Bill clinton | DOMA | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Gay Marriage | Lane Hudson | Military | News

Bill Clinton Heckled at Netroots Nation; Answers on DADT, DOMA

Netroots

Blogger/activist Lane Hudson stood up and interrupted Bill Clinton's keynote last night at the Netroots Nation conference in Pittsburgh, asking, "Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Right now?"

Clinton responded to Hudson that he ought to go to one of the health care town halls. "You'd do really well there." But Hudson did get the answer he wanted, and more on DOMA.

Answered Clinton, when interrupted again: "You wanna talk about ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting some support in the congress. Now, that’s the truth."

Clinton went on to explain why he signed DOMA: "We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the Levin referendum much later in 2004, in the election, which the Republicans put on the ballot, to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican congress presenting that."

Clinton's entire answer and transcript, AFTER THE JUMP...

Hudson discusses why he stood up and interrupted Clinton on the Huffington Post. "...it became clear there would be no questions. As I sat in the audience thinking about how Netroots Nation is about celebrating the most open forum of discussion ever to exist, it occurred to me that we were nothing more than a captive audience being talked to. One way communication was NOT what we were there to celebrate and advance."

Netroots2

Transcript (via Andrés Duque at Blabbeando)

HUDSON: Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” right now? Please...

CLINTON: Hey, you know, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings. You did really well there. I’ll be glad to talk about that. If you will… If you will sit down and let me talk, I’ll be glad to discuss it. But if you stand up and scream I won’t be able to talk. But the other guys would love to have ya. I wanna talk a little about that too.

But anyway, so, here we are in a different world. Now, it’s not like the 1990’s. You wanna talk about ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn’t deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting some support in the congress. Now, that’s the truth.

Secondly – it’s true! – You know, you may have noticed that presidents aren’t dictators. They voted - they were about to vote for the old policy – by margins exceeding 80% in the House and exceeding 70% in the Senate. The gave test votes out there to send me a message that they were going to reverse any attempt I made by executive order to force them to accept gays into the military. And let me remind you that the public opinion is now more strongly in our favor than it was sixteen years ago and I have continued supporting it. That John Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under me, was against “Don’t A..” – was against letting gays serve – is now in favor of it. This is a different world. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

Let me also say something that never got sufficient publicity at the time. When General Colin Powell came up with this ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ it was defined while he was Chairman much differently than it was implemented. He said that, if you will accept this, here is what we’ll do. We will not pursue anyone, any military members out of uniform will be free to march in gay rights parades, go to gay bars, go to political meetings, whatever mailings they get, whatever they do in their private lives, none of this will be a basis for dismissal. It all turned out to be a fraud because of the enormous reaction against it among the middle level officers and down after it was promulgated and Colin was gone. So nobody regrets how this was implemented even more… anymore than I do. But the congress also put that into law by a veto-proof majority and many of your friends voted for that, believing the explanation about how it would be eliminated. So, I hated what happened. I regret it. But I didn’t have, I didn’t think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it’s ridiculous. Can you believe they spent – what did they spend? - 150,000 dollars to get rid of a valuable Arabic speaker recently?

And, you know, the thing that changed me forever on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the 1st Gulf War and all their commanders knew they were gay, they let them go and risk their lives ‘cause they needed them, and then as soon as the 1st Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know, that’s all anybody needs to know, to know that this policy should be changed.

Now, while we’re at it, let me say one thing about DOMA, since you… The reason I signed DOMA was, and I said when I signed it, that I thought the question of whether gays should marry should be left out to states and the religious organizations, and if any church or other religious body wanted to recognize gay marriage they ought to. We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the Levin referendum much later in 2004, in the election, which the Republicans put on the ballot, to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican congress presenting that. The President doesn’t even get to veto that. It’s the Congress can refer constitutional amendments to the states. I didn’t like signing DOMA, and I certainly didn’t like the constraints it would put on benefits, and I’ve done everything I’ve could, and I am proud to say that the State Department was the first federal department to restore benefits to gay partners in the Obama administration, and I think we are going forward in the right direction now for federal employees, and I don’t like that eith… I don’t like the DOMA.

