Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WSJ Op-Ed: Judgment, Not Experience, Makes A Leader

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:44 PM
Original message
WSJ Op-Ed: Judgment, Not Experience, Makes A Leader
This says it better than I ever could.

You're familiar with Warren Bennis, right? Basically, he is the pioneer in the academic field of leadership studies -- practically inventing the field, and then spending decades analyzing organizations to determine what makes a great leader. He's been around long enough to have advised both Kennedy and Reagan on his findings.

Well, along with Noel Tichy, he has an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal which unfortunately lies behind a subscription wall, but I can at least give you a taste:

After a five-year study of leadership covering virtually all sectors of American life, we came to the inescapable conclusion that judgment regularly trumps experience. Our central finding is that judgment is the core, the nucleus of exemplary leadership. With good judgment, little else matters. Without it, nothing else matters.

Take any leader, a U.S. president, a Fortune 100 CEO, a big-league coach, wartime general, you name it. Chances are you remember them for their best and worst calls. Can anyone forget that Harry Truman issued the order to drop the first atom bomb? Or Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis? When Nixon comes to mind, so does Watergate. The first George Bush: "Read my lips." Clinton? Monica. George W.? Iraq.

Leadership is, at its marrow, the chronicle of judgment calls. These will inevitably write the leader's legacy. Don't get us wrong. We are not discounting the importance of experience. Seminal and appropriate experiences must be drawn on and understood before judgments can be informed. But experience is no guarantee of good judgment. There is a huge difference between 20 years of experience that advances one's learning and one year of experience repeated 20 times.

In fact, there are numerous times when past experiences can prevent wise judgments. Barbara Tuchman long ago observed how generals tend to fight the last war, refusing to face new realities, almost always with disastrous consequences. And often, especially in today's dizzying world, we need to understand what Zen Buddhists call the "beginner's mind," which recognizes the value of fresh insight unfettered by experience. In this more contemporary view, the compelling idea is the novel one. Perhaps no one articulated the nature of the beginner's mind better than the composer Hector Berlioz when he said of his more popular rival Camille Saint-Saëns: "He knows everything. All he lacks is inexperience."

Judgment isn't quite an unnatural act, but it also doesn't come naturally. And speaking from decades of experience, we're not sure how to teach it. (We know it can be learned.) Wisely processed experience, reflection, valid sources of timely information, an openness to the unbidden and character are critical components of judgment as well. As David McCullough reminds us over and over again, "Character counts in the presidency more than any other single quality."

Yes, Mrs. Clinton, experience is not without value. But judgment, fed by solid character, should determine the choice of our next president.


Or, as Dr. Gregory House put it, "I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is -- maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is -- doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong."

Judgment doesn't come from polling; it comes from within. And when it comes to Sen. Clinton, it's hard to think of a decisive moment in her life when she was really, really right in the way we need our next President to be.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/29/151817/29


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Um...give me a case for a "defining moment" for the other Dem
candidates...the WSJ editorial page is run by right-wing kooks--thanks for posting something worthless just to bash Hilary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Um...this is a WSJ op-ed, not a WSJ editorial
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 12:00 AM by ClarkUSA
Op-Eds are not written by editors. They are written by people unconnected with the paper. Oh, and there have been plenty of WSJ op-eds over the years
by Democrats like Wes Clark (who has endorsed Hillary Clinton).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. "We cannot let Saddam Hussein develop nuclear weapons"
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 12:58 AM by lamprey
John Edwards, 2003, post NIE report that Saddam had no nuclear capacity. He says he didn't read it. That's John's defining moment. He has also said he didn't read the IWR. Why would a lawyer want to read legislation anyway? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. Ummm - other candidates merely make "mistakes" (i.e. - sponsoring IWR)
and are less than saintly (i,e, - never taking a pro-bono case in a lucrative career). Hillary however....WSJ is my guide! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. An exceptional article and right to the heart of the matter. judgment and character.
obama has this in abundance. With HRC....not so much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. I agree.
Gobama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is why I haven't made my choice yet
Almost all of them voted for this war or have made decisions that I think were lacking. I know no one is perfect but even I knew the reasons for going into Iraq were bogus and I am just a regular person. I am looking for a Mr. Smith goes to washington type of person cause we are going to need one with all that is coming up, ie climate change, peak oil, and the ecomonic state of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. In the movie, Mr. Smith was appointed to fill a seat vacated by a Senator's death
Not many Mister Smith types are going to get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steely_Dan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Leadership is Critical
It's funny you would mention "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." That very term was used to describe Joe Biden on an earlier thread today. If you are undecided, you might want to take a look at that thread. I think it is titled "Joe Biden."

