the campaign’s tough tone on wealth soured her, or perhaps the appearance of closeness to someone who, as Jodi Kantor and Nicholas Confessore in the New York Times noted at the time, was engaged in some of the same shady practices as Mitt Romney – and had her very own subprime scandal to boot. ”

  11. Robert Barsocchini says:

    Another thing Hillary is silent on: the US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, which she helped oversee, and which killed at minimum 500,000 Iraqi children, with estimates going way over a million.

    Hillary’s closest informal adviser and also close friend is Madeleine Albricht, Bill Clinton’s sec of state, who famously said killing 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it”. She is now widely known as Iraq’s Grim Reaper.

    The Obama white house gave Iraq’s Grim Reaper, in 2012, the highest honor available for a civilian: the presidential medal of freedom.

    I repeat: that woman is Hillary’s closest informal adviser.

    It makes perfect sense. Clinton is an extremely violent person.

    Check out her pro-war record, here:

    And check out her involvement in the USA’s illegal war against Afghanistan, here:

  12. BeccaM says:

    Reagan ran for the GOP nomination twice — 68 and 76 — before winning the nomination and the presidency in 1980.

  13. Jose says:

    Hillary is hurting her chances by not promoting marijuana legalization. Decriminalization is a scam to keep it illegal.

  14. Ford Prefect says:

    Also Wall Street, since they’re the ones that broker all the arms sales (probably our biggest export at this point). They’re totally pro-war because profits.

  15. Ford Prefect says:

    She also has a lot of inside information of the type that confirms US diplomacy might very well fail… possibly because it’s intended to fail–we can’t say one way or the other what the WH’s intent is here because Strategic Ambiguity. As such, it would be silly of her to get out in front of it, since then it would also stick to her if things go sideways.

  16. Ford Prefect says:

    LIke most politicians, HIllary is avoiding entanglement on this issue so she can end up on the “winning side” of the debate. It’s also called “leading from behind.” Wait to see how things shake out and then bravely stake out that position, as if it was hers all along.

    Given that HRC is brazenly pro-war, for her to take anything resembling an anti-war position might prove damaging to her donor base, much of which also wants to turn Tehran into glass and reap some fantastical profits from the chaos. OTOH, if she stakes out the pro-war position, she runs the very real risk of losing the argument, since I don’t see much of any public support for it at the moment. Only crazy Neo-Cons and Israel Firsters can be counted in that camp. Oh, and the Saudis, of course. She saw what happened with Obama’s abortive attempt at launching a new major war in Syria, so I’m sure that sticks in the minds of many potential candidates.

    That said, two years away from being anointed Empress–assuming that’s how it goes, which is probably getting ahead of things–means not getting too caught up in such controversies now. Anyone in such a position will likely be just as absent from the fight as she is. It’s only prudent. It’s best to let the nutters destroy themselves and watch from a safe distance.

  17. silas1898 says:

    It happened in 1968. The racist Democrats went Wallace, the anti-war Democrats stayed home, the rest went Humphrey and Nixon won.

    It happened in 1992. A huge mass of Republicans went for Perot and Clinton won.

    The best way is the wingnut path. Start weeding out the corporatists at the local level and slowly take over the party and nominate a non-corporatist who can win.

  18. HolyMoly says:

    If, as is my hope, she fails to get the nomination/win the presidency this time, the Clinton curse will be lifted. It seems to be two strikes and you’re out in the world of presidential politics, if you don’t get the nomination the first time. Only one strike if you get the nomination and lose the general election. One notable exception was William Jennings Bryan, who I believe won the nomination three times.

    Actually it’s not just the Clinton curse. It’s more like the Clinton-Bush curse. Papa Bush, Bill Clinton, Baby Bush, would have been Hillary if not for the Obama anomaly. Then what? Jeb? Some younger Bush after someone can keep him sober and out of trouble long enough? Chelsea? Of course I can’t know that would happen, but I tend to get the feeling that we have a couple of royal dynasties. Same as with the Kennedys. Or the Byrds in Virginia (and West Virginia after the Civil War).

  19. BeccaM says:

    This is all because we live in an era of Bread and Circuses. The pretense that there’s true uncertainty the political realm is akin to believing that televised wrestling is real.