But actually all these things illustrate the point I was trying to make. America has rapidly moved to a different place to a lot of these issues and so what we have to decide is what we are going to do about it.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. As I sat in the audience thinking about how Netroots Nation is about celebrating the most open forum of discussion ever to exist, it occurred to me that we were nothing more than a captive audience being talked to. Yes because god forbid you might actually listen to the Rhodes Scholar and two term president that you've invited to speak.

    Posted by: Mike K | Aug 14, 2009 10:52:00 AM


  2. So DOMA was good for us! Gee thanks Bill, now I understand why you bragged about signing it during in the 96 campaign.

    Note how the bastard STILL doesn't say he supports the repeal of DOMA, much less marriage equality for all.

    I'm so tired of the adoration this clown gets from so many gays and lesbians. What in the world did he ever do for us execpt pay lip service and take our money?

    Now it's happening all over again, lackey queers still line up to moon over a do-nothing Obama just like they did Clinton. To hell with both of them I say.

    Posted by: Ozu | Aug 14, 2009 10:54:40 AM


  3. Bill's answer is disingenuous in the extreme.

    This is the moment where he loses ALL credit with me for talking about this in such depth and putting all the blame on gays.

    He made campaign ads praising himself for signing DOMA and asked John Kerry to gay bash in the 2004 election. Leaving out those facts makes his statement about as credible as the ones that come from Sarah Palin.

    That the commenters here buy his line of utter bullshit is embarrasing.

    Posted by: Landon Bryce | Aug 14, 2009 10:56:47 AM


  4. 1. Given the many people working their own agendas in 1993, and how isolated any President is, it appears that Clinton is still unaware that people working for him were telling gays such as David Mixner to NOT try to raise support for overturning the ban, that everything was going smoothly, not to worry. Even gay Congressman Gerry Studds, with years of experience in Washington, believed admin reps that things were on track...until it was too late.

    2. Common denominator then and now: Rahm Emanuel. Senior Advisor to Clinton; Obama's Chief of Staff.

    "Marsha Scott, a straight woman who worked closely with Emanuel when she was chief of staff in Bill Clinton’s personnel office (Scott also served as Clinton’s first liaison to the LGBT community), says, 'Rahm can never stop thinking about winning elections. Rahm is good at governing effectively, but he’s not good on social justice issues. Rahm’s goal is to not lose one seat in Congress at midterms'.” - The Advocate.

    3. And, yes, Clinton should be encouraged to join the wide variety of people actively lobbying for repeal of both DADT & DOMA.

    AND for an executive order by Obama freezing discharges. His refusal to use this legal option, given him by Congress that trumps DADT, is inexcusable when, in his own words, such discharges "weaken national security."

    "President Obama appears to have absorbed an unfortunate—and incorrect—lesson from the Democrats' alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the president must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the president ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it's done by showing the world that the president knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same. Ending the needless firing of gay troops is one of those times." - Nathaniel Frank, DADT expert and author of "Unfriendly Fire."

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Aug 14, 2009 11:00:27 AM


  5. What Bill Clinton said actually echoes today. Lane would rather stand up and yell for an answer, or a quick moment in the spotlight, rather than bring the members of Congress to Obama. Chilling how spot on it is.

    Posted by: Adam | Aug 14, 2009 11:29:49 AM


  6. Landon, he may be culpable for his ignorance OR disingenuousness re community support in '93 re the gay military ban, but he has denied the charge by mercenary political hack Bob Shrum [who also accused John Edwards of being antigay, then retracted it] that he advised Kerry to "gay bash" as you call it, and Kerry, himself, never said he did.

    Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Aug 14, 2009 11:33:50 AM


  7. The answer he gave is a LIE.

    As Commander in Chief he could end discrimination based on sexual orientation - in the exact same fashion as when the military was desgregated by an earlier much better Presdident, by Presidential Decree.

