home

Colorado State Convention Gets Underway

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's embarrassing to see that these women, who call themselves "White Women for Obama" are from my home state.

[Janice]Francis and two of her friends, Elana Hanson and Pam Clausen, wore T-shirts they designed and sold that said "ColoradObama." Francis and Hanson are trying to get elected as delegates from the 5th District.

..."We're white women for Obama," Clausen said.
"Oprah's the one who got us turned on to him," Francis said.

There are 70 pages of Obama wannabe delegates and 46 pages of Hillary hopefuls, 1,500 people in all, competing for 12 delegate slots and 2 alternate positions. Hopefully these three won't be among them.

More...

As to whether the delegates are up for grabs, this was interesting, if accurate:

Terry McAuliffe, former chairman of the DNC, will speak on Clinton's behalf. Arizona Gov. Jane Napolitano will urge delegates to support Obama.

Are they just pitching the uncommitted delegates or are the delegates picked at the caucuses (and then at the county convention) no longer bound by their pledges?

All in all, this is a pretty unflattering article. It ends with another dumb quote from the Oprah-seduced Ms. Francis:

Saturday's events are at the Event Center, which has parking for 2,400 vehicles. An estimated 10,000 Democrats were expected to descend on El Paso County Friday and today.

"Isn't that great? This place is so Republican," Francis said.

Time to try the Denver Post and see if the coverage is any better.

Comments now closed.

< Overnight Open Thread | Denial And The 50 State Strategy >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Colorado State Convention Gets Underway | 191 comments (191 topical)
    Well, white women for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:17 AM EST
    and Napalitano better stay the hell away from our delegates.  Honestly, how embarrassing.

    LOL--"It's Rainin' Obama! Hallelujah!" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kempis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:04:38 AM EST
    Those hilarious "McCain Girls" videos leaped to mind when I saw this.

    Surely these women jest. Surely.

    Someone please tell me they're kidding.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm leaving Denver in 15 minutes (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by echinopsia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:30:36 AM EST
    for the hour and 15 minute drive to CO Springs. I'm a Hillary alternate but I will probabaly be seated as a delegate - I was last time.

    I'll report back later today on the proceedings.

    [ Parent ]

    Heck...I Thought Larry, Moe & Curly Had (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    resurfaced.  Someone needs to query them on obama's platform and what he stands for.  My guess is hope and change will be their answers.

    [ Parent ]
    They should read what Edwards said about Hillay (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM EST
    Doesn't anybody remember what Edwards said about Hillary being qualified to run for president after her eyes misted? Maybe if they knew how lowly they are being viewed as women in the Obama's camp they might change their minds

    John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power. ABC's Political Radar blog reports:

    "Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"

    thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing?bid=256ped=26736

    [ Parent ]

    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:22:48 AM EST
    and that was the turning point for me when I stopped leaning toward Edwards and threw my support behind Hillary. The bs he's said since then (ganging up on her at the debates with Obama and the msm, how important it is to elect a "black man" -- never mind the qualifications of said man, etc) only confirms that my initial reaction was correct and that he was unworthy to be my President.

    [ Parent ]
    People in his home town (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:00 AM EST
    in South Carolina didn't seem too enthused.  The whites did vote him in the primary (he won 1 county?)  His campaign event here was in a very small 'family' restaurant.  

    I remarked after that video we linked to that he looked like a high school prom king.  Hate to say that, cause I know personally of one lawsuit he won for a badly injured child.  

    [ Parent ]

    Just because he is a good lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    and takes the right side in law suits, doesn't mean he is presidential. I admire John Edwards' work, but at this juncture I don't want him in the White House. And I hope Elizabeth smacks him silly for that stupid statement.

    [ Parent ]
    North (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Carolina. He lives in/near Chapel Hill.

    You're right, he's not popular in his home town.

    [ Parent ]

    Oprah? (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:00:37 AM EST
    Really? That's a reason for picking a candidate? When we talk about a post-2001 world, sometimes I wonder if we're really meaning the onset of American Idol.

    Ah, for a lot of folks, yeah. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Truly pathetic. I hope The Secret is working (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:30 AM EST
    out for them.