-P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I have sent him a little donation
as well as a few others for the reason that I want to see the media give them some attention and it seems money is the medias criteria for taking anyone seriously. I like Biden for his foreign policy experience which is another biggie that the next prez will need to deal with, ie..to repair some of the damage that has been done by this admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
25. I could have written the very same thing.
The judgment of all of the candidates has been sorely lacking - and that includes Dennis Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
9. Yeah! jesse helms
had experience up the yin yang..that didn't help his judgement, did it?

And the integrity of the person as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
10. Obama has big ears.
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 12:53 AM by calteacherguy
Figuratively speaking :-)

That's important in a leader. We need someone with the temperment and capacity to listen to a variety of viewpoints, and then excercise their own sound, wise judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
12. The WSJ bashing Hillary shows exactly who they're scared of
Hillary Clinton has very good judgement and very solid character. Better judgement and character I would say than anyone else on the Democratic primary stage. Certainly better than anyone working at the Wall Street Journal soliciting editorials to scare Democrats away from nominating their best candidate in over a decade.

The right is terrified of Hillary because they know how good Bill was in dealing with their insanity, and they know Hillary will be alot tougher on them than Bill ever was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snowbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. pffffffttttt.....


I guess that's why the WSJ's owner is raising money for "his girl"



The right is terrified of Hillary my ass.

They're working overtime to get her nominated ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. pfffffttt yourself
Hard to believe you'd fall for the conspiracy theory tripe of the Hillary haters on the left. How embarrassing.

Rupert Murdoch is a businessman, who knows which way the wind is blowing and is covering all his bases.

Only a political neophyte wouldn't understand a simple thing like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. WSJ isn't bashing Clinton, no more than a similar op-ed in WaPo or NYT would
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 03:15 AM by ClarkUSA
You're entitled to your opinions but I think others (like the learned authors of the op-ed) are entitled to theirs, too -- without being labelled as "Hillary
haters on the left."

Besides, nothing in the op-ed could be even remotely considered "bashing". The authors even give credence that experience counts if not as much as
judgment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Of course the WSJ is bashing Hillary
"Yes, Mrs. Clinton, experience is not without value. But judgment, fed by solid character, should determine the choice of our next president."

Just like you are. Who do you think you're fooling?

And I never called the op-ed authors "Hillary haters on the left". Try to read better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. One of the WSJ op-ed authors has an extensive background in leadership studies
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 03:39 AM by ClarkUSA
So I welcome his perspective on the judgment v. experience argument as it relates to the Democratic primary race frontrunners.
I can see why you don't, however, given his conclusions.

Partisan subjectivity is something I'll look forward to moving past after Feb. 5. Until then, best wishes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. I doubt you'll be able to get past your partisan subjectivity after Feb 05
It infuses everything you write.

And here you are, with "given his conclusions" admitting that the piece is basically a hit piece on Hillary, which you denied earlier.

And no notice of how you got the 'Hillary haters on the left' thing wrong either.

You are partisan to the point of dishonesty ClarkUSA. Alot like Obama, actually. No wonder you see him as such a good fit. He'll pretty much distort whatever he wants to gain points too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 02:56 AM
Response to Original message
15. Well, they're all guilty of bad judgment
Hillary and Edwards support for the Iraq war early on, Obama's recent campaigning with a homophobe and his religious talk. If you want judgment, it probably will be on who can build the best team, which would give Clinton the edge, simply because her husband has first hand experience as to what kind of team actually is effective in DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Some more than others.
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 03:39 AM by ClarkUSA
Some people are able to draw distinctions between dumb wars (and the votes that enable them) and responsible, informed foreign policy.

Some people can't.