  20. BeccaM says:

    I haven’t forgotten at all. Clinton and his team of neo-liberal corporatists were desperate to finish destroying the ideal of a guaranteed no-risk retirement pension through further privatization and mandated stock market investment. As if the lessons of the IRA, Roth, and 401k weren’t enough.

    When that failed, they decided to after people’s real estate equity. And that worked.

    Like George Carlin always said, “They’re coming for your money.”

  21. BeccaM says:

    The reason AIPAC has struck now is because they know that they can’t start a war if Iran agrees to end the 20% enrichment.

    Won’t stop ’em from trying though. Judging from the frenzy in Congress, it seems to me like they’re calling in all their markers to force Iran away from the negotiating table.

  22. MyrddinWilt says:

    I don’t think the Iran issue will affect Hilary because she is implicitly backing the administration position that the negotiations should be left to the administration and the administration alone at this point.

    If Hilary joined in now it would polarize the issue and cause Republicans to oppose her position simply because she is supporting it. So that would hurt rather than help the administration’s efforts.

    At this point it is rather clear that AIPAC has lost and there won’t be a vote on their proposal to sabotage the talks in the Senate. Their bill is actually losing support at the moment.

    The reason AIPAC has struck now is because they know that they can’t start a war if Iran agrees to end the 20% enrichment.

  23. nicho says:

    Let’s not forget that Hill and Bill Inc. had planned to dismantle Social Security, right after they destroyed the welfare programs, and implemented NAFTA. It took Monica Lewinsky on bended knee to put the kibosh on those plans.

  24. PeteWa says:

    why would I want to do a hawkish neo-liberal a favor?

  25. Monophylos Fortikos says:

    I think it’s amusing how politicians think they are keeping us in suspense about whether or not they’ll run.

    God, you said it. It’s particularly stupid a game when Clinton’s playing it–I mean, for fuck’s sake, she’s already run for President but didn’t quite make it. Of course she’s going to make another try! But this is America and being an American politician means pretending that you really don’t want to run for office, really you just want to retire to the countryside with your loved ones to knit pillows or make pot cheese or whatever, but it’s the people who demand that you come forth from retirement to save them from the ills that beset the nation.

    Ugh, I’m so sick of this Cincinnatus bullshit. So fucking sick of it.

  26. HolyMoly says:

    I think it’s amusing how politicians think they are keeping us in suspense about whether or not they’ll run. They play coy for as long as they can, then form an “exploratory committee” but are not committing to a run (really, just seeing if they can amass nauseatingly high amounts of cash, with strings attached), then the pre-announcement announcement, then the announcement. And the media wonders, “Could her announcement be that she’s running for president?” Duh!

    Christie the same thing, unless too many incriminating skeletons come out of the closet between now and then.

    The fact that she resigned from State three years prior to campaign season is obvious enough. Look for increasing public appearances, speeches, etc., that are packed full of words, none of which will take a concrete stance on any of the major issues.

  27. karmanot says:

    Israel is an apartheid rogue state.

  28. karmanot says:

    A line from Leonard Cohen: “——while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud.”

  29. karmanot says:

    If I could remember to pray or even had the will to do so it would be that Killery’s boat would sink to the bottom of the electoral ocean.

  30. Indigo says:

    Well, first of all, Hillary continues to say that she’s only considering running, not that she is running.
    And second of all, the Iran Conversation is ongoing, she (and the rest of us) can hop in and out on that one without much effect one way or the other. And then third of all, and this is my point with Hillary, if we’re agreed that we’re going to go ahead with development of our Police State (aka Surveillance State), then Hillary’s the guy for the job. I trust her to assemble a Surveillance State [ahem] that works effectively with very little ripple on the surface of our public life (apart from los desaparecidios who have not yet been noticed).

  31. HolyMoly says:

    It didn’t HAPPEN in 2000, 2008, 2012. It has NEVER happened. That’s why it didn’t work. I’m talking mass migration. Something on the order of 30% to 50% of traditional Democratic voters bolting. If only a small number of voters bolt, the message can easily be spun. Look at how the Republicans spin their losses (which are often squeakers): “it must be because we’re not extreme enough!”, not realizing that their extreme positions are often what costs them in the first place. Democrats have in the past interpreted their losses as not being “tough” or “manly” enough. And now we have a choice between Republicans and Republican-lite. Or running away from the “liberal” label as if it’s a dirty word.