    President Obama could also do the same.

    Keep taking crumbs and that is what you get.... while Bill and Barry become MULTI-MILLIONAIRES with equal rights you DO NOT HAVE. (And yes that BENEFITS THEM!)

    Posted by: Willie | Aug 14, 2009 11:46:55 AM


  8. While I agree that Clinton did more for gay people than any President before him (hardly a high bar to clear) and especially that we allowed ourselves to get outhussled in the '94 midterms and paid the consequences for the next 12 years and that we cannot allow that to happen again next year, Zeke's comment above is the one that strikes me as most on the mark. Let's not be gullible. Give Clinton credit where it is due (and certainly his Presidency was a dream compared to what followed over the next eight years) but he is a politician who is attempting to mold his legacy, to make amends with progressives on one of the topics where he most disappointed us and perhaps also to bolster his wife's standing with our community in case she elects to run in 2016. His version of what transpired is only partially true and avoids any mention of the very significant facts Zeke notes regarding those ads in the South, the reported advice to Senator Kerry (a man who too many of us forget was one of only 13 Senators to vote against DOMA) in 2004 and the fact that, since becoming a private citizen but prior to his wife's defeat by then-Senator Obama last year, both he and she had repeatedly continued to express their opposition to marriage equality, and not in the less offensive terms used by some like Governor Richardson (the country isn't ready for it yet; we need to take an incremental approach to achieving our ultimate goal of equality) but by stating that their position expressed their own personal view of what constitutes a marriage. Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with those above who've said that, if we really want to make progress and allow President Obama to go on the offense for us after the health care debate has concluded, we need to make sure that we do our part to make sure that progressive Democrats are elected to Congress in 2010. As frustrated as we may occasionally be with them, 1994 should be a lesson that the alternative is so much worse for us. Besides, many of our victories will come through the federal courts and not legislation and there is a world of difference between the judges we'll get with Dems or with the Neanderthals.

    Posted by: Patric | Aug 14, 2009 11:47:21 AM


  9. GET A LIFE CLUESS PEOPLE ... CLINTON AND OBAMA could do the same thing "Give Them Hell" Harry Did.

    They just DO NOT CARE TO.
    We are expendable. They do NOT consider our equality as important as other things they want to do. We are second rate to them.

    He is lying.
    And you are spreading his lie by supporting him in your comments here.

    Fifty years ago, on July 26, 1948 President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981. The order brought an end to racial segregation within the ranks of the United States military forces. The written document contained six paragraphs with less than 250 words.

    Executive Order 9981 addressed four areas: First, it declared the President's policy of equality of opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin. Second, it created the President's seven-member Committee on Equality of Treatment in the Armed Services. Third, it authorized the Committee to examine existing rules and determine what changes would be necessary to carry out the policy of integrating the services. And fourth, it directed all executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government to cooperate with the Committee in its work.

    President Truman held views about race and civil rights similar to other southern politicians of his time. This being the case, why was he different? What was the driving force behind his decision to integrate the military? There is no simple answer, or maybe there is.

    One year earlier on June 28, 1947, while speaking at the Thirty-eighth Annual Conference of the NAACP, President Truman provided delegates a glimpse of the future. In his speech about "civil rights and human freedom," Truman congratulated convention delegates gathered at the Lincoln Memorial for what he called "the effective work for the improvement of our democratic processes."

    He won their allegiance when he said, "It is my deep conviction that we have reached a turning point in the long history of our efforts to guarantee a freedom and equality to all our citizens… And when I say all Americans--I mean all Americans."

    In February of the next year, (Feb. 2, 1948) President Truman did something no previous President had ever done: he sent Congress a special message on civil rights. He proposed a ten-point program, which included provisions for an anti-lynching law, an anti-poll tax law, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission, a Commission on Civil Rights, home rule for the District of Columbia and desegregation of the armed services.