It's all about judgment. I give the edge to Obama for having the judgment and character to oppose the publicly popular Iraq war from
the beginning.

But that''s just me... at least I'm consistent, though. That's the same reason I supported Wes Clark in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Wes Clark supported the IWR
Hillary opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

Obama would have voted for the IWR if he had been in the Senate. I could tell that about him from almost as soon as he started talking.

Hillary has better judgement and has certainly shown a greater degree of character throughout the primary campaign than Obama.

You appear to have a shallow understanding about all of this, but you sure do support Obama. There's probably no way you're ever going to see things for the way they really are in this campaign cycle. I would have thought you'd be better at this after having been through 2004 with Wes Clark. Clark was my guy, but not in the starry-eyed way so many of his supporters worshipped him.

You sound better equipped than to fall into that category. But then here you are babbling inanities like "Some people are able to draw distinctions between dumb wars (and the votes that enable them) and responsible, informed foreign policy. Some people can't." about Hillary. What tripe.

And no, you're not consistent wrt Wes Clark support. Almost everything you say crosses the line from what is to what you want it to be. Like so many of Obama's supporters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Clark did not support the Iraq war from the beginning. Neither did Obama.
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 03:58 AM by ClarkUSA
Clinton gave stirring speeches supporting the war while in the Senate. And she voted against the Levin amendment after she voted for
IWR, even though she never bothered to read the NIE report. Wow, that's some judgment right there. :sarcasm:

Everything else you're saying is indicative of the level of vitriolic invective common to Hillaryworlders on the defensive. Consider yourself ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Neither did Hillary
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 04:00 AM by Tactical Progressive
And no, Hillary didn't give speeches supporting the march to war. That's a flat-out lie.

Why do you do this? Why do you go past honest representation to make your points? Is it because they are unsupportable with honesty alone?

And the level of vitriol has been against Hillary by about a thousand to one for most of the past year. I also haven't used any invectives.

You are getting worse and worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. ...
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 06:59 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Wes Clark did not support the IWR
He's said so many times, unless you're calling him a liar, in which case I don't know why you supported him in 2004. Clark supported the Levin amendment, as Carl Levin himself told Clark's supporters at a WesPac conference, which called for a second vote by Congress after a UN resolution. The whole purpose was to buy a few weeks in order to turn the vote. Kennedy calculated if they could have bought that time it would have brought a No vote on the IWR. Clark lobbied for the Levin amendment, never the IWR, and he has said he would never have voted for the IWR. He told various Senators, including on the Intelligence Committee, that a Yes vote on the IWR was a vote for war, because Bush was absolutely going to war. He told them about the PNAC plan to invade a series of countries in the Middle East. Any members of Congress, on the Senate side or the House side, who have talked about Clark's having influenced their vote, voted NO to the IWR. What does that tell you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Sorry, yes he did
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 08:15 AM by Tactical Progressive
He danced around the issue for a long time, but when someone finally cornered him in an interview he said that yes, he would have voted for the IWR. I don't have to call Clark a liar, you have to.

He tried to change his 'vote' a few days later, then weaseled about the change. You have to realize too that 'not voting for the IWR' is a meaningless exercise outside of the Senate. All sorts of brave armchair quarterbacks could say they opposed the war, as did Wes, Gore and Obama. Inside the chamber was a whole different environment. A hundred times the pressure. I don't count outside-the-chamber opinions for squat, btw. It's easy to be 'principled' when there's only a personal opinion riding on it. I'd bet dollars to donuts Obama would have voted for the IWR too had he been in the Senate.

Wes succumbed to the IWR from outside the chamber. He said so. There is zero doubt that he would have done so from inside. And understand this, to maybe put all of this in perspective: I'm just reporting the truth, not slamming Wes. I can prove that too: I think the IWR was the right vote. I give Wes credit for saying he would have voted for it. I even give Obama a kind of erstwhile credit for the same thing even though I'm sure everyone including himself would refute that, but I've seen enough of Obama to know how he buckles to reality. So this is all props from me to them.

And again, I don't have to call Wes a liar. I'm just going by what he said. I'm seriously doubting that he ever said he "would never have voted for the IWR" because if he had said anything even remotely like that back then, it would have gotten all kinds of play in the arguments at the time. You're probably just extrapolating what you think he said from the kinds of things he did say about the Iraq invasion. I understand that. Hillary, and many other IWR Dems made big speeches against invading Iraq precipitously. If there wasn't a vote to tie them down they could just as credibly claim that they didn't support the war and they 'never would have voted for the IWR' now. That's the difference between having to put a vote in and just opinionating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Give it up! he was asking Congress to not declare this war when other candidates
were sponsoring it!(and now pretend THEY are anti-war). This is the most bad faith piece of BS - and it's against someone who doesn't even run, to justify very bad candidates (whomever is yours)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I know what Wes was saying. We all agreed.
But voting for the IWR wasn't voting to invade Iraq.

Wes Clark said what he said, not me. I fully support Wes.

Maybe you can't comprehend the distinction between being against an invasion of Iraq and being against the IWR. They aren't the same thing, and fusing them now because you can look back in history and see how Bush misused the authority granted him, which authority I don't think meant anything to him BTW, he would have invaded regardless, is wrong analysis. Sorry, but they weren't the same thing back then.

Your son asks you to use the car. You let him. He gets in a big accident.
You wanted him to get in an accident. Obviously, because that's what happened.
That's the kind of thinking you're stuck on.

Wes said he would have voted yes on IWR. Wes didn't want us to invade Iraq. Just like every Dem.
Deal with the seeming contradiction. It's not that hard if you try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
34. I Supported Wes Clark In 04
The IWR was intended to give Bush* leverage against the Iraqis as in if you don't do what we want you're going to get invaded...Lots of folks thought the Iraqis , facing that, would do what we want... Bush* used the leverage to invade them instead of using the leverage to gain concessions...

But I will admit, there are different narratives...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. Sorry, you are calling him a liar
If you listened to him when you were supporting him and have since listened to him on the topic, explaining that the amendment he referred to was the Levin amendment and not the IWR, and still believe him to have supported the IWR, the one he called a blank check for Bush, then you are saying you don't believe him and didn't then, but supported him even so. His explanations didn't get the play of the original story, because it didn't fit the pumped up story line and his opponents were happy to make hay on it (and I can't blame them). I also can prove what I say about Clark. I'm not presenting a dream I've had. I'm not giving my opinion.

Those legislators who have claimed Clark influenced their votes who then voted No, which is every single one who has said Clark influenced their decision, how do you explain that.

I credit Hillary regularly on DU for her vote on Byrd 2, which at least would have put a time limit on the force authorization. I show respect for her achievements in other areas. I don't try to distort anybody's record for Obama's benefit. I don't simplify the matter of the Yes votes; in fact, I often weigh various factors going into them. I disagree a Yes vote was the correct vote, but I recognize there are complexities to it. However, I believe there was a failure of judgment and leadership in that vote which brought tragic consequences to the nation. He would have done it anyway, I realize, but Democrats did not have to help.

IWR Yes voters are not eligible for my primary vote. None of them, not just Hillary. If somebody held a gun to my head and said vote or I shoot, I'd vote for Hillary who took some ameliorative steps over John Edwards who didn't lift a finger except to help Bush in his war. But I don't have to make that decision, because I don't intend to reward either of them with my primary vote. I'll vote for the nominee when that time comes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
27. I trust Clinton's judgment.
I agree with the OP... qualifications (resume) and experience are over valued in a presidential candidate, IMO. Even the program or platform of the candidate is less important than judgment.

The key variable in selecting a president is how they will react to (currently) unknown and unpredictable events that occur during his/her presidency. Every president is tested by events, not policy prescriptions.

I believe Clinton is a wise and balanced person, who can make the tough judgments when needed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
28. Gosh, you don't suppose there could be, like, a CORRELATION between judgement and experience?
Edited on Fri Nov-30-07 07:31 AM by Perry Logan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
33. Inexperienced people have poor judgement.
The people crying that that Clinton is the "Corporate" candidate now celebrate a Wall Street Journal hit job on her.
So... the Wall Street Journal is against "Corporate" candidates now?
The HIllHateCult needs to make up it's mind. :rofl:
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 Fri May 10th 2024, 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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