MyDD :: Kicked to the Curb

Kicked to the Curb

by Shazone, Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST

OK, I get it.

I have been fighting like crazy for Hillary Clinton and her nomination as the Democratic candidate for President, and I have, quite frankly, been surprised with the depth of my feelings on this subject. I didn't even become a supporter of Hillary until about early February of this year. But I have come to learn and love the fact that Hillary Clinton represents me, my values, and all of the efforts and struggles and, well, crap, that I have lived through to become the person that I am (and, despite what Obama's supporters have told me time and time again, I am successful, happy, committed to progressive agendas, a friend and a lover...God's in my heaven and all's right with my world.)

But something else was at play in my passion this primary.

This morning it came to me. I have been fighting not just for Hillary Clinton (whom I genuinely feel is so much more qualified to be POTUS, and whom I will continue to support right up to November and for anything she ever wants to do in the future), I have been fighting to stay in the Democratic Party.

And I have failed. I have been kicked to the curb. Given my walking papers. And told to "get out".

So I am going.

But before I go, please know who is leaving.

I organized for the Democratic Party (I ran a campaign in my hometown that brought a Dem majority into power - so much so that the Repugs have not even put up a slate in the past 3 elections).

I have created advertising and mailers for local Democratic Party candidates.

I have donated - thousands of dollars - much to my husband's chagrin.

I have marched in DC for every Pro-Choice rally that took place during my lifetime.

I have marched in two New York City Anti-War rallies.

I have phoned, and walked, and talked, and e-mailed for every Democratic candidate in my lifetime.

In the past, I, and others like me, were the backbone of the party. We got things done. We funded campaigns. We turned out the vote. We won elections.

I believed in a party that supported hard working people, health care for every American, all human rights, every part of the Constitution, worked - together - against racism, jobs in America, fairness in monetary policies and justice for all (I know, pretty sappy, isn't it!)

And now I have been asked by so many Obama supporters who are proclaiming control over the Democratic Party to leave and not let the door hit me in the ass on my way out, that I have decided to do it.

Originally those were just "fighting words" to me. And I choose to ignore them. But this morning I realized that this is exactly what the Democratic Party wants me to do, too. So, I'm going.

Because the New Democratic Party is a complete unknown to me. I don't recognize who the power players are. I don't understand what those power players are trying to do except, IMHO, disenfranchise the former backbone of the Party. I don't support the candidate that those power players are pushing on the electorate. I can't tell you his policies...because he can't articulate those policies to me.

Yesterday I got a mailer for Mr. Obama that included a "Special Message from Ted Kennedy" in which Senator Kennedy said: "The Obama Campaign is about a new generation of leadership....we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation, distortion and division..." - a strange message from Senator Kennedy who is one of the oldest parts of those old politics.

And the overall theme of the mailer from Mr. Obama played off of and repeated one of the most asinine lines I have ever heard in my entire life: "We are the change we've been waiting for." My head exploded.

So I get it. In the bigger scheme of things I am "yesterday", old news, past my prime. The New Democratic Party doesn't want or need me, my time, my money, my passion, my commitment or my vote. You just want me out of your way.

So I'm going. Not with rancor. Not with bitterness. I'm just going.

Good luck. And God Bless America.

Tags: GBCW; Hillary Clinton; Obama Supporters; Democratic Party (all tags)

Permalink :: 354 Comments :: Post a Comment

So in all that activism... (1.72 / 22)

you've never lost before?

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:23:01 AM EST

She must have...she supported (2.00 / 11)

Democrats all her life.

I don't get anger over loss in this diary. Just a realization that some Dems are no longer wanted. And when you're not wanted, you don't want to give anything more of yourself.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where could you possibly be getting (2.00 / 3)

the impression that "some Democrats aren't wanted?"

by drmark on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 7)

"The Obama Campaign is about a new generation of leadership"

"We are the change..."

Plus, of course, almost every message from the Obama campaign AND ITS SUPPORTERS is that old-time Dems don't count or matter any more.

When you're not appreciated, you don't hang around.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 8)

You do realize "We are the Change" means WE as in all of us... you're welcome to be the change too.

by Tatan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess some of us don't know what (2.00 / 4)

"change" means. Change for the sake of change is never good. And, I think it feels as if it's all "out with the 'old', in with the new" - and that is impractical and - perhaps - stupid.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess some of us don't know what (2.00 / 2)

Like I said, I'm just glad you weren't around for Bill Clinton's 92 run.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Somebody said once in a comment (2.00 / 8)

that it's about Old vs. Young.

My reply was no it isn't...it's about Old vs. New.

Old way of doing politics, old way of running government, etc. We need to change that because the old ways were why we weren't accomplishing our goals.

I'm a grandmother but I can see that we need something new. I want to pass the torch to the next generation of Democrats and help them get our party established. They are the future, I will be around for only a small part of that future. They must be the stewards.

I hope that made sense.

No Way, No How, No McCain!

by GFORD on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Problem is - (2.00 / 1)

the 'old' you mention is often translated into actual years rather worn out policies and ideas. We are way too willing to toss the baby out with the bathwater here in America. We worship what is perceived as new and young - trashing or ignoring what is considered old and therefore useless. It's nutty. So I understand what the diarist means - though I don't intend packing up my kit and leaving - no matter how often I'm told to `go back to the 1950's where I belong' (my knowledge of 1950's America comes from watching re-runs of `Leave it to Beaver' on Nick at Night). But I'm an Independent Progressive who usually votes Democratic. I too have worked my ass off for change in America - but I did it because it was right - not because it benefited one particular party. I do not want nor intend to stand aside and let the 'young' take over. I'm just not the retiring kind.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ted Kennedy is 76. (none / 0)

I don't think most people consider him as young and I certainly didn't see Obama tossing him out with the bathwater.

by edg1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then why is he considered 'young' - (none / 0)

and Hillary Clinton 'old'? Kennedy represents the stalwart old guard of the Democratic Party - people who put it all on the line during one of the most divisive times in American History. He's done his party proud - then and now - but he's not alone in that. I remember when Bill Clinton was elected. He was lauded as representative of the 'new' wing of the Democratic Party - bringing youth and vigor to a party worn down by 12 years of Republican occupation of the White House. Now both Clinton's are openly denigrated as Republican by the very same Democrats who lauded their entry into the White House 16 years ago. It just seems to me that up has become the new down. I thought it was Republicans who required the litmus tests.

by The Fat Lady Sings on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not that touchy on the subject. (none / 0)

When I was young I was cocky too. Now I'm old(er) and still pretty cocky. I still say it's old (way) vs. new (way), not old (people) vs. young (people). Progressives always push for progress, not for status quo. Progress means embracing the new, not clinging to the old.

Everybody's body gets old but our minds, our attitudes don't have to. 80-year-olds have Ipods at the gym, email accounts and cell phones. I overheard a widower in his 60's ten years ago talk about how he met his new wife online.

I went back to college at 40, changed careers at 45, went from (boring)accounting to (fun)IT. Now I'm nearing 60, grandmother to a college student and a contract programmer. Having the time of my life.

You and I are part of the change that is about to happen ... change driven by progressives ... both young and old ... progressives like us.

No Way, No How, No McCain!

by GFORD on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess some of us don't know what (2.00 / 1)

Obama has articulated many many times what change he is looking for. He wants to change the mindset of foreign policy that says military force is the #1 option. He wants to change our health care system so that it is universal for children, and affordable for all with no insurance company denial of benefits. He wants to change our oil-first energy policy so that we move massively towards alternative energy. He wants to change the influence of corporate lobbyists over our government. Instead he wants and is succeeding in getting many new people involve in politics and fighting for these things (but this does NOT mean he doesn't want you to be part of the change also - he wants all of us involved). These are just a few changes that Obama is talking about over and over and over again. You obviously believe in these things. I am sorry you are turned off by some of the rhetoric, for many people it is inspiring (including me and I am 60 years old and feel very included by his rhetoric). I can understand why you are turned off by a minority of Obama supporters who are obnoxious about their choice(just as a minority of Clinton supporters are obnoxious). But they definitely do not represent Obama, and they do not represent the majority of Obama supporters.

So please keep up your idealism and join us and keep fighting for the change you want. Obama has a wonderful history as a progressive activist. The change he wants is very much like the change you want.

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Back in 98, I marched and protested FOR (none / 0)

the Clintons.

I'm not some new kid to this. But it is time to throw out the old rascals. If this past year of the "Democratic Majority Congress" (quotes intentional) have taught us anything, it's that it's not good enough to have just Democrats in power, if they are spineless jellyfish who rubberstamp everything the Republicans want.

So I got that message loud and clear before I ever gave up on Edwards and switched to Obama. Some people in the Democratic Party apparently are so comfortable with the business as usual that they stopped fighting for us. Oh, they fight for nominations just swell! But they don't fight for America, not if it might hurt them in their fundraising or key microtrend demographics, or if they might get called cowards or unpatriotic by some right-wing talk show host.

Some people just have to go. I don't know about you, Coyote, but I can name several that I would love to see get kicked to the curb, including both Clintons, who I feel betrayed by.

At least I expect Republicans to fuck us over. That's their job in this life. But we vote and we work and we donate and fight for Democrats to get into office so they will at least try to SLOW DOWN the Republicans in their mischief.

And, by the way, if you went to any anti-war marches in New York, they must be different from the ones I have marched in on the west coast, because out here, generally speaking, they are very anti-Hillary. At such rallies, you find less party solidarity and more fury about the war and its enablers, including certain elected Democrats.

by Dumbo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those who won't vote for the nominee (2.00 / 4)

in November should indeed get out. This is a blog devoted to electing Democrats, not McCain, not Nader. Every last one of Obama's supporters would have voted for Clinton this November if she had run a competent campaign and won the nomination. We would have been pissed, but ANY Democrat is preferable to McCain.
Any Democrat, get it, people?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those who won't vote for the nominee (2.00 / 4)

wrong. This blog is NOT devoted to only democrats. To you have to re-read about MyDD

MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power. We do polling, research, commentary, analysis, and activism. Here are the three front-page writers.

so, if people want to support Nader and write diaries on them here, they are allowed to do so.

Why do I hear shades of Bush Cultism when I read crap comments like above?

by colebiancardi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? Nader supporters are welcome? (none / 0)

I don't believe that to be the case. I'm sure the many thousands of Iraqis who have perished because of Nader's repug-funded Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dum bullshit in 2000 would disagree if they were to have a voice.
The rest of your idiotic "Bush cult" comment isn't worthy of a response, only a hide rating, which I shall withold for the moment.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those who won't vote for the nominee (2.00 / 1)

Maybe because you're looking for them?

I would imagine that Nader supporters would be welcome to write diaries anytime they want. I haven't seen it. What I have seen is people advocating for third party candidates EXPRESSLY to take down Barack Obama and allow John McCain to win.

John McCain is not a progressive. Working to help John McCain win is not a progressive cause. I don't really think there's much room for debate here.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither is your candidate! (none / 0)

Just last week he accused the peace activists of the 60's of dishonoring our troops on their return from Viet Nam just to appeal to the conservative people of Kentucky! He wasn't old enough to be aware of what was going on at that time while he was living in the Phillipines. Don't you understand how repugnant that comes across to us who were tear gassed during those demonstrations?

Where's your contribution to the peace movement on this war except to vote for a guy who disguised himself as an opponent of the war but keeps voting to fund it! You know what saddened me the most when I saw all the young people in Oregon? It's the fact that he didn't ask any of them to protest against the war in order to end it NOW but that wouldn't help his campaign would it?. What a coward!!! the audacity of hope what a bunch of crap!!!!

by suzieg on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those who won't vote for the nominee (2.00 / 1)

Coleb, Todd and Jerome have said many times this is a Partisan blog.

I respect and admire your devotion to Hillary and urge you to throw that same support behind the Democratic nominee, be they black male or white female.

"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."

by AK Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those who won't vote for the nominee (2.00 / 1)

This is a blog devoted to electing Democrats, not McCain, not Nader.

And I'll add a bit of righteous anger here that a similar "abandoning" of the Dem party in 2000 is largely what gave us GWBush. Anybody who wants to repeat that in 08 & help bring on 4 more years of this can go straight to hell.

Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo

by rb608 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Those who won't vote for the nominee (none / 0)

And the horse they rode in on.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let me ask you a question (none / 0)

Should those Democrats who don't vote for Obama in the fall "get out and stay out?" Should they not bother voting for other Democrats either now or in the future?

Consider the sound of this attitude and you should see clearly why words like this are NEVER, EVER, EVER spoken by any responsible Democratic leader. Good voters are where you find them, whenever you find them.

by lombard on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (1.00 / 1)

The change I see, is not something I want to be part of. The Venom and hate that has spewed from the Obama camp and his army is exactly like the hate and venom that came from the GWB zealots in 2000. I agree that this party no longer represents my values. For someone that says he isn't like the old politics certainly plays the game well... the Greatest politicians are those who claim not to be.
Obama will lose the GE because of this, I will not support him.

by radarmel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 1)

There is plenty of venom and hate coming from both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters. To me it seems mostly to come from Clinton supporters but that is probably my bias because I support Obama so that affects me more strongly. But I am a regular reader of Daily Kos and I see plenty of venom and hate from Obama supporters too. I occasionally comment against it but usually I just ignore it. If you are open to seeing it you will see plenty of venom from the Clinton side too.

The voice of the hateful is unfortunately terribly amplified on the internet. Anyone can just spew it anonymously and it easily disrupts civil debate. I've seen many threads where one hateful comment is made and then there's nothing but reaction and counter-reaction to it afterwards, usually venomous as well because passions get roused. I won't deny that I have gotten riled and made remarks in the heat of the moment that I regretted later.

But please recognize that this is totally unrepresentative of Obama and of most of his supporters. To me Obama is a wonderful model of thoughtfulness, civility and inclusiveness (though not without an occasional slip).

If you really have progressive values I think you will reconsider and will support Obama in the end. He has a remarkable history of progressive action. And the alternative of John McCain is abominable. His main promise is that there will be more war, more and more unnecessary killing. Is that really what you wish to support?

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 1)

I agree that there has been much unpleasantness from both camps. Sometimes I pop over to Big Orange just to see how much frothing against Clinton still goes on. Way too much, as it turns out. It's really ugly.

I might be more willing to support Obama (should he become the nominee) if people would stop behaving as if Obama has done anything all that special. As it stands, to say he's done anything "remarkable" is way off the mark and is insulting to my intelligence.

To say that McCain sucks beyond belief - that I can agree with.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 1)

Well I consider it remarkable that a top graduate of Harvard Law School would go to Chicago and become a community organizer. I consider it remarkable that in the Illinois State legislature he could organize support for mandatory taping of police interrogations from both police and republicans. I consider his 2 books remarkable. I consider his speech against the Iraq War at an anti-war rally extremely admirable. I can't say that he has done anything remarkable as a United States senator, but with Bush as president that's pretty hard. Chris Dodd with his support for our constitution is one of the few I'd label remarkable in that respect. I do think he has been solidly good as a U.S. Senator. To me his record has been quite comparable to Hillary Clinton's record with the major exception that she voted to authorize the Iraq War and he opposed it.

If Hillary Clinton had voted against authorizing the Iraq War she would be the overwhelming winner of the Democratic nomination now, and I would be an enthusiastic supporter. Unfortunately she did made a horrible choice on the most important vote of her career, and that is why she has deservedly lost.

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 1)

"Top" graduate? Where in the class was he ranked? It's been acknowledged that he was made editor of the law review based on his moderator skills, not his brainpower. He may indeed have been top-ranked but I'd have to see the stats before I'd believe that. I have four attorney siblings who attended top schools so I know how law school works.

Hey, I'm a top graduate of Brown University and I have spent thousands of hours creating nonprofit community organizations and never been paid for it at all. I don't consider myself all that remarkable. People do that kind of shit all the time. Difference is, they're not egotistical so you never hear about them.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:35:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

From having read Obama's books, heard his speeches, seen the causes he has championed and seen how he has run an incredibly successful campaign against long odds, in my mind there is no doubt he is a brilliant and highly moral man. Egotistical - undoubtedly. Name me a person who has ever run for President who is not egotistical.

As for Harvard Law school I don't know where he ranked, but its hard to imagine someone being chosen to be editor of the Harvard Law Review who was not one of the "top" students. He gave up big bucks and big prestige to become a community organizer and if you think it was just all part of his plan to become president well then even I would have to say he devised a more brilliant plan than I could give him credit for. If you sacrificed a lot to do good work then good for you also. I know a number of people who have dedicated themselves to doing good and I think they are all remarkable people (I wish I could include myself in their number - I have sacrificed some to do good but I have done so much less than many others).

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 2)

BO graduated from Columbia in 83 and worked for Business International Corp. and NYPIRG until 85 when he went to Chicago to do community organizing until 88. After graduating from Harvard Law in 1991 he went to work for a law firm in Chicago as well as teaching at U of C Law School. It is often misstated that AFTER Law School he took a low paying community organizing job....that was before Law School.

by jentwisl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

I confess. I got my facts wrong there. I still think he is a brilliant and highly moral man.

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

Brilliant, definitely not. He stumbles when speaking off the cuff. Moral? That one scares me from anyone. I don't want to hear about morality. My idea of morality does NOT include letting ex-gay haters on my campaign stage.

Ugh.

Of course pres. candidates are egotistical. I mind that a lot less when the person is actually extremely intelligent and works really, really hard.

Obama didn't give up big bucks and prestige. He actively sought the prestige in order to one day run for big office.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

And my idea of morality does not include voting to authorize the Iraq war. As far as intelligence and working really, really hard go, how would you explain the fact that Obama defeated a candidate who had enormous advantages over him because of her husband's presidency, reflected in the fact that the original polls showed her winning by a landslide.

I do find it hard to defend Obama's having McClurkin as a campaigner for him in South Carolina. He did also have a gay minister speak at that rally and I believe Obama has been more vocal in talking about gay and lesbian rights in his campaign speeches then Clinton has. Still I concede that his decision was based more on political expediency than on morality.

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

Well I consider it remarkable that a top graduate of Harvard Law School would go to Chicago and become a community organizer.

Get your chronology straight! He became a community organizer after he got his BA from Columbia University. I graduated from the University of Chicago at the same time, and I don't consider it incredible at all that he became a community organizer at that time -- in fact one of my best friends who graduated from U of C at the same time also worked as a community organizer in Chicago at the same time (don't ask his opinion of Obama). Aside from the fact that community organizing is a natural job to consider if you are interested in politics or social work and the like, the economy back then was terrible -- it was the height of the Reagan recession, so it's not as if graduates from even the best universities were being offered lucrative positions if they merely wanted to "cash in" on their degrees, to quote one particularly inept Obama campaign ad.

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

It's obvious that you haven't read hillaryis44.com for the hate, venom and vitriol expressed there. Not enough? Read any number of the recced diaries here. Give me a break.

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

Oh, that's kind of you. What if we disagree with whatever change is intended? Not that anyone can tell since it's so frikkin vague. Obama brings no new ideas except perhaps fundraising.

What if we like Democratic policies as they've been practiced for years, even decades? What if we see that what we need is NOT change but rather to push the Democratic agenda harder than it's ever been pushed?

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:18:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To answer your question (none / 0)

I'll quote berkeleymike, who said it pretty well upthread:

Obama has articulated many many times what change he is looking for. He wants to change the mindset of foreign policy that says military force is the #1 option. He wants to change our health care system so that it is universal for children, and affordable for all with no insurance company denial of benefits. He wants to change our oil-first energy policy so that we move massively towards alternative energy. He wants to change the influence of corporate lobbyists over our government. Instead he wants and is succeeding in getting many new people involve in politics and fighting for these things (but this does NOT mean he doesn't want you to be part of the change also - he wants all of us involved). These are just a few changes that Obama is talking about over and over and over again.

If you disagree with having progressives and Democrats stand-up and fight for their values, to take pride in opposing a war (instead of voting to authorize it), to encourage a generation of voters to take part in the process... if you think this 'change' is something you disagree with... if you don't thing this is pushing a Democratic agenda (and doing it by changing the debate itself, by turning the rhetoric on it's head)... well then I feel a bit sorry for you... but you're still welcome to join us.

by Tatan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:52:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To answer your question (2.00 / 1)

You don't know me from Adam. I've been progressive since McGovern. I feel sorry for you that you have been bamboozled by Obama into thinking he is different or special. I'm sure you will understand why I have decided to pass on your classy invitation.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To answer your question (none / 0)

I never suggested you weren't progressive... just that you're wrong in thinking that Senator Obama isn't.

by Tatan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To answer your question (none / 0)

He's not conservative but he's not a flaming progressive, either.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:28:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Hillary Clinton is? (none / 0)

I don't agree with your assessment that Obama is not progressive, but are you saying Clinton is more progressive than Obama? After her Iraq war vote.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And Hillary Clinton is? (none / 0)

Good gawd, progressivism isn't related to just one issue.

by Montague on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No it isn't.... (none / 0)

but I still have not seen any listing of how Clinton is more progressive than Obama.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To answer your question (2.00 / 1)

McGovern to me was the best presidential candidate we ever had. But given how many Democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq, including Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards and every single democratic senator up for re-election except for Feingold, don't you think Obama making an anti-war speech at an anti-war rally was different and special?

by berkeleymike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

But according to the DLC, via spokesman Harold Ford, the Democrats need to be more conservative. Is that the kind of Democratic agenda that you want to push?
I loved Bill Clinton, and was able to overcome my reservations about his relative conservatism, but I have never been happy about the DLC plans for controlling the party platform. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that Clinton is the DLC's candidate this year.

by haystax calhoun on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

let's not forget donna brazile's comment: (none / 0)

... I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

by suzieg on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let's not forget donna brazile's comment: (none / 0)

What's wrong with not just relying on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics? Don't you want to expand the Democratic coalition? Do you think we should be relying on any one demographic group?

I'm Hispanic, and I sure as heck hope the Dems are able to get a coalition broader than just my vote.

by Tatan on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 1)

Also, IT'S A SLOGAN.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Democratic Party (2.00 / 3)

is about change...progressivism is change, liberal is change. What separates us from Republicans and conservatives that we're always striving to adapt to a new world instead of clinging onto relics of the past. Obama is making the change case a little better than Hillary, and perhaps the fact that she is a Clinton is a problem for her, and yeah that may be unfair, but it is what it is. This is the decision the voters made. You can be disappointed...Lord knows I've gotten used to being disappointed, but sometimes you win some and sometimes you lose some.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (2.00 / 3)

Plus, of course, almost every message from the Obama campaign AND ITS SUPPORTERS is that old-time Dems don't count or matter any more.

Let's see your link. Show me where anyone speaking for the Obama campaign - which is part of your claim - has ever said that "old-time Dems don't count or matter any more," or retract your claim.

If "almost every message" from the campaign is saying that, it shouldn't take you very long.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

Last time I checked, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were illustrated in the dictionary next to "old-line Dems."

Both Senators have had the opportunity to work with their colleagues Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and both chose to endorse Obama.

Unless I missed something, the Obama campaign didn't reject those endorsements, nor those of tens of thousands of other "old-line" local party activists.

I have a dear family friend here who was a chair of the county Democratic party back in the early eighties, the lone Democrat on what was then an all-Republican town council as far back as the early seventies, and a staunch supporter of McGovern and JFK even before that. He's been an Obama supporter almost from Day 1, and if he ever felt rejected or unwanted by the campaign, he's certainly never said anything about it.

Is it possible you're allowing your biases to cause you to read in a message that was never intended to be conveyed?

Just sayin'...

Ceci n'est pas une <<snark>>

by ipsos on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

I think you're replying to the wrong comment. I agree with you.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Senator Kennedy and Obama (none / 0)

I don't understand this. Isn't part of progressive thinking that we must continually change? We must progress. In order to do that, we'll have to say that some things, even in our party, could be better.

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Donna Brazille: we don't need working class (2.00 / 4)

whites, hispanics. This is a newer, younger party more urban.

by catfish1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor Donna Brazile. (2.00 / 2)

The most misquoted and demonized person in the democratic party.

She said we don't JUST rely on working class whites. Never mentioned hispanics at all. You probably know that, too.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also don't need Asians. Out with the old! (1.33 / 3)

Out with the old hags who have volunteered and phone banked and worked for the party for years! It's a new party now!

by catfish1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also don't need Asians. Out with the old! (2.00 / 1)

Catfish, I note you didn't really respond when your misquoting of Brazile was corrected.

She clearly said, we don't need JUST working class whites, etc. That the new demographics involves ADDING people to the party. You seem to choose to view that as some kind of zero-sum competition within the party for influence and representation. Is it hard to believe that by ADDING new demographics to a BIGGER-TENT Dem party and EXPANDING its base, the Obama campaign is not, actually, throwing out "old hags" or anyone else? That it's building a bigger, more powerful, more inclusive party?

This is how I feel, at least. I'd like to hear your response if you're still reading this thread.

What is The October Protocol?

by Koan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She must have...she supported (2.00 / 2)

All Democrats are wanted. And, in general, we are unifying: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/20/1171 3/5722

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She must have...she supported (2.00 / 3)

LOL your diary does little to unify. It has boiled down to some more disrepectful comments about Hillary and her supporters, where you have chimed in too.

Just dreaming unity and self patting about it in blogs is meaningless.

by Sandeep on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 5)

I will blow lunch.

As if that word is going to make all things Kumbaya again. This diary proves that wrong.

The wounds run very very deep.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 2)

Well, some folks here are not ready to unify. But across the country, there is movement toward a unified party.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 5)

Know what? I don't frakking care if everything is Kumbaya again. I don't frakking care if we all hold hands and sing together. I don't frakking care if we all hate each other so damn much that we can barely stand the sight of one another.

What I care about is progress. Progress that will happen if a Democrat is president, and won't happen if John McCain is. What I care about is keeping another Scalia clone off the Court, is ending this ridiculous war, is getting our economy back on track.

I don't care how you feel; I only care how you vote. And a vote for anyone who isn't the Democratic nominee for president in November is a stance against women's rights, against gay rights, against innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, against working families and middle-class families here in the US, and against a better world.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:45:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 2)

really? So people who prefer candidates who aren't in the Big Two and those candidates are progressive are smeared with that type of BushCo rhetoric you just posted?

by colebiancardi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 4)

Yep. There are only two people who have a reasonable chance at being President in January 2009: the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee. Any vote not for the Democratic nominee tacitly helps the Republican nominee.

If you believe in women's rights, if you believe in peace, if you believe in an economy that works for all Americans, you will vote for the candidate who could actually be President and who is not John McCain. It's just that simple.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 3)

lol.
that smacks of everything that our founding fathers WERE against (forcing people via threats and smearing them)

I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you need to look up on why people vote and how they can vote for someone else without being against progressive stances.

it is just that simple. Blackmail and empty rhetoric only makes me laugh

by colebiancardi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree. If I see the word unity again... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not making any threats.

I'm not the one who's going to appoint Scalia clones to SCOTUS. I'm not the one who thinks the Bush economy is just peachy. I'm not the one who wants perpetual war in Iraq.

John McCain is.

If anyone is making threats, it's him.

And the only two people who could be president in January 2009 are John McCain and whoever ends up being our nominee.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How can I help? (none / 0)

I don't think most hillary supporters liked kumbaya in the first place ;-) But I do like progressive places to be welcoming, and not hateful places like Redstate.

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:49:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She must have...she supported (2.00 / 10)

the only Democrats not wanted are the ones who say "Nominate my candidate or go to hell." whether they be Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, or Mike Gravel supporters.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, then...they you have it! (2.00 / 4)

But I think there is more going on here than simply that - although your attitude toward the diarist is pretty clear and not at all "unifying".

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then...they you have it! (2.00 / 3)

okay, then. she has every right to vote for mccain or just sit at home and do a crossword puzzle next november. but i'm not going to stress about it too much. there is an election to win. if some folks jump ship, there isn't too much that can be done about that. but i'm not going to start arguing that hillary should get the nomination just to satisfy a few sadsacks on mydd.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:43:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think that's the point of this... (2.00 / 3)

diary. It's really about what the "New" Democratic Party represents...and Shazone says she doesn't know so she won't be giving her support to something that is unknown. Obama seems to be a figurehead for this frustration, not the frustration itself.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think that's the point of this... (2.00 / 6)

ok, but this diary is not an attempt at reconciliation. it is also not an attempt to spark a discussion about what the future of the party is. it is a "goodbye cruel world" diary (as one other poster puts it) which is supposed to...what?...make other clinton supporters question obama, or maybe make obama supporters rethink their choice?

last week was "sexism diary" week at mydd and in none of those diaries was there any attempt to have a discussion. it was all recriminations against obama supporters and retorts of "you'll never understand", which is a very effective way to stop a discussion if one accidentally breaks out.

this week seems so far to be the week of "i'm leaving" diaries. and again, there is no call to discussion and the possibility of reconciliation is not offered. that is well within the prerogative of the diarist, but then i'm not going to try to talk them down. that's not my job (good thing, because i'm terrible at it).

so, if you want to leave the democratic party. i say, good luck. maybe you can move to vermont and vote for bernie sanders as an independent. minnesota also has a strong tradition of third parties.

makes me think of that line by Utah Phillips:

"Banker, boss and bureaucrat thought me a willing tool/
I voted Democratic and paid the Church its due/
Now all those swine will have to find/
Some other chump to screw."

if this is the point you've come to, good luck. and save a little whiskey for me.

by the mollusk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think that's the point of this... (1.00 / 2)

This diary is just an attention whore post.

"LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M HAVING A TEMPER TANTRUM OVER HERE AND NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION!!!!11!11!11!! LOOK AT ME!"

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The point is. (2.00 / 2)

You never know what to expect from a President. I never fathomed Bush would turn out the way he did. I have no idea what Hillary Clinton would do (but if it's another Bill, I'm sorry, but we can do better). To say you know what to expect from Hillary but don't know what to expect from Obama is erroneous. Both are unknowns. Just because Hillary's been around longer, doesn't make her presidency easier to predict, especially since she's done a complete 180 on guns, which was the final nail in the coffin for me.

George W. Bush was a very different Governor of Texas than he was a President.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:35:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If she doesn't know, then she hasn't been listenin (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/14/1622 9/3741

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, then...they you have it! (2.00 / 9)

Are you familiar with the diarist's comment history here? Believe me, there's nothing "more" going on here other than the fact that some people are extremely unpleasant, be it in real life or as their adopted online personae.

There are still too many folks here who espouse nothing but negativity, predictions of doom, personal criticism, etc. But when they get rebuked for it--repeatedly--they start navel-gazing and proclaim how "Democrats" have abandoned them? Huh?

To those people I say, no, Democrats haven't abandoned you. You're just not very nice online and people don't want anything to do with you. Monitor your own behavior before you decry your unjust ostracism.

As for Obama's mailers, what do you expect? Stop conflating "change in Washington" with "hating old people." This diary (and just about every other comment from this diarist) reads like a very angry, bitter diatribe against youth in general. I almost expect it to demand that those damned kids get off her lawn.

It doesn't have to be that way. Obama's message isn't about the "kidz," even if college students have indeed embraced him. But if a person wants to turn this into generational warfare, that's on them.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where does it say "hating old people"? (none / 0)

"In the bigger scheme of things I am "yesterday", old news, past my prime."

Although that is an issue that is being discussed, too. But not here.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

quibblin' (2.00 / 8)

Okay, stop conflating "change in washington" with "you are 'yesterday, old news, past your prime'".

Thank god you weren't around for Bill Clinton in 92. His campaign theme had the reframe "Yesterday's gone. Yesterday's gone."

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: quibblin' (2.00 / 1)

Dont stop, thinking about tomorrow,
Dont stop, itll soon be here,
Itll be, better than before,
Yesterdays gone, yesterdays gone.

Yeah, you're right diarist and company!

I DO seem to remember Hillary smiling and boppin' along to this Fleetwood Mac diddy...almost as though they weren't talking about euthanizing old folks. Good thing you can see through the bullshit!

John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country

by minnesotaryan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where does it say "hating old (2.00 / 3)

First of all, this diarist and many others repeatedly call us "teenagers" and other equally condescending and dismissive youth-related terms. (Remember campskunk stating that he should be getting paid "babysitting money"?) So the past comment history shows a rather jaundiced view of age as it relates to this primary.

As for the diary itself, how does one not see the inherent "Obama/Obama supporters have no use for old people" tripe?

"The Obama Campaign is about a new generation of leadership....we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation, distortion and division..." - a strange message from Senator Kennedy who is one of the oldest parts of those old politics.

And of course, the line you quoted. That attitude permeates this website (I can only imagine how bad it is at hillaryis44 or noquarter). For some reason, even though every non-incumbent candidate runs on a message of change, certain Hillary supporters have internalized Obama's message to mean that he doesn't need or want older Democrats around.

I wonder if some of them aren't playing his 2004 DNC speech backward to hear if he says, "Old Democrats suck. Your grandkids are the only person I care about."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry - I'm dense this morning... (none / 0)

The part you cite is a quote from an Obama mailer...not something the diarist said. So if it means "hating old people", isn't that the Obama message?

"The Obama Campaign is about a new generation of leadership....we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation, distortion and division..." - a strange message from Senator Kennedy who is one of the oldest parts of those old politics.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry - I'm dense this morning... (2.00 / 3)

No, the fact that she focused on that one phrase in the entire mailer, and tried to contradict it by pointing out Kennedy's age.

However, after having read your responses downthread, in which you also embrace the obnoxious "kidz" meme, I don't really feel like continuing this dialogue with you.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0)

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Johnny G nails it again. (2.00 / 2)

Obama has gained twelve points on Hillary since the beginning of May in today's Gallup poll. The Dems are uniting, some right away, some later, some never. Whatever. We will crush doddering old man McCain in November. Not since Bob Dole have the repugs run such a pitiful candidate.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:32:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She must have...she supported (2.00 / 1)

I for one am shocked at the way Mike Gravel has been treated in this primary.

There's only one person to blame for it all: Dennis Kucinich.

If he gets the nomination, I swear I'll burn my Democratic registration card and never look back.

In fact, I will devote the rest of my life to destroying democracy in America and the world.

I will sow chaos wherever I go. I will burn farms, sow fields with salt, and leave gum under table at restaurants. I will push all of the buttons on elevators and then run out.

My wrath will be terrible to behold.

by Captain Bathrobe on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So in all that activism... (2.00 / 13)

Frankly, I call bullshit. There's no way that people who have participated in pro-choice rallies, anti-war rallies, etc. would even think of voting for McCain, which is what the diarist is constantly trying to talk other people into.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm inclined to agree (2.00 / 5)

I really don't get the hatred of Obama. I get not supporting him and fighting for Hillary but I'm suspect of those whose motive is to rage against Obama and then declare they are leaving because he's winning the primary.

I don't buy it.

Obama 2008!

by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This diary doesn't say anything about (2.00 / 2)

hating Obama.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:56:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, but the diarist has (2.00 / 1)

in the past.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It only took a click or two (2.00 / 0)

To figure it out. There is clearly not just Pro-Hillary stuff going on, it's very Anti-Obama.

Obama 2008!

by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm curious about something.... (none / 0)

Do you really investigate every past post and comment from someone before commenting yourself? I don't. I focus on the conversation at hand. Frankly - it never occurred to me to parse past opinions. But I've read comments like yours before - from others here. It kinda bothers me a bit. I can't say why, exactly - but it does. Perhaps because it doesn't allow for growth or a change of opinion or mind. It locks someone into a set way of thinking. I read peoples opinions for new ideas, new ways of thinking. I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I gravitate here because I'm more likely to find less vitriol regarding the nomination process - but I read everyone's opinion - even if it doesn't exactly jive with mine. I just don't investigate them. Isn't that very time consuming?

by The Fat Lady Sings on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

But how I got here was by being directed at the horrific postings over at hillaryis44.com and then finding several posts from this user directing everyone to come over to mydd.com and rate her diaries, with no rebuttal on some of the blatantly racist and vile things that were being said.

I don't research commenter's, but I question anyone who would participate in that sort of forum.

Obama 2008!

by lollydee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think I'm with you. (2.00 / 4)

This isn't like we're left with a choice between two very similar candidates here, both with progressive values. We haven't had this stark an election since McGovern ran against Nixon.

John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.

by Travis Stark on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:34:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I'm with you. (2.00 / 3)

Right.

Nader in 2000 I got. Nobody saw how bad Bush would be, Gore was running to the right, and Bill Clinton hadn't lived up to his promise.

Didn't vote for him, but I knew why people were.

And I know why people are threatening to bolt now, but it's got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with vengeance.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I'm with you. (2.00 / 1)

Or, dare I say "that which must not be named" the arrogance of a black man who is both intellectual, caring, and confident.

Obama 2008!

by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think I'm with you. (2.00 / 3)

Well when you hear "I've been voting Democratic since 1964, but not this time" you have to wonder, well, what's different about this time? Centrist candidate beats centrist candidate, well, no - that's happened before. Woman runs unsuccessfully? No, that too. The GOP candidate is just so appealing? Don't think that applies in this case.

After a while you start running out of reasonable alternatives.

I have that readiness.

by Jess81 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. n/t (2.00 / 1)

Obama 2008!

by lollydee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what i get from all that is vengeance (none / 0)

... not racism. but that's me. both are bad things of course.

*&=4eva

by BlogSurrogate57 on Tue May 20, 2