    [ Parent ]
    Black Men 4 Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by aa incalif on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:09:21 AM EST
    There are thousands of AA men for Clinton. I donate money to her campaign. No one should support BO because he is black. It's not about voting for a black man, it about voting for this black man.

    Nothing the Clintons have said have been racist.  BO MLK said the same thing about LBJ.  The BO race card is a disgrace.

    I can't stand to hear blks say "That BO is a smart brother" as if no other black man is smart. His attacks on the 60's should turn blacks off.  He ignores all the progress that has been made by all Americans not just blk Americans.

    The last MLK event he was absent.  HRC & McCain were there but no BO.  He doesn't want people to think that he will support issues that are related to blks.

    Blk issues are American issues.  I really get upset with people that support BO because he is the so called first black with a legit chance to be president.

    YES I'M AN ANGRY BLACK MAN!!

    [ Parent ]

    but, but, but (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:54:38 AM EST
    Kerry says we should vote for Obama because he's a Black man!

    ABC News, March 20, 2008
    Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, "in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise."

    "He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."

    Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.

    "Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."

    An African-American president would be "a symbol of empowerment" for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, "an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."

    [ Parent ]

    Hawaii?Oppression?Repression?Boston? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:45 AM EST
    And this quote too.
    other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."
    Awwwwwwww, Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    Not only are you angry (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    but you are intelligent and can see the unbelievable treatment the Clintons have had to endure because of the unforgiveable tactics utilized by Camp Obama.

    I have an AA girlfriend who has to use her rapid-fire wits to defend her position of supporting Hillary.  I hope that you are not alienated by your community because of your principaled stance.
    She's caugh a lot of grief but she is READY to defend HRC.

    [ Parent ]

    My choice for (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:18:55 AM EST
    Black Man for Prez would be John Conyers.

    I know it's unrealistic, given his age and that he's a mere Rep and not a mighty Senator.  But I do like a little track record with my candidate, and Conyers delivers.  (I'd think he'd win MI, too!)

    As far as we know, Conyers was ready to fire up impeachment proceedings Jan 2007 but for Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table".

    What can I say?  I'm a sucker for a man of action!

    [ Parent ]

    Keith Ellison is my choice (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by chancellor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:34:11 AM EST
    What an awesome addition he has been to the House!

    [ Parent ]
    He's a little fresh yet. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:56:57 AM EST
    Any chance he can break into the Senate?

    You can move him to Ohio - we'll be looking to dump Voinovich(R) in 2010!

    [ Parent ]

    I am looking forward (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:46 AM EST
    to supporting Michael Nutter for president someday. I wish he had more experience now and could be considered for Hillary's VP. (I still believe she will be the nom, leave me alone!).

    Nutter impressed me to no end during this primary season and made me laugh more than once as well. His appearances on Hillary's behalf on Larry King have been a highlight.

    He is smart, Harvard educated, well liked, progressive and knows a good candidate when he sees one. Not to mention strong enough to remain loyal in the face of what must have been extreem pressure.

    What a guy!

    [ Parent ]

    Should probably talk to my Party (none / 0) (#115)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    contacts and see who the current candidates are for Voinovich's job.

    V. is the worst kind of (R) - he stands on his soapbox, talks about how terrible-awful Bush's policies are and then....puts his soapbox away, walks back into the Senate and meekly votes the party line.

    It's not just Dems who are spineless.

    [ Parent ]

    His wife is even worse than MO. (none / 0) (#46)
    by honora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:26:36 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The thing about pledged is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:37 AM EST
    From what I understand, the DNC does not hold "pledged" delegates to a legal standard.

    The first ballot at the DNCC is based on a "good faith" standard, I gather.

    This is why the campaigns get the right of first refusal, to make sure they have loyal partisans as delegates.

    It's all very obscure, of course.

    As to county or statewide delegates, well, the thing is, if they have rules that are in disagreement with DNCC rules, DNCC rules trump.

    The rules are automatically amended to be in compliance with DNCC rules.

    So, technically, I would believe county and state pledges are up for grabs.

    Now if the the outcome of the state convention is different than what was laid out by the state caucus rules vis apportionment, the DNCC could refuse to seat those delegates, I would guess.

    But if you signed an application form to be a DNCC delegate, I do believe you are only ultimately bound by their rules.

    Their rules, from what I understand, do not enforce the pledge.

    Does this make sense?

    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:45 AM EST
    As evidenced by the Clinton MD pledged delegate that switched sides the other day--something I think is near criminal. You're basically single-handedly silencing tens of thousands of voters.

    [ Parent ]
    That's awful. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:07:53 AM EST
    Can she get him removed and replace him with someone loyal?

    [ Parent ]
    It was a her, actually. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    And as far as I understand, no, she's locked in.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would she do that? (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I was wrong, it is a he. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:12:32 AM EST
    I was thinking of someone else.

    Anyways, here ya go.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (none / 0) (#16)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:38:11 AM EST
    That guy sounds like a real piece of work.

    [ Parent ]
    I would hesitate to use the word criminal (none / 0) (#10)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:05 AM EST
    As really, that is the point of the rules as laid out. Ultimately, the rules allow for the conscience of the individual to be their guide. That doesn't really bother me at all. I may disagree with their reasoning, but of all the stupid rules laid out by the DNC, that one I appreciate.

    In the long run, all delegates are superdelegates, but pledged delegates have a more explicit set of weights to guide them in their decision.

    I would only use the term criminal if there were some explicit contractual obligation involved in the pledge, something I'm not even sure you could enforce. This may have even been decided by case-law. I wouldn't know.

    [ Parent ]

    All of this, of course (none / 0) (#13)
    by phat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:13:18 AM EST
    Begs all sorts of questions.

    [ Parent ]
    right off the cliff (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:35:24 AM EST


    Bless his heart! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:28:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Comment from the linked article (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:21:43 AM EST

    Posted by me2 on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    I love predictions from conservatives. Remember S. Hannity saying "you will never hear the words, Nancy Pellosi, Speaker of the House."

    While I expected more from her (and the Dems in general), I will say, it was great to hear those words when it happened. I work at home and had the Teevee on. I stopped, watched and did feel a sense of accomplishment. It's kinda funny because at the time, even with Hillary as my senator and all the talk of her running for pres, I never thought we would get here. It's one thing to come up through the House or Senate (not discounting NP at ALL!!! ), another to go out and run for President. I just am happy to see her get this far. Both women have done a great job of breaking barriers, lets keep it going!

    Not too surprising. A really good friend (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:02 AM EST
    of mine told me she had switched from Clinton to Obama due to the gas tax holiday meme from Clinton.  I sd., but Obama voted for that in the IL Senate.  No response.  Surprising.  So, she is a highly educated Caucasian female for Obama.

    I bet that they are their daughter's (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:07:00 AM EST
    best friends, too, and write things like "whatev!" and "srsly?" when they text each other.

    [ Parent ]
    parents voting for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    because of their kidz, reminds me that parents smoke pot with their kidz in an effort to bond with them.


    [ Parent ]
    Pal said her first reaction to kids' text msgs ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    ... was that they had learned conversational Czech behind her back. (That's in their heritage.)

    Even so, she's still thrilled that they're acquiring skills beyond TV / vid-game thumb ninjutsu. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously didn't do his research (none / 0) (#198)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    the first time, eh?

    If Hillary's townhall from last night is posted - check it out.  She explains it well.  She's good on those tedious wonkish details.  Knows her stuff, does her homework.

    Doesn't rely on "staff" and "advisors".

    [ Parent ]

    They look like the planning committee (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:07:00 AM EST
    for the Class of '68's 40 year high school reunion.

    Suddenly, (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:10:40 AM EST
    They seem like part of a SNL skit...  

    "White Women for Obama plan the '68 Class Reunion"

    [ Parent ]

    Suddenly, (none / 0) (#22)
    by Grace on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:04:29 AM EST
    They seem like part of a SNL skit...  

    "White Women for Obama plan the '68 Class Reunion"

    [ Parent ]

    Teddy and Oprah (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:05:29 AM EST
    had an enormous strong-arming of this election, sadly.  The surge for him was obvious as their soul selling drama played across the nation that week and millions of people who hadn't paid much attention suddenly picked obama based on hope, change, he is the one according to ted and oprah.

    I nearly blew a fuse when a 50 year old white woman friend who is just like the woman in the above photo and knew nothing about obama at all - or hillary for that matter, told me she made up her mind after she heard kennedy speak about ob.

    And other obamabots we know praised her.

    needless to say they all thought the Race Speech was GREAT and answered all their questions.

    I have several friends I no longer stay in touch with since they are out of touch.

    oprah damaged the democratic party and herself.

    She should have stuck to peddling books.

    Oprah not all bad! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:24:02 AM EST
    She supports We Can Solve It! and the fight against Climate Change.

    That's a worthy endeavor, but it's also a grassroots thing and not a one person show.  I admire Gore for his works, not his charisma.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:26:00 AM EST
    Oprah did go back to selling books or whatever.  Hasn't been heard from on the trail lately, I read.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    Her ratings dropped after he role of John the Baptist for the ONE -- Ellen is now the number one talk show. Heh -- guess not all WOWs who watch(ed) her show are lemmlings.

    [ Parent ]
    The only problem I had with her endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    She has been so popular for so long and I know several ladies who can't miss her show. I get the daily I saw on Oprah info. But, women have been the bulk of her audience and the reason she is such a hit and yet she did not choose a woman as her candidate. After not getting involved in politics and endorsing, she only got involved because the candidate was a AA. She overlooked all her women viewers.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll bet your friend has no idea (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    Obama went all around the country spinning a tale about the Kennedys bringing his father to America. He even mentioned it when the Kennedys endorsed him!
    But it was all a BIG LIE! - exposed by the Washington Post and Talk Left in March.
    Media and other press?  chirp, chirp

    Obama didn't google for facts - but neither did the Kennedys.
    Both were content to further a lie to prop up Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    Those women must be dreaming. Obama doesn't (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by DeborahNC on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:52:33 AM EST
    want 'older' white women on his team. They must not have gotten the memo, or at least, didn't hear Donna Brazile's comments.

    It still surprises, and indeed puzzles me, how many allegedly progressive and educated people are voting for Obama, but they cannot discuss specifics about his proposed policies. If I ask them why they are supporting him, I get a very vague response about how he wants to change politics. In what way, I ask. And everybody here has probably experienced the huffy and defensive shift in tone that the conversation acquires after questioning "the One."

    What is so disheartening to me is that many of my friends would be considered part of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, much more leftish than O's blogging boyZ, and heretofore have seemed to be sensible people. And these are educated people...many with Ph.D.s, J.D.s., self-taught intellectuals, etc. You know, people who are supposed to use reasoning in their decision-making! What is about Obama that ensnares these people and somehow diminishes their cognitive ability?

    The bottom line is that they look at me as if I've gone off the deep end when I say that I'm supporting Hillary. Suddenly, I'm part of the 'older' white woman demographic who must have harbored latent anti-progressive tendencies, and they're surfacing now. (They don't say that--it's just the look.)

    I guess that I just so tired of the labels and name-calling that has been such a central part of this campaign. And, the sexism and misogyny that appears to be endemic in the U.S. is frightening. It's almost as if I've gone back in time, and once again, have to prove my worth as a human being because I was born female. But interestingly, I don't feel intimidated personally; the anger and disgust I feel when I hear these sleazy remarks only strengthens me.

    I have felt an sense of camaraderie with many of the women on this blog, especially when reading how you're not willing for women to sit back and accept the unseemly behavior exhibited by so many in the media and other blogs. I don't think many of these people really know what women can accomplish when we work collectively.

    BTD, thank you for being willing to acknowledge and to oppose the sexism that has been flagrantly demonstrated during this campaign. It serves as a model for other men.

     

    Remember The Speech? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by aa incalif on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:38:26 AM EST
    BO said in a speech that America was the only country where a black man from Africa could come to and marry a white girl from Kansas.  Me and my wife were rolling on the ground laughing.  

    It's really, really sad that Oprah can pick your candidate.  Oprah got rich with the support of white women then she turns around and supports BO.  HRC went into this race thinking she had the support of AA's. When Oprah said she was really afraid for her country and that's why she was supporting BO.  She should have been afraid for the last 50 years of her life.  Just an excuse from Oprah.

    What's next "White women for Al Sharpton".  It's really sad that we have to use names to support a candidate for a election.

    It's sad that we have to use names like AA's in california to let people know that there are AA that still support HRC.  It's really sad.

    Angry Black Man

    [ Parent ]

    Let's not forget that her endorsement came after (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    she told Hillary on her show: "Please run!" Then she chooses the black man simply because they are of the same skin color! What an affront to all her female voters - she's a billionaire who made her fortune courting white women - how pathetic is that?

    [ Parent ]
    It is very presumptious to deign (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    to tell us all what the deciding factor for Oprah was when choosing the candidate she supports.
    Unless you can link to a statement from her saying just what you deem her motives to be, I suggest you are not in a position to speak for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it is sad (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    . . . that all those emigres who have entered Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain (ahhh, the blackamoors), Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Greece [is that enuf?] have no opportunity to meet the local debutantes & get hitched.  Must be frustrating, ce n'est pas?

    Only in America, they all come to America, that shining beacon on the hill--let's spout off some silly jingoism & play to our most base mental midgets.

    Yes, they vote with their feet.  Only in America.

    What an embarrassment.

    How do you develop a foreign policy from that.

    Only in America.

    [ Parent ]

    IIRC Interracial Marriage Were Accepted (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    in Europe back in the forties. Miscegenation laws were on the books in some states in the U.S. up to 1967. It is a shame that history is not respected or even widely known in the U.S.

    [ Parent ]
    All forms of marriages . . . (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    . . . were OK in Spain from the 8th century on.  I think similar with Italy, especially Rome.

    During the twenties many A-list Americans moved to France so that inter-racial, inter-religious & GLBT couples could live together, marry, have legally recognized offspring, own property in common, etc.

    I'm proud of the way the USA promotes itself as a hodge-podge, even when not always true but we're working on it, but xenophobic, chauvinistic jingoism just makes the proponent look foolish.

    Dogbone dumb & silly--only in America?

    [ Parent ]

    I Wasn't Aware Of The History Of Spain Or Italy (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    So thanks for the history lesson. My comment was based mostly on this part of your response.

    During the twenties many A-list Americans moved to France so that inter-racial, inter-religious & GLBT couples could live together, marry, have legally recognized offspring, own property in common, etc.

    I was thinking about the aftermath of World War II when the same thing occurred. Forgot about how many AA performers etc. moved to France in the twenties.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it's a broad segment in Europe. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    The original church, then both the Roman & Orthodox variants, encouraged marriages & other "unions" with non-believers.  Newly converted folks came from all over the Mediterranean, representing different ethnic & social groups.

    The Inquisition did a great deal to end this, even as the Crusades kept the hodge-podge mixing as a sub-dominant element.

    I never really studied much about the Eastern European principalities, but the mixing of Asians via Mongols, Tatars, Huns, etc., with the local Caucasian "mutts" was never challenged.  The churches were happy as long as the "outsider" agreed to have the offspring brought up in the faith.  No problem.

    The terms "nubian" & "moor" & "blackamoor" are the language subtext to this trend from about 750 CE onward.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel your pain (3.50 / 8) (#26)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:37:49 AM EST
    but don't agree with you.

    I'm Hillary's demographic, over 55, white female, yet I'm for Obama.

    It's a canard to say we can't discuss the specifics of his policies, especially as their policies are so similar.  And maybe it isn't the differences in policy that are what is behind my decision, but who I think is better able to put those policies into effect.  

    And yes, there's been some sexism, just as there's been some racism, but not nearly to the extent that it's changed the outcome.  For either candidate.  

    If there were truly sexism, then how could Hillary have led in the polls over Obama by more than 30 points in Oct?  

    I truly do feel your pain, it's hard when your candidate comes so close, but doesn't win.  Maybe it just wasn't to be, in this time or place for Hillary. But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good.

    Hillary has a great future in the party, as one of it's best leaders.  But she, and her supporters, would put that future in danger if (and I repeat IF) the party is torn apart because they refuse to  accept the outcome.

    So, please, accept my condolences and my congratulations for a good tough fight, and let's move on to defeating John McSame.

    [ Parent ]

    This race is not over. Period. (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by Serene1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:59:20 AM EST
    Neither Obama nor Hillary has the required number of delegates to be declared a winner. Trying to declare a winner based on the front runner status is beyond ridiculous.

    Hillary most probably will lead in popular votes by the end of the voting cycle. Two large and important states Fl& MI are being ignored and punished too much, which if counted can actually change the outcome.

    If we are choosing a winner let's do it fair and square instead of a coronation. McCain won the republican nomination fair and square. We democrats were v. upset when Gore lost to Bush because we thought the process was unfair. There are certain principles that must not be sacrificed come what may and fairness and just behaviour are one of those. Let Obama win this nomination fair and square then we will talk about opposing McCain.
    Regarding tearing the party apart, a more stronger argument can be made that it is Obama and his supporters who are tearing the party apart. So let's just agree to disagree on the same.

    [ Parent ]

    True, (4.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:09:26 AM EST
    it's not quite over, but it very soon will be.

    MI and FL will be seated, but it's my opinion that if they receive no punishment, then we might just as well not have any rules, and the next election will be total mayhem.  All the candidates agreed in advance to follow the rules, you seem to want to change that now.

    I'm sure a compromise is possible, so let's move on from that.

    I really consider it weak to say that having the most delegates and the most states is a coronation.    Very weak.  In fact, it sounds undemocratic.

    [ Parent ]

    For only one point (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:19:23 AM EST
    since the others have been done and done here that show you as wrong, but you can use search. . .

    But for the point about a self-coronation, that is speaking of Obama's plan to declare himself the winner as of this Tuesday because of some new goal posts moved to be the majority of pledged delegates.

    That is weak, that is undemocratic, you are correct.  But it is Obama saying he would do so.  I hope it doesn't happen, as it only will anger even more those Dems who already don't like his conduct toward Clinton.  It would not be a move toward unity.

    [ Parent ]

    actually its NOT undemocratic (4.20 / 5) (#33)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:26:36 AM EST
    just like its not, undemocratic for McCain to have secured his nomination before the end of the voting.

    ALOT of supers give the most weight to the pledged delegates, so for Obama to hit a point where he has  a majority of the delegates, even IF MI and FL gets seated, that means alot to them. THEY are the ones who set up the system to use delegates to reflect the will of the people, and when Obama hits a point where Hillary can NEVER pass him in pledged delegates that actually means something to alot of supers. and when he hits that point that will move some of these supers who still haven't decided. just like for others if they are still undecided in June, then yes the pop. vote will probably sway some. but there are no rules saying they HAVE to consider the pop. vote, thus only the supers who want to consider the pop vote will, but there have been enough signs for months that the supers give more weight to the pledged delegates. it is often just ignored by alot of Clinton supporters because they don't want the pledged delegate count to decide because we all knew a long time ago, who would win that count.

    and he is not claiming he won, the nomination, he is claming he has the most delegates, you know kinda like when Hillary claimed she had the most pop vote.

    no one had a problem when she did that did they? (besides the dispute over the actual numbers) on May 20th, Obama will have the Majority of the delegates, and if MI and FL got seated as is, then Obama would still get some from MI and once again would still have the majority of the delegates. That does mean alot if you step back and think about it.

    [ Parent ]

    You are right (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:44:49 AM EST
    Superdelegates can consider pop vote or not, as they see fit.  They can also consider pledged delegates, and where they came from.

    They can consider anything they want.  So don't be surprised if in August they consider who can best beat McCain.  Don't call it stealing the nomination from Obama if they select Clinton.

    I'm not saying you are one of those who has said that, just saying it would be wrong to do so.

    [ Parent ]

    I won't be suprised (none / 0) (#45)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:25:32 AM EST
    because as I've said before, the supers are independent we all know it

    what people are arguing and doing is, they are trying to convince supers to use their metrics, thus HRC supporters