    And no it won’t happen in 2016, 2020, or anytime beyond. The reason being that many people might think it’s a great idea, but it’s more of an “I’ll do it if you do it” type of approach when it comes to voting time. No one wants to take that leap, thinking they’ll be the only ones. And they fear the consequences if they all do vote out the Democrats. “Hillary might be awful, but Christie/whoever is GOD-awful.” The lesser of two evils tends to feel like the safest alternative, but it’s the big picture, the long term that needs to be taken into account.

  32. BeccaM says:

    War should always be the last resort and viewed as nothing but a failure. A failure of will, morals, and ethics, as well as foresight.

    Unfortunately, while war is evil, it nevertheless serves the interests of the Powers That Be. For politicians, it gives them a handy target for jingoistic fear-mongering. For the intelligence and national security bureaucracy, it allows them to continue expanding their power and control into every aspect of life. And of course, it generates huge piles of unaccountable cash and budgets for the military/industrial complex. Plus citizens can be threatened as seditious traitors for criticizing the war, and only a few see a problem with it and are willing to speak out.

    If possession of a nuclear weapon by an unstable and belligerent regime was unthinkable and unacceptable, we’d have already gone to war with North Korea. And America would’ve been pressuring Israel to give up its nukes, because they really aren’t responsible for Israel not having been attacked in war since the 1970s — the tacit backing of America itself is enough deterrent, and I would argue that modern weaponry makes nukes all but obsolete anyway.

    No, the real difference here with Iran is twofold. One is that the money-gusher unleashed in 2001 against Afghanistan and opened even wider with the illegal Iraq war is threatening to be constrained. And if America goes back to a peacetime footing, people might start asking questions like, “Does the government really need all these powers? And does the military budget need to keep doubling every five years?” The other difference is AIPAC is constantly trying to goad America to commit its resources — money and lives — and to take on all the animus in the Middle East, so that Israel is always and forever the biggest fish in a bloodsoaked pond.

  33. BrianG says:

    The Michael Grimm fundraising scandal makes me wonder just how many of our elected leaders are bought and paid for even on questions of war and peace. The scary part is just how many GOP representatives might be under the thumb not of AIPAC but of Netenyahu. Why else would Israel be impeding the FBI investigation? Just something else to ponder during these exciting times.

  34. silas1898 says:

    It didn’t work in 2000. It won’t work in 2016.

  35. smkngman3 says:

    If we ended the illegal influence of AIPAC we might have better relations in the ME!

  36. Silver_Witch says:

    Indeed and as aside, perhaps if the Republican has won they would have truly f’d up the country enough to demonstrate their true intent to destroy the American way for most american’s. I agree that is it very hard to put the consequences on children (or democrats), but IT MUST BE DONE….and follow-through – don’t let them have the rights back early…..

  37. ronbo says:

    Just imagine how horribly awful the Republican candidate (selected also by the 1%) must be to drive the American public into supporting Hillary, (another corporatist Democrat).

    They can’t choose a Paul (might get away from them), a Cruz (fur-ih-ner), a tea jihadist (just too crazy) … dear Lord, no, not… no not THAT woman…Bachman. National treasure misogynist, Rush, might explode from both heads. Oh… the horror… and the joy… all mixed up in a sloppy black-light nightmare!

    Cleanse your pallet now,,, for goodness sakes.

  38. HolyMoly says:

    I have been thinking along those lines since the last election. If there were a third-party candidate worth his/her salt, I’d love to see a mass migration of Democratic votes in that direction, so much so that it costs the election.

    I’m no fan of seeing a Republican in the White House, but sometimes I get the feeling that not much different would have happened, domestically at least, with Romney or McCain in the Oval Office. Repeal of DADT is about the only thing that would have been different, but as I have said before, it’s wonderful that gays can serve openly now, but the sad truth is that you can still be illegally eavesdropped on by the NSA, among other things. Gays have gained one more right, but are still deficient — along with the rest of us — on a whole slew of other rights. If Hillary was sitting in the WH right now, I have no doubt that we’d be experiencing much the same thing. In foreign affairs, the war in Iraq would still be blazing on, and Obama only withdrew with great reluctance (he attempted to persuade Maliki to allow us to stay without the threat of prosecution of U.S. troops for violations of Iraqi law).

    Just like with children, you sometimes have to take things from them, put them on restriction, etc., to show them that there are consequences to their actions. It definitely hurts to have to do those things, but it’s done for the best of reasons. We want responsible children to grow into responsible adults. The Democratic party needs to be punished as well, until they begin to respond to those they’re supposed to be representing (not just the top 1%). I think they’d start to get the picture pretty quickly, though we might have to go through one more election cycle with candidates that talk the talk in order to get the votes (like Obama did in 2008) and offer a few crumbs to the masses, but that’s not a time for the electorate to forgive and forget. They need to know that it’s whole hog or they can go home and write their memoirs.

  39. nicho says:

    You can be certain of one thing: Whoever wins the presidency in 2016 will be a corporatist — through and through. If anyone who is not a corporatist stooge shows any signs of even getting close to the White House, the corporatocracy will make sure they are eliminated — with extreme prejudice, if necessary.

  40. ronbo says:

    So very, very, painfully true. Let’s hope that Warren isn’t simply another corporatist “plant”.

  41. Silver_Witch says:

    Yes for Senator Bernie Sanders…..

    We do not know enough about Senator Warren and might just end up with another President Obama. Her previous statements are

    “The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.

    What does Senator Warren consider an escape hatch – is the diplomatic process an “escape hatch” are sanctions her only stance. Warren seems to support a “dual track” deal – we shall see if that means she is hawkish or just cautious.

  42. lilyannerose says:

    She better be worried I lived in Washington State in 2008 and was able to drown out the organized Team Hilary at caucus paving the way for Obama’s win within that caucus. I ripped into Hilary over the Iran vote. They didn’t see me coming and I knew I was on solid ground due to several older Vets I knew who had seen action during George the first’s ridiculous military action they knew they had been had and don’t think for a minute I didn’t use it.

  43. Silver_Witch says:

    Let us all hope she shoots herself directly in the foot. We, the liberals, the democrat, whatever we all define ourselves as, all need to have a strong candidate without baggage, who cares for the common man, the worker bees.

    I believe a woman in the White House would be a wonderful thing, let that be a good, strong woman and if we have to wait a few election cycles so be it. Let us not support Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman, or the Lessor of Two Evils.

    I am quite frankly so beyond tired of voting for the lessor of two…I want to have a candidate that I can vote for because I respect and honor that candidate and believe she or he represent me in a very full and meaningful way.

  44. dula says:

    Neoliberals can’t help it. It’s what they do.

  45. pricknick says:

    I long ago gave up caring what the Clintons do.

  46. ehmkec says:

    In the worst case it seems Clinton will be on the same page as her running opponent in ’16 and it will be a non-campaign issue. BUT, this spring will be ‘Peak-Iran’ and the die will be cast to giving peace a chance. Hillary will buy-in and sternly convince the world (but not the GOP) for support.

  47. BoulderFinFan says:

    hillary herself is in the pocket of AIPAC and other Israeli right wing lobbies. She said she would have attacked Syria and I bet she would start a war with Iran. Any progressive that’s had enough of wars should stay away from the clintons.

  48. BillFromPA says:

    Giving diplomacy a fair chance in any foreign relations dispute should be a no-brainer.

  49. jomicur says:

    Whatever she is, Hillary Clinton is no fool. Backing peace doesn’t bring in campaign contributions from defense contractors. She knows perfectly well which side of the bread her butter is on.

  50. FLL says:

    Whichever way Hillary goes on this, it will be predictive of her success in the 2016 primaries. This was one of your most insightful posts, GP. You nailed it.

  51. ronbo says:

    Hillary is too busy lining up donations to care about policy. The little people don’t seem to matter to anyone who is dealing in millions. (I know there are exceptions…ie Bill Gates, etc…)

    We need to move away from corporate profit-centered politicians. I want MORE heaven on earth and 1% seem to only want more of YOUR money. Yeah for Sen. Sanders, Sen. Warren, Rep. Cleaver, Rep. Grayson, etc…!

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS