Quid pro quo: Tammy Ducksworth trades a HRC endorsement for a Benghazi No vote.


In April, when [Tammy] Duckworth announced her bid for the senate against incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., she was asked a question about Clinton’s emails. In response, Duckworth talked about transparency, and added that “I’m on Benghazi committee, I’m on Armed Services, I think transparency is better and she needs to come before the Benghazi committee and testify as well.”

But after Clinton endorsed Duckworth, the congresswoman changed her tune.

Of course. Dead Americans are dead Americans, but an endorsement for Senate is a pretty valuable thing. You can’t expect an Illinois Democrat to think differently, can you? It’s practically forbidden to them by their state constitution, or something.

Moe Lane

6 thoughts on “Quid pro quo: Tammy Ducksworth trades a HRC endorsement for a Benghazi No vote.”

  1. The last guy in Illinois who had a ‘pretty valuable thing ” for sale ended up in the joint .

  2. Duckworth’s a hack, she’s been a hack since Hizzonner Rahm recruited her, and now that she’s got a taste of the trough life, she’s not leaving..

  3. Is a HRC endorsement really worth anything outside of the Dem primary, even in IL? Is Duckworth in a competitive primary? If not this strikes me more like, “I’d better not anger the probable nominee, who can ruin my chances” kind of move than a quid pro quo.

Comments are closed.