    The morning he sent his message to Congress, Truman wrote in his diary that members no doubt would receive his message coldly. "But it needs to be said," the President concluded. He underestimated the reaction in the congress. Critics on Capitol Hill easily stopped his proposals.

    But the issue of civil rights rose again at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in early July 1948. Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey stunned party regulars when he engineered the adoption of a civil rights plank that was stronger than the one proposed by Truman. In response to Humphrey's coup, many of the southern delegates walked out of the convention hall.

    Some historians believe President Truman had hoped to unite the Democratic Party by promising civil rights to African Americans, but not pushing so fast as to alienate segregationists. That was not to be the Truman legacy. Instead, renegade southern Democrats formed the Dixiecrat Party and nominated South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for president.

    Despite all these events, and with his civil rights legislative proposals bogged down in congress, President Truman decided to desegregate the United States Armed Forces by executive order. This decision surprised both liberals and conservatives. Army General Omar Bradley, warned, that it was not the business of the armed services to conduct "social experiments."

    Notwithstanding General Bradley's public admonition, the armed services marched forward and implemented the desegregation policy. By the end of the Korean War in 1953, the U.S. military was almost completely desegregated.


    Posted by: Willie | Aug 14, 2009 11:50:04 AM


  10. According to the transcript of this post, the question posed by Mr. Hudson was "Mr. President, will you call for a repeal of DOMA and “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” right now? Please?"....not "why did you sign DADT and DOMA into law.

    No part of Clinton's disingenuous explanation definitively answered Mr. Hudson's question.

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Aug 14, 2009 12:03:10 PM


  11. Has Lane apologized for being no better than right wing town hall nutter yet?

    Posted by: Adam | Aug 14, 2009 12:15:21 PM


  12. I think this is very rude of young Mr. Hudson, interupting former President Clinton during a speech. I was annoyed myself back in 1993, with several events that seemed to be failings. Now, with the advantage of history to look at, I see that President Clinton was right in what he said.
    Instead of picking on him, why isn't Mr. Hudson causing a commotion at these vicious, staged "town hall meetings" on health care reform??
    Having said all this, seeing Hudson's picture, I wish to indicate that I would not be averse to a nice political tete-a-tete over pit barbeque and ice tea. He can name the restaurant, and be as rowdy as he wishes. (grin.)
    - Tab

    Posted by: C. Tab Stidham-Revilla | Aug 14, 2009 12:50:41 PM


  13. Ha Ha! Love it. First Hilary, now Bill. They both told it like it is! Good for them!

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Aug 14, 2009 2:06:08 PM


  14. Go Lane and Willie for speaking the truth!

    Can gay people think on their own? Everytime there is some gay person said-hatero person said situation gay people always side with the hatero even if everything they said was flat out lies. Get a brain and a spine!

    Posted by: Bill | Aug 14, 2009 2:31:27 PM


  15. I'm surprised - and pleasantly so - to see so many comments in support of Bill Clinton. It's about time we in the LGBT Equality movement learned to fight for our own and not stomp our feet like wet, angry babies whenever straight people in power don't do just what we want.

    Hero worship - whether directed at Bill Clinton or Barack Obama - eventually leads to disappointment. But throwing our allies under a bus when they fail to move heaven and earth in our favor just because we asked them nicely does us no good. When we have an ally in power, it's up to us to work with that person for change. We should have done a better job with Bill; I hope we do a better job with Barack.

    Posted by: Red Seven | Aug 14, 2009 2:45:57 PM


  16. ADAM SAID:

    *Has Lane apologized for being no better than right wing town hall nutter yet?*

    I won't argue that it wasn't rude to interupt Clinton, but how is simply asking a question "Do you support the repeal of DADT and DOMA?" a "nutter" question? Are you so self-loathing that you actually agree with Clinton that we're second-class citizens?

    The comments I'm seeing here make me sick to my stomach. It's 2009 and we're still apologizing for the hateful things this man did to us. That he treated us marginally better than Bush is hardly a reason to stand up and cheer for this awful man. As late as 2004 he was actively encouraging John Kerry to support constitutional bans on gay marriage.

    Also remember that he STILL does not support full equality for gays and lesbians. This is not "just politics", Bubba ain't running for office again so he has nothing to lose by supporting us, and yet he does not.

    If anything said was "nutter" in nature it was Bill's non-answer to the question. Notice he went on a self-defensive diatribe rather answering the question. Why? Because he does not support the repeal of DADT nor DOMA. He might as well be a Republican for all we get from him.

    Posted by: Ozu | Aug 14, 2009 2:50:21 PM


  17. This is a big steaming load of tripe, and Clinton can't be allowed to get away with it. He sold us down the river repeatedly, and yet starry-eyed gays kept believing what they wished was true. He made no effort whatever to stop DOMA, and and pushed DADT. During the Bush II election, he advised Kerry to abandon gays to pick up conservative votes, and that's exactly what that stinking opportunist, Kerry, did. Clinton is a low-down hound dog, and I don't believe a word he says. He did NOT have sex that that woman - remember?

    Posted by: Wimsy | Aug 14, 2009 2:59:05 PM


  18. GO BILL!

    I'm glad the question was asked so that Bubba could finally say what was on his mind!

    "House Slave"? Please. That is so out of place here. If you're going to throw around Negro insults, make sure they are appropriate.

    And YES he is right. WE didn't support him. Not just The Gays, but, progressive America. He got his butt tamped after trying to do the right thing.

    Now, wonder if the current President is worried about the same thing?

    I want my equal rights. Hells yeah I want them. But, we have to work within the system to get them. We must write letters to and support local candidates who support our rights. Then they can have the cojones to go to the President and provide cover. If Obama just goes out and does everything we want on his own without a broad base of support, you can kiss healthcare, the economy and the future of our nation Buh Bye.

    I LOVE YOU BILL!

    Posted by: Derek wahington | Aug 14, 2009 3:02:41 PM


  19. Thank god...after what, 13 - 16 years since that legislation was signed, gays are actually acknowledging the answer Bill Clinton has given time and again over why he signed those laws. This is not the first time he has said this. I've heard this before. So the commenters who are commending him for finally being straight with us (no pun intended) are delusional. It's simply the first time you've bothered listening. I knew Lane Hudson when I lived in DC and I'm not shocked that he would act like a belligerent little toad yelling like some lunatic to get attention. His question is not new. And neither is Clinton's answer. Pat yourself on the back Lane...you've managed to make me think you are a bigger d-bag than I already did.

    The nancies in here who need someone to blame will alwasy vilify Clinton. It's so easy to forget the political climate of 1993/1996 and pretend like Bill Clinton had the public support behind him that our current president does today. I can only hope that if Obama fails to deliver he will be admonished even more so than Clinton b/c he has the good fortune and opportunity to pass legislation Clinton never did. My guess is we will be the victims of a compromise on getting his socialist healthcare "reform" passed and repeal of DADT won't see the light of day.

    Posted by: Alex | Aug 14, 2009 3:46:39 PM



  20. For those of you who are attacking Lane Hudson and heaping unquestioning praise on former President Clinton, I would like to hear SOMEONE respond to the following. It is the actual transcript of Clinton's campaign ad, run on Christian television stations in 1996:

    CLINTON CHRISTIAN RADIO AD
    TRANSCRIBED OCTOBER 14, 1996

    "Protecting religious freedom. It's the foundation of our nation."

    "When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners'
    tithing money, the government was stopped cold because President Clinton
    overturned the government's policy and protected us.It's not the only time
    he's defended our values. Don't be misled by Bob Dole's attack ads."

    "President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when
    the mother's life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the
    inability to have another child."

    "THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, supports curfews and
    school uniforms to teach our children discipline."

    "The President enacted the V-chip to block out violent TV programs. His
    crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins. Bob Dole opposed him
    and is resorting to untrue negative attacks. PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS FOUGHT FOR OUR VALUES AND AMERICA IS BETTER FOR IT."

    "Paid for by Clinton/Gore 96"

    [EMPHASIS MINE]

    Gay leaders BEGGED Clinton and his campaign to pull the ad but they refused claiming that it was an accurate representation of his beliefs, his policy and his record. As such I don't believe that his new recollection of why he signed DOMA holds ANY water.

    On the issue of advising Kerry to run on a pro marriage amendment platform, I have no idea if Clinton advised Kerry to support anti-gay marriage amendments or not. He denies it. However, I have NO doubt in my mind that if we didn't have audio and transcript PROOF that Clinton made this 1996 campaign ad he would deny that he ever made it and he would deny that he ever said what he said in it. Love the man or hate him, he is the ULTIMATE politician who will lie even when the truth sounds better.

    I find it interesting that the same people here who are RIGHTFULLY going after Obama for his lack of action on gay issues, AND the same people who daily complain about the lack of spine so often found in our community, almost IN THE SAME BREATH are making blind excuses for Clinton's missteps and slamming a person from our community that had the balls to stand up and rightfully demand some answers from our former president.

    I think we should be praising Mr. Hudson and joining him in holding ALL of our leaders' feet past and present, to the fire.

    I fully supported Clinton and got burned. I fully supported Obama and it's deja vu all over again.

    Posted by: Zeke | Aug 14, 2009 4:25:42 PM


  21. Way to go Bill! Perfect answer! And he's right. If more of the silly party bois would get up off thier knees and get out, come out and work for something other than another weekend at the bar, our community might actually become cohesive and actually produce the gay MLK that all of us are looking for.

    But no. Too many fractuted groups, self serving individuals and self centered attitudes will always be the norm, I'm afraid.

    Posted by: Beef and Fur | Aug 14, 2009 4:53:39 PM


  22. It's good to read your comments again, Zeke. I know that you are very disappointed in the President's dragging his feet (sexy long feet) on gay marriage equality (and DADT), but it aint over yet. Next to abortion, gay marriage equality is the most earth-shaking issue in this country. Even if a majority of Americans were to say that they support equal marriage rights for gays, the opposition is not only vehement; they are insane with hatred. You know that.

    Just like Eisenhower and Kennedy were slow on civil rights/voting rights for Black Americans, Obama is moving tepidly on today's most volatile issue: marriage rights for gays.

    Everybody aint no Lyndon Johnson, Zeke.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 14, 2009 5:06:53 PM


  23. To Wimsy, who claims that "that stinking opportunist" John Kerry abandoned us in 2004, how exactly did he do that? Perhaps it's because of frustration over how poorly he fared as a candidate but I am always disappointed by the lack of appreciation of so many in our community for our true friend Senator John Kerry, one of only 13 Senators to bravely stand against DOMA in 1996. While the Clintons have shown themselves willing to put politics before principle when it comes to our rights, Senator Kerry has resisted the temptation to do so. He deserves far more appreciation from our community than he's received.

    Posted by: Patric | Aug 14, 2009 5:28:54 PM


  24. Bill Clinton is a Liar! He should take responsibility for his actions and not blame us! If he was so concerned about the sanctity of marriage he should not have gotten blown in the oval office by someone other than his wife! It's a shame to see all the Queers on here buying his B.S. too!

    Posted by: DaveAave | Aug 14, 2009 5:36:28 PM


  25. Lame (typo intentional) Hudson is SUCH a self-promoting fool, as others have touched on.
    Everything that comes out of his d--che mouth isn't worth any attention.
    At least Clinton can now say he's seen the world's largest d--chebag.

    Posted by: Lame Mudson Sux | Aug 14, 2009 6:00:11 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Navy Veteran Discusses Anti-Gay Abuse within the Military« «