Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, May 10, 2026

The New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez answered a question about potentially running for higher office in 2028 by declaring: "My ambition is to change the country."

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Speculation has swirled around Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a possible contender for president in 2028.

[image or embed]

-- USA TODAY (@usatoday.com) May 9, 2026 at 8:00 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Ocasio-Cortez then ran through a litany of her other signature policy positions, saying:

"A living wage is forever, workers' rights are forever, women's rights, all of that, and so anyways ... to a finer point to your question is that when you aren't attached, when you haven't been like fantasizing about being this or that since the time you were seven years old, it is tremendously liberating."

Later in the exchange, Ocasio-Cortez said she wanted to "make decisions from a place of how are we going to change the country".

Ocasio-Cortez's evocative response to Axelrod " once an adviser to the former Democratic president Barack Obama " comes amid early jockeying among her party for its 2028 presidential nomination.

That is bound to kick into a higher gear after the midterm elections in November determine the lay of the political land for the rest of Donald Trump's second presidency."

;;

Right now, only Obama (any Obama) polls well for 2028 Pres election.... none of the other leading Dems look like shoo-ins.

"Early 2026 polling suggests former President Barack Obama remains highly popular, with hypothetical 2028 matchups showing him leading Donald Trump by double digits (e.g., 44% to 33% or 52% to 41%).

Despite this popularity, Obama is constitutionally barred from a third term by the 22nd Amendment."

www.google.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-09 09:54 PM | Reply

Her interview:

www.youtube.com

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-09 10:11 PM | Reply

She has nowhere near the chops for POTUS. Probably not the Senate, either, especially if she's replacing a long time national leader (even if it's past time for him to go).

She needs to first show leadership qualities IN THE HOUSE before thinking she's ready to move up a level.

What has she done? Seriously, what accomplishments and qualities has she shown beyond social media sound bites and edgy yet in the end useless "progressive" angst?

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-09 11:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 4

The phony Democrats (AKA AIPAC-ers or corporation protectors) will argue AOC isn't "mainstream" enough to win higher office.

The rightwing will bleat "Hah! This is why you Democrats always lose! Dems have to pick someone centrist" (AKA a milquetoast corporate candidate who will maintain the decrepit status quo).

Republican House Leader Mike Johnson fully expected Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to denounce NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) last year.

Hakeem Jeffries didn't, but finally endorsed his fellow Democrat just before Election Day.

US Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) didn't endorse fellow Democrat Zohran Mamdani and probably voted for Andrew "AIPAC" Cuomo on Election Day.

In 2025 US Senator John Fetterman (D-Israel) kept sliming the Muslim candidate, his fellow Democrat.

Recall what happened to US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during his presidential campaign in 2016.

All of this is what AOC will face, on top of her being a Latina.

Zohran Mamdani (D)

#4 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-10 03:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Trump tries for a third term and the Supreme Court OKs it, Obama should definitely step up.

AOC is infinitely more qualified for POTUS than Trump, btw

#5 | Posted by hamburglar at 2026-05-10 04:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If no AIPAC connection, you got my vote.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2026-05-10 10:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#6 And if the Democrat has an "AIPAC 'connection'" will you then vote for the Republican (with or without an AIPAC connection)?

#7 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 11:11 AM | Reply

#7 Nope. I won't Vote at all.

I can't speak for Fresno500.

Nobody is Entitled to Anyone's Vote.

I don't Positively affirm the Leadership status of People who support Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing.

The Democratic Party Could change their ways to get more votes. Kamala could have allowed Palestinians a Vioce at her acceptance of the Nomination. Instead, she allowed no Palestinian Voices to be heard there.

Why don't you pressure THEM to Stop helping Mass Murder?

Why is Israel a Kingmaker in the US anyhow?

#8 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 11:53 AM | Reply

She needs to embrace the Cortez part of her identity and go full Consquistadora.

If she seriously has presidential ambitions, waiting until it's "her turn" or has "right amount" of experience is the most foolish advice she could follow.

She needs to learn from and avoid the mistakes made by the wishy-washy candidates like Clinton and Harris, as well as the one-note candidates like Sanders who were basically just running to be passive-aggressive.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#8 So, you prefer Republican rule across America.

"I'm not Participating in the Elections.

Nobody in either party represents me.

If that helps the Republicans, I don't give a shit.

I'm not voting for people who help Killers.

It's that simple.

#33 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-03 04:43 PM


#10 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 12:06 PM | Reply

The Democratic party has been Captured by the Oligarchs and big business.

They no longer represent Labor or the poor.

Both parties represent Big Money Alone.

Everything else is just Pablum to Placate the Rubes.

The Republicans embrace Racism and Christian Nationalism.

The Democrats Represent Anyone who pays them Enough.

Both Parties Represent Israel.

#11 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 12:10 PM | Reply

#11 "Both Parties Represent Israel."

So?

You're basing this on just what, exactly?

Your ignorance?

Yeah.

That would explain it.

Your ignorance.

#12 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 12:12 PM | Reply

What happened to the "Public Option"?

Why did Obama bail out the Bankers who caused the 2008 Recession but let the Borrowers lose everything? Why did no Bankers go to jail? The S&L Scandal sent almost 1000 people to Prison in the 1980s.

Why is Universal Healthcare politically Unfeasable?

The Democratic Party represents the same People the Republican Party represents.

RICH JEWS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE.

#13 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 12:18 PM | Reply

How Democrats are STILL better than Republicans...

.... bad as they may may be, they hold certain advantages and are more likely THAN THE ONLY OTHER PARTY IN A TWO PARTY SYSTEM... to vote for things like healthcare, education, and campaign finance reform.

;;

"Arguments for the Democratic Party often highlight stronger economic performance, with higher job growth, lower unemployment, and greater GDP growth under Democratic administrations.

They advocate for a social safety net, civil rights, and environmental protection, while recent polling suggests they hold advantages on health care, abortion, and race-related policies."

more

www.google.com

Making the 'Perfect' the enemy of the better than the other Party is also still a self-destructive policy.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My Ambition is to Change the Country" - AOC

Don't the people in America get a say?

It's an odd statement. Why not say, "My ambition is to make America what Americans want it to be"?

#15 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-10 12:25 PM | Reply

Why is Universal Healthcare politically Unfeasable?

Because it's unfeasible financially and medically.

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-10 12:26 PM | Reply

Both Parties Represent Israel.

Makes sense, Israel appears to be a great country, surrounded by people and a religion that wants to end them.

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-10 12:27 PM | Reply

Why do Both Parties Prop up a Genocidal Bigot Squatter Colony?

They Do this while Americans go without basic Necessities.

Both Parties are equally Complicit.

Why is noticing this "Antisemitic"?

#18 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 12:27 PM | Reply

"Why not say, "My ambition is to make America what Americans want it to be"?"

Keeping it concise and conveying the message of a change from the status quo is a better communicative technique.

#19 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 12:30 PM | Reply

#18 You clearly missed out on the lesson about Leadership, onepigheadedironaut.

#20 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 12:30 PM | Reply

#18 RICH JEWS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE. #13 Posted by the antisemite, Effeteposer.

#21 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 12:32 PM | Reply

Everyone wants to end Russian meddling in US politics.

The Entire US power structure revolves around helping Israel kill anyone they want to.

Including Waging Wars Of Aggression on their Behalf that benefit Americans,... Not At All.

It's almost like America has becomne a Slave of Israel.

How did this Happen?

Mr. FRIEND?

#22 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 12:33 PM | Reply

#22 RICH JEWS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE. #13 Posted by the antisemite, Effeteposer.

#23 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 12:34 PM | Reply

-Because it's unfeasible financially and medically.
#16 | Posted by oneNut

Countries with successful Universal Healthcare:

"Many countries have achieved successful universal health care (UHC), characterized by high life expectancy, quality care, and equitable access.

Key examples include Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Taiwan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

These systems often utilize either a single-payer model or a regulated multi-payer system to provide coverage for their citizens.

Top Examples of Successful Universal Health Care Systems:"

more

www.google.com

You know who else has 95 percent Universal Healthcare?

China:

www.google.com

INut remains your Free Universal Reverse Barometer!

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 12:37 PM | Reply

Why would I Like people who Kill for Personal Gain?

People who Erase the very Identity of their Enemies while CLAIMING GOD gave them the Right to do so?

"Antisemitism" is a Big Hobgoblin that Ends Careers and destroys Credibility just by Accusations Alone.

It's the McCarthyism of our Times.

Eventually McCarthy got Told to Shut the Hell Up.

That time is Coming for Israel and their "Lobby".

Can't happen soon enough.

Look at the Trends.

Israel is more Hated than Hamas at this point.

For Good Reason.

#25 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 12:41 PM | Reply

"You know who else has 95 percent Universal Healthcare?"

Only if you define "universal healthcare" as enrollment in the most low-quality, basic services, while the cost of treatments for serious conditions are sky-high in comparison to local incomes. Unless this is the type of UHC you are promoting (which I doubt), it doesn't support your argument.

#26 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 01:30 PM | Reply

"while the cost of treatments for serious conditions are sky-high in comparison to local incomes."

That's true everywhere. That's why insurance exists.
You ever heard of cancer? You think the cost isn't sky-high compared to local incomes?
I don't understand how you are this economically illiterate.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-10 01:32 PM | Reply

"RICH JEWS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE."

You make statements like this, and yet you can't figure out why people think you're antisemitic. You're either trolling or clueless or both.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And I'll say it again - Democratic candidates can champion all the so-called progressive policies that they want, but they still need to have the equivalent of a "Sistah Soulja" moment, where they unequivocally call out some of the extremism or extremists on the left.

#29 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 01:55 PM | Reply

#29 Sentinel says, "...where they unequivocally call out some of the extremism or extremists on the left."

It wouldn't matter.

Republicans/MAGA will continue to lie about it regardless.

#30 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 01:57 PM | Reply

Why is Noticing something everyone Sees considered "Antisemitic?

It's getting kind of ridiculous at this point.

Why are we fighting a War of Aggression for Them? There's nothing in it for Most Americans.

Who benefits from the Money Race in politics?

Who Gets Whatever they want even though they're a Foreign Power?

Who Gets Standing Ovations from BOTH PARTIES in Congress?

Who gets the ICC sanctioned for bringing Appropriate Indictments For Crimes Against Humanity?

Who Ignores International Law with Impunity and if anyone Squawks about it their Reputations and Employment Opportunities are Damaged by Accusations Alone?

It ain't Iran.

It ain't Russia.

It ain't China.

It ain't anyone in Europe or South America.

Gee, it's just So Mysterious why this Attracts Negative Reactions.

Especially when the Party being Favored is Killing and Stealing without any Limits.

Maybe its Not Antisemitism,.. It's just people seeing Injustice and Cruelty and being Appalled.

Israel Claims to Represent All Jews.

Is it Antisemitic to Take them at their Word about that?

#31 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-10 02:08 PM | Reply

#18 RICH JEWS BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE. #13 Posted by the antisemite, Effeteposer.

#32 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 02:09 PM | Reply

- the extremism or extremists on the left.

Leave it to Sentinel to spotlight exactly the most concerning problem in this country today.....ahahahahaha!

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 02:09 PM | Reply

She has nowhere near the chops for POTUS.

Hilarious.

Continue to enjoy Trump.

He's got all the chops for POTUS.

#34 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-10 02:22 PM | Reply

AOC wasn't necessarily talking about running for the Presidency; she may well be talking about House Leader or another position.

If Michelle is smart enough to know, as she said, the country isn't ready for her, it's certainly not ready for AOC.

The best electable Dem option would be Obama, who's gone more public recently with the Mid Terms coming up... if only he could run again.

He might even be humble enough to go VP, but he's indicated Michelle might have him neutered if he did anything of the sort.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 02:29 PM | Reply

You make statements like this, and yet you can't figure out why people think you're antisemitic. You're either trolling or clueless or both.
#28 | Posted by sentinel

Are you referring to SSentinel's favorite pastime of posting Swastikas?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-10 02:34 PM | Reply

The best electable Dem option ...

... doesn't exist.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-10 02:35 PM | Reply

= posting Swastikas?

Now you've gone and done it! Denial paragraphs incoming!!

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 02:36 PM | Reply

Why is Universal Healthcare politically Unfeasable?

Because it's unfeasible financially and medically.
#16 | POSTED BY ONETRUMPER

Is that why the top 32 out of 33 nations have figured it out?

The only reason it's "unfeasible" is because Rich Americans have taught white Americans that if there was universal healthcare, black and brown Americans would be able to benefit from it.

Then idiots like you blindly repeat that it's "unfeasible" in America.

Meanwhile. A billion a day for a war in Iran to distract from Trump being in the Epstein files is ... totally feasible!

You fucking brain damaged moron.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-10 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Only if you define "universal healthcare" as enrollment in the most low-quality, basic services, while the cost of treatments for serious conditions are sky-high in comparison to local incomes.

You just described healthcare now.

I'd rather pay for it with my taxes and let everyone have the same access as me regardless of income.

Hey. I'm not greedy. I'll share my shitty healthcare with all of them!

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-05-10 02:51 PM | Reply

Healthcare in America is more expensive than other nations due to our for profit medical system.

But it's not better. Especially when you're poor. Because then it's nonexistent.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-10 02:58 PM | Reply

"Leave it to Sentinel to spotlight exactly the most concerning problem in this country today.....ahahahahaha!"

I spotlighted exactly why certain candidates lost to someone like Trump.

#42 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 03:55 PM | Reply

"= posting Swastikas?"

Oh look, now you and bit-miner Snoofy are running deflections for the Effete antisemitic sock puppet.

Because trying to educate people about the true meaning of the symbol as it's still used by the vast majority of non-Europeans is no different from making broad statements about "the Jews", in your minds.

#43 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 04:04 PM | Reply

- educate people about the true meaning of the symbol

Most people here already knew the origins of the symbol prior to you gracing us ad nauseum with your magnificent superior knowledge of such.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-10 04:14 PM | Reply

"trying to educate people about the true meaning of the symbol"

Oh great.

I've summoned a college kid in a Che t-shirt and he's lecturing us "The USSR wasn't true Communism!"

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-10 04:19 PM | Reply

AOC is tapping into - alomg with whatever else she encounters - strong currents of progressivism. The socio-political climate seems to be getting prepped for transformative times.

#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-10 04:28 PM | Reply

#45
We've met? Lol.

#47 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-10 04:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#45 Doc says, "The socio-political climate seems to be getting prepped for transformative times."

Perhaps.

But the socio-political climate we "enjoy" today is the product of 55+ years of moving the Overton Window, following a carefully laid out plan.

Not sure anything but a cataclysmic event (WWIII, World-wide Great Depression II) will produce that event.

And without 55+ years of moving the Overton Window the other direction, where will be end up?

#48 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 04:34 PM | Reply

#48
That old Overton Window (and the many OWs), like those dogies on the TV Western Rawhide, keeps "rollin', rollin', rollin.'" And it often does seem to move, as you've suggested, back-and-forth. Along-the way, its slide/glide may encounter resistance of a most formidable and determined sort. Having done the Sixties and at the end stood in its metaphorical ashes, let me suggest a cautionary and enduring Chinese observation: "Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos." Or, as the carnies advise customers climbing aboard the Slingshot: "Buckle up!"

#49 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-10 04:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49 When discussing the Overton Window I always use this example:

In the 1970s, if a politician advocated giving taxpayer money to churches, the voting public would have been aghast.

Today those things that are euphemistically "charter schools," often sponsored by a church, your tax dollars and my tax dollars go to them. They're called state vouchers

That didn't happen overnight.

#50 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 05:15 PM | Reply

Exactly, good example.

#51 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-10 05:40 PM | Reply

Under no circumstances should a candidate ever use a wonky phrase like the "Overton window", no matter how well-intentioned. Bill Maher did a great piece on this where he channeled the ghost of George Carlin.

#52 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-10 06:47 PM | Reply

#52 Ignorance is bliss.

#53 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-10 06:49 PM | Reply

AOC would make a great POTUS. She would have my vote!

#54 | Posted by moder8 at 2026-05-10 11:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

AOC would make a great POTUS. She would have my vote!

Posted by moder8 at 2026-05-10 11:45 PM | Reply

She would have My vote as well.

#55 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-05-10 11:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#52 ... Under no circumstances should a candidate ever use a wonky phrase like the "Overton window", no matter how well-intentioned. ...

Why?

Overton window
www.britannica.com

... Overton window, political model describing the range of policies considered acceptable by the majority of a population at a particular time. The concept of the Overton window was developed in the 1990s by Joseph Overton, a libertarian political scientist.

The model portrays a spectrum of positions, with more government regulation on one end and less government regulation on the other end. The extreme sides are considered to be the least widely accepted by voters.

Overton argued that this spectrum describes how politicians choose which policies to endorse, and he suggested that they will most likely favor options in the middle of the spectrum rather than the extremes that, according to the model, would be the least palatable to voters. His theory was further developed into strategies for shifting the Overton window.

Critics of the Overton window challenge its theory of change and its inability to explain the phenomenon of the eroding moderate center. ...


#56 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-05-11 12:28 AM | Reply

"The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time." - AOC

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-11 01:41 AM | Reply

"The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time." --AOC

^
The Left Endorses Political Violence.
--Fox News

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 02:58 AM | Reply

All I have to defend my country from the forces of fascism, and both Trump's former Chief of Staff and his former Secretary of Defense said he was fascist to his core, is my itty bitty vote. I would love to cast a vote for, say, Mark Kelly for President and someone like AOC or Mayor Pete for VP.
Hope there are both midterms this November and of course, the elections of 2028, without a Trump in sight when one looks to the federal ballot.

#59 | Posted by Hughmass at 2026-05-11 06:39 AM | Reply

"AOC would make a great POTUS."

Frankly, nobody knows what type of POTUS she would be. She might be okay, she might be a failure, she might be a ruthless monster who follows in the footsteps of other revolutionaries who set out to effect change.

#60 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-11 08:38 AM | Reply

She should run on Hope & Change.

#61 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-05-11 08:43 AM | Reply

"Most people here already knew the origins of the symbol prior to you gracing us ad nauseum with your magnificent superior knowledge of such."

It's funny how bigots think "most people" agree with them. Again, the symbol was not some ancient relic that had been out of use when the Germans misused it. That you want to reinforce that misuse as the "true" one shows that you are sympathetic to white supremacists who want to eradicate all other cultures

#62 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-11 08:47 AM | Reply

A hot commie with good cans? ChaCha Guevara! Sign me up!

#63 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2026-05-11 10:20 AM | Reply

AOC is tapping into - alomg with whatever else she encounters - strong currents of progressivism. The socio-political climate seems to be getting prepped for transformative times.

#46 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'm sorry, but I disagree and this misinterpretation is what happens every single time the Dems gain some momentum.

What's growing is populism. The masses are tired of getting little to no benefit from their time, sweat and blood while paying ever more to satiate the greed of the ruling class.

The Dems are riding a swell of anti-Trump sentiment because as soon as he got into office, the mask came off and he showed the person behind it we, the non-MAGA morons, all knew was there - a greedy, self-absorbed pile of s*&^ working for the sole benefit of himself and the billionaire class.

They don't want progressivism, they want a government and country that actually works for and benefits THEM to the extent that they don't have to go to sleep hungry and anxious for what tomorrow will bring or whether rent will payable when it comes due in a few weeks or if their car will continue to struggle on long enough to get it fixed before it dies and they lose their job(s).

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 11:22 AM | Reply

AOC would make a great POTUS. She would have my vote!

#54 | Posted by moder8

Why? Beyond yelling into a microphone and providing soundbites, what has she done that shows she has the leadership chops to actually run a government?

Seriously, someone spell it out for me on why she wouldn't be the left's version of Trump - a cult of personality centered on a hollow, unqualified figurehead running cover for unknown, unelected accomplices that are actually running the show.

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 11:26 AM | Reply

I would love to cast a vote for, say, Mark Kelly for President

Honestly, Kelly is the one I'm hoping will run.

I doubt he will because he doesn't seem to want it, but that's the kind of leader we need right now. Someone with actual, real world leadership experience and intelligence who is hesitant to be the top of the heap, not some kid who got lucky to be elected to Congress and thinks they can do it because their social media likes lead them to believe they're capable.

#66 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 11:28 AM | Reply

#64- completely agreed

#67 | Posted by sentinel at 2026-05-11 11:54 AM | Reply

I think I could get behind Mark Kelly but see AOC as a challenge. Dems have not won (against Trump of all people) with 2 qualified women and I honestly believe it is going to be that way a lot longer than anyone wants to admit. Also, you will have people like JPW that dont know what she has accomplished and think she is just a face with a loud mouth. She has actually been in there putting in work. Nothing that she has authored alone has passed but that is true for most of congress. She has gotten several amendments to other pieces of legislation through and co-authored the new green deal. If I recall she was involved in getting Puerto Rico funding for cleanup but I could be wrong. She has also gotten funding for several projects in her district and has gotten them results so they keep voting for her. I dont agree with her on a lot but you cant act like she is getting nowhere.

#68 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2026-05-11 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dems have not won (against Trump of all people) with 2 qualified women

Clinton was qualified. Kamala wasn't; she lacked the ability to discuss policy at length and without feeding questions. Also the $1B fundraising didn't help her one bit, she spent it like a drunk sailor.

The Democrat Elite need to choose based on merit and drop the "I'll elect a black woman because she's black".
www.politico.com

#69 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-11 12:24 PM | Reply

Also, you will have people like JPW that dont know what she has accomplished and think she is just a face with a loud mouth.

You mean people who accurately assess reality?

www.govtrack.us

She has actually been in there putting in work. Nothing that she has authored alone has passed but that is true for most of congress. She has gotten several amendments to other pieces of legislation

To what result? Naming a Post Office?

through and co-authored the new green deal.

Which went nowhere.

If I recall she was involved in getting Puerto Rico funding for cleanup but I could be wrong.

I can't find any record of this.

She has also gotten funding for several projects in her district and has gotten them results so they keep voting for her. I dont agree with her on a lot but you cant act like she is getting nowhere.

#68 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

I sure as hell can act like she's not getting anywhere because she hasn't. That's a paltry list for someone whose been in Congress for 4 terms.

A good proxy for intra-party support is what committees has she served on or held leadership positions on.

Current AOC:

www.govtrack.us

Current Mark Kelly:

www.govtrack.us

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 12:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Clinton was qualified. Kamala wasn't
#69 | POSTED BY ONETRUMPER

So you voted for Trump.

3 times.

Thanks for continuing to prove yourself to be a joke.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 12:36 PM | Reply

Don't you worry.

JPW will continue to rail against progressives and makes sure Trump wins in 2028.

#72 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 12:37 PM | Reply

I disagree that she doesn't have what it takes to be a Senator.

Before the 17th, it was appointment. She'd have to sell herself to the Legislature.

The Senate is a popularity contest like the House. Majority rules. Anyone can be in Congress if you are popular. Any influencer could pull it off.

She needs to run for President, but her VP choice will need to bridge within the Dem party.

#73 | Posted by Petrous at 2026-05-11 12:39 PM | Reply

JPW, I dont live in New York but have a friend over there that has nothing but good things to say about AOC. Something about a tutoring program and other stuff for her actual district. I thought she was cooing over the Puerto Rico thing at one point but maybe I misunderstood or she had her facts wrong (a good possibility). They believe she is accomplishing things for them and I guess that perception is reality when you are in it.

I also dont believe that Kamala slept her way to the top, or what does that say about the men? She did have to gather votes for positions in Cali. Clearly she was unprepared to jump in at the last minute and run for POTUS, I mean she didnt even do well in the primary she was in. Biden should served the one term like he said he would and the Dems should have had an open primary.

I dont think Mark Kelly wants it so that might be a moot point.

I would like to see Pete Buttigieg in a primary again. It will be interesting to see if there are any good candidates this time. I am not sure I would vote for Pete but he seems well spoken and not as far left as AOC. I also think a gay man has a better chance than a woman at this point.

#74 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2026-05-11 12:56 PM | Reply

AIPAC is dragging down both American political parties, but the Democrats even more so: Enough Foreign Interference in US Elections

See results of Tuesday 5 Nov 2024 elections for more info.

#75 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-11 01:13 PM | Reply

JPW will continue to rail against progressives and makes sure Trump wins in 2028.

#72 | Posted by ClownShack

I'll rail against the Dems making the same mistake they make every single time they think they have momentum.

It also couldn't be any clearer at this point in time what a plurality of Americans wants. Here's a hint, it's not progressivism.

It's funny how y'all always think you're what this country wants no matter how many times you're repudiated in state- or national-level elections. Without fail, Dems lose power once they have majorities BECAUSE they swing too far left to please people like you.

#76 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 01:17 PM | Reply

She has nowhere near the chops for POTUS. Probably not the Senate, either, especially if she's replacing a long time national leader (even if it's past time for him to go).

She needs to first show leadership qualities IN THE HOUSE before thinking she's ready to move up a level.

What has she done? Seriously, what accomplishments and qualities has she shown beyond social media sound bites and edgy yet in the end useless "progressive" angst?

#3 | Posted by jpw

The only quality that a leader needs to win right now is credibly fighting against the corrupt elites.

Gaining "more experience" in a useless governing body that surrendered all its power to the president only weakens her standing and credibility.

AOC had a ton of voters who ALSO voted for trump. Because there is a huge appetite out there for anyone who will shake up the corrupt status quo.

#77 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 01:22 PM | Reply

#74 | Posted by justagirl_idaho

I'm sure she's doing something right for her district if they keep putting her back in office.

But I just don't see POTUS-level performance or accomplishments. Most of what people know about her is from her being a favorite Faux News punching bag which, fair or not, will definitely work against her in any national election.

Couple that with the fact that a woman as qualified as Hillary Clinton couldn't win and I just don't think AOC would be a good choice. You'd be handing the WH to the GOP on a silver platter.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The best reason to support AOC is how much the DNC and RNC hate her.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 01:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

The only quality that a leader needs to win right now is credibly fighting against the corrupt elites.

Surface level nonsense.

Y'all are going to guarantee Trump wins a third term.

The reason why leadership is such a critical attribute at this juncture is because of how difficult that task will be on top of beginning to fix the damage caused by Trump and MAGA.

Y'all's apparent solution for that is to hand the keys of the country to the equivalent of Trump's Counter Terrorism lead at DHS...

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 01:25 PM | Reply

The best reason to support AOC is how much the DNC and RNC hate her.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

We need an asinine flag.

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 01:25 PM | Reply

Couple that with the fact that a woman as qualified as Hillary Clinton couldn't win and I just don't think AOC would be a good choice. You'd be handing the WH to the GOP on a silver platter.

#78 | Posted by jpw

You learned the wrong lessons.

An elitist status quo woman couldnt beat maga. A female corporate dem couldnt beat maga.

You know what dems haven't tried against maga yet? An actual economic populist.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 01:26 PM | Reply

Y'all are going to guarantee Trump wins a third term.

#80 | Posted by jpw

No the DNC is doing that by burying their study on the reasons people hate them because we know what that study concludes - the people hate elitist corruption and want real populism.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#84 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-11 01:35 PM | Reply

"But I just don't see POTUS-level performance or accomplishments."

Did you see POTUS-level performance from the Community Organizer?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#85

Excellent point. No one predicted his two term success.

But then, he's a guy, and as Michelle pointed out, this country isn't ready for a strong woman.

I hope AOC becomes Speaker, though, at least.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-11 01:51 PM | Reply

"These systems often utilize either a single-payer model or a regulated multi-payer system to provide coverage for their citizens."

All the good countries offer a mix of both public and private options. It's sort of like being able to get a low-cost plane ticket with limits and longer wait times versus a premium ticket with shorter wait times and better service.

This is how it should be.

#87 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-05-11 02:03 PM | Reply

"AOC is tapping into - alomg with whatever else she encounters - strong currents of progressivism. The socio-political climate seems to be getting prepped for transformative times."

But that progressivism isn't necessarily so different from right-wing nationalism.

Are you familiar with the horseshoe theory?

#88 | Posted by madbomber at 2026-05-11 02:05 PM | Reply

Horseshow theory is more about tactics than substance:

Origin: The concept is largely attributed to French writer Jean-Pierre Faye in his 1972 book Thorie du rcit: introduction aux langages totalitaires.

Criticisms and Alternative Perspectives

Ideological Differences: Critics argue that although the tactics may be similar, the core beliefs and goals of the far-left (e.g., communism) and far-right (e.g., fascism) are fundamentally different.

Over-simplification: Some analysts argue that the horseshoe theory oversimplifies complex political dynamics and overlooks the nuances within ideological movements.

Mixed Evidence: While observations of authoritarian behavior often support the theory, it is not universally accepted in political science as a precise model for all political behaviors.

www.google.com

It's sort of a 'they're all the same', 'both sides do it' diversion from the substance of what the different factions are trying to accomplish.

In our case that would be democracy vs fascism.

#89 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-11 02:12 PM | Reply

"But that progressivism isn't necessarily so different from right-wing nationalism."

The trivial differences include sending millions of people to camps or not, taking away women's rights or not, starting a war with Iran or not.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 02:19 PM | Reply

Hi Corky:

New Yorkers want AOC to replace US Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel), the way genuine Democrats want to oust US Senator John Fetterman (D-Israel) in Pennsylvania.

New Yorkers are tired of foreign interference in their politics, that's why they voted for NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), not disgraced sexual abuser Andrew "AIPAC" Cuomo, a lothario who sold out the Democratic Party of his father for a mere 30 pieces of silver.

#91 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-11 02:33 PM | Reply

I'll rail against the Dems making the same mistake they make every single time they think they have momentum.

Nominating a woman?

I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency.

It also couldn't be any clearer at this point in time what a plurality of Americans wants. Here's a hint, it's not progressivism.

Well then you should be elated! You're getting exactly what you want, regressivism!

Best of luck with that whole science thing. Most people consider it progressive and worthless.

It's funny how y'all always think you're what this country wants
#76 | POSTED BY JPW

What's funnier is you don't know what the fuck you want.

It's almost like you're balled up in fetal position wishing it was 1997 again.

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 02:33 PM | Reply


Are you familiar with the horseshoe theory?
#88 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Is it that you got hit in the head with a horseshoe and believe progressivism and fascism are the same thing?

You're getting the world you want right now from Donald Trump.

Go out and celebrate.

#93 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I was gonna just read some stuff but when I read this headline it begged a response.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

the ignorant --rhymes with 'what'....thinks she can win...

so what has she done so far....oh yeah....kept 18,000 people from

gainful employment...

tell me you dopes REALLY don't think she's presidential material....

#94 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-11 03:19 PM | Reply

"tell me you dopes REALLY don't think she's presidential material...."

of course you do...I forgot for a moment where I was posting....

----------------------------------
I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency.

that was from jpw or clownshack.....doesn't matter which one...same cess pool.

you ignorant dope......it's the two women you put up as nominees....a fat crook

followed by an illiterate slut CHOSEN by back room billionaires while you dumb fques

were screaming about threats to "democracy".....

not surprised either of you is still lying about this.....

( look up the parable about the bird getting a ride across the river on the back

of a snake...)

#95 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-11 03:26 PM | Reply

*** TV Tumor Bill Maher and US Senator John Fetterman Share a Chuckle over Dummkopf Trumpf's 'Honesty' ***

How is it possible that TV tumor/oligarch Bill Maher won the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor?

Why is human elephant John Fetterman (D-Israel) still in the Democratic Party?

With the US at war and the economy tanking, doesn't a US Senator have more important things to do?

Link: "Miss Piggy, ha-ha-ha!"

Do the world a favor, you two overpaid defenders of the horrible status quo:


#96 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-11 03:43 PM | Reply

and now you dooky holes want to try and push a woman who only has two things going

for her ( cup size ) AND maybe run the illiterate slut again.....and we'll read the same tired

old numb nutted buffoonery about too misogynistic "and all that jazz"...

..either choice is fine by me.

GOP WHITE HOUSE until 2036.

#97 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-11 03:46 PM | Reply

a fat crook

No fatter crook than you boy Trump.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 03:46 PM | Reply

this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency

Prove me wrong.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-11 03:48 PM | Reply

Do the world a favor, you two overpaid defenders of the horrible status quo:

#96 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS

I enjoy each and every attack on the Democrat. Every time we read this, you

prove just how wacko / leftist radical zealots dems have become....it belies

all doubt to the contrary....

#100 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-11 03:51 PM | Reply

You know what dems haven't tried against maga yet? An actual economic populist.
#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

No, they haven't.

But how do you see economic populism working out? The electorate has consistently voted for tax cuts and, foolishly I admit, decreases in social spending. They certainly won't vote for tax hikes or, more than likely, large scale social programs.

They just want to ability to work hard and make fair wages and a good living for doing so.

blogs.lse.ac.uk

I remember Harris had a bunch of giveaway programs as part of her platform and they didn't poll well IIRC.

#101 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 03:54 PM | Reply

No the DNC is doing that by burying their study on the reasons people hate them because we know what that study concludes - the people hate elitist corruption and want real populism.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I don't disagree with you on that one tiny bit.

The perception of corporate capture of both parties is a huge turn off to a large portion of the electorate.

Problem is, how do you fix that if you stop participating?

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 03:55 PM | Reply

Prove me wrong.

#99 | Posted by ClownShack

I already have... fart face...

pick a woman with more credentials than "its her turn" or a SELECTED

illiterate slut who's only claim to fame...( other than "servicing" willie brown"

was repeating this stupid chit ....what can be, unburdened by what has been"

#103 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-11 03:55 PM | Reply

Did you see POTUS-level performance from the Community Organizer?

#85 | Posted by snoofy

More than AOC.

Successful lawyer in civil rights, community leader and state and federal level elected official.

He also had a gravitas and demeanor that was able to reach people. I don't see that quality in AOC whenever I hear her speak. I feel like she's typically saying the same things over and over and usually they're standard talking points.

#104 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 03:58 PM | Reply

>"My ambition ...

She's got the narcissism and authoritarian spirit already established

#105 | Posted by john_savage2 at 2026-05-11 04:18 PM | Reply

#103
You seem to be in thrall to some profound mental health issues which aren't getting properly addressed. Hopefully you'll receive some decent help. In the meantime, perhaps you might try laying off that lady kink for a bit. It makes you sound fookin nutz.

#106 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-11 04:19 PM | Reply

Nominating a woman?
I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency.

Thank you for elegantly and perfectly encapsulating why progressivism is a huge ick for most voters.

Well then you should be elated! You're getting exactly what you want, regressivism!
Best of luck with that whole science thing. Most people consider it progressive and worthless.

You're flailing. Rather desperately.

What's funnier is you don't know what the fuck you want.
It's almost like you're balled up in fetal position wishing it was 1997 again.
#92 | Posted by ClownShack

LOL another poster who's gonna take a crack at telling people what they think while they can barely assess the reality around them for what it is.

I know perfectly well what I want.

The GOP to move back towards the center.
The end of collaboration and cooperation and bipartisanship being considered toxic.
Both parties to stop pounding us with bulls*&^ social issues while core issues fester and die.
Reasonable regulations to protect citizen's finances, health, our environment and our children's futures.
Enforcement of anti-trust laws to push our economy back into something that's more than free market in name only.

Should I go on?

#107 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 04:19 PM | Reply

pick a woman with more credentials than "its her turn" or a SELECTED
illiterate slut who's only claim to fame...( other than "servicing" willie brown"
was repeating this stupid chit ....what can be, unburdened by what has been"

#103 | Posted by shrimptacodan

You know, people might treat you a little less harshly if you weren't such a proudly degenerate loser piece of s*&^.

Just sayin'.

#108 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 04:21 PM | Reply

"The GOP to move back towards the center."

That purge - which will not happen -could have been a real doozy.

#109 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-05-11 04:24 PM | Reply

"I agree this nation is currently way too misogynistic for a woman to win the presidency."

"Thank you for elegantly and perfectly encapsulating why progressivism is a huge ick for most voters."

JPW,

How is your response functionally any different than when Republicans say teaching about slavery is bad because it makes the white people feel bad?

Same concept in play, just being applied to sexism. No?

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 04:25 PM | Reply

How is your response functionally any different than when Republicans say teaching about slavery is bad because it makes the white people feel bad?
Same concept in play, just being applied to sexism. No?

#110 | Posted by snoofy

Sure, if you've buried your head so far up social wedge issues a&& that you can only see it through that lens as opposed to, oh I don't know, seeing it through reality that Harris was a terrible candidate who was handed the nomination she couldn't win on her own when she entered a primary after four unremarkable years of an extremely low profile VP stint?

But you're right, it's simply because she's a woman.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 04:40 PM | Reply

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Truth

#112 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-11 05:02 PM | Reply

I'll bet that hurt to click "post."

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 05:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#111 JPW says, "...Harris was a terrible candidate who was handed the nomination she couldn't win on her own when she entered a primary after four unremarkable years of an extremely low profile VP stint?"

And people seem to always forget that there are two sides in typical political race in America: the Democrat or the Republican.

And both sides have the equal opportunity to define and condemn their opponents. And the other side usually answers those attacks. Usually...

Trump hammered Democrats on transgender issues. Now the party is at odds on a response

#114 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-11 05:30 PM | Reply

But you're right, it's simply because she's a woman.
#111 | Posted by jpw

So you are saying a Democrat woman could win, after Hillary, after Kamala?
Can you name that woman? Surely not AOC.
I don't think you can name her.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 05:31 PM | Reply

Republican and right-wing trolls are easy to identify on progressive web-blogs.

But AIPAC trollers are subtle and harder to identify at first.

Initially they behave friendly and congenially with other bloggers.

They can be quite convincing.

But if cajoling and arguing doesn't work for them when they meet an ideological nemesis, out come the tantrums and insults to one's intelligence or principles.

The other AIPAC troll tactic you will have noticed is to distract and deflect away from a serious issue with nonsense stories that always avoid the elephant in the room.

And all of you know who I am referring to.

I've witnessed these tactics on this platform and other web-blogs where I write under this alias and another nom de guerre.


#116 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-05-11 05:31 PM | Reply

#10


#117 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-11 05:33 PM | Reply

zeldaydee
03/14/26
Hating AIPAC is just the newest Elders of Zion inspired Jew hate. It's unbelievable that the supposed anti racist left fell for it.
=
leahfloyeurs
03/14/26
It's not unbelievable really. Antisemitism acts like a hive mind control program.

#118 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-11 05:37 PM | Reply

I don't think you can name her.

#115 | Posted by snoofy

Off the top of my head, no I couldn't.

So, does that mean Harris lost because misogyny?

#119 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 05:39 PM | Reply

JPW, can you give us a quick yes/no on which of these Democrat women you think could be elected:
(For the record, I don't think any of them could be elected, and that's because they are women.)

Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitmer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris (no), AOC (no), Elissa Slotkin, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Maura Healey. Source ballotpedia.org

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 05:40 PM | Reply

I remember Harris had a bunch of giveaway programs as part of her platform and they didn't poll well IIRC.

#101 | Posted by jpw

Because she's not a credible messenger.

People want someone who is as angry at the status quo elites as they are, and harris doesn't play that part.

#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 05:41 PM | Reply

She's got the narcissism and authoritarian spirit already established

#105 | Posted by john_savage2

Then you should love her.

#122 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 05:42 PM | Reply

So, does that mean Harris lost because misogyny?
#119 | Posted by jpw

I'd put misogyny on the list of reasons for her loss.
I wouldn't strike it from the list. Would you?

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 05:43 PM | Reply

But how do you see economic populism working out? The electorate has consistently voted for tax cuts and, foolishly I admit, decreases in social spending. They certainly won't vote for tax hikes or, more than likely, large scale social programs.

#101 | Posted by jpw

The electorate hates the insurance industry. They want a candidate who terrifies the insurance industry. Same as the utility industry. Same as the tech titans.

The electorate wants someone who fill fight back. Dems refused to give them that option, so they turned to trump.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-11 05:45 PM | Reply

Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitmer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris (no), AOC (no), Elissa Slotkin, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Maura Healey. Source ballotpedia.org

#120 | Posted by snoofy

What's your point?

I'd have to look into them a bit more because I recognize names but don't know enough about their politics and experiences to give a quick answer.

I already said that.

Is this where you start arguing with yourself in the form of a strawman position you're going to claim I hold?

#125 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 05:49 PM | Reply

I'd put misogyny on the list of reasons for her loss.
I wouldn't strike it from the list. Would you?

#123 | Posted by snoofy

Of course, not. Read the nonsense from people like shrimpd*&^ or lfthndcuck et al and it's obvious that it was present.

But I'm not sure I would even put it in the top five reasons she lost considering those types weren't going to vote for her anyway.

#126 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 05:52 PM | Reply

The electorate hates the insurance industry. They want a candidate who terrifies the insurance industry. Same as the utility industry. Same as the tech titans.
The electorate wants someone who fill fight back. Dems refused to give them that option, so they turned to trump.

#124 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

I agree entirely with the except of turning to Trump.

The electorate didn't turn to Trump. Trump kept his voter base and gained a small fraction of new votes (about 3 million IIRC).

Trump won not by being appealing to voters, he won by attrition and convincing people they shouldn't vote.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-11 05:56 PM | Reply

People want someone who is as angry
#121 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

It creates a Catch-22. People want someone who is passionate. But when a woman is passionate, she's accused of "acting emotional."
Meanwhile, Trump's twitter storms at 3AM and never gets accused of "acting emotional."
He might be accused of being a bully, or a racist, but he's never burdened with the mere observation of "acting emotional."
"Acting emotional" is an accusation which is only ever levied at women.

For example, whenever Kamala expressed anger, her message was quickly characterized as Just Another Angry Black Woman by right-wing pundits. And that's all they need to say. They don't need to engage with her messaging because the appeal to sexism and racism is sufficient to discredit the speaker and nullify any policy discussion.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 05:57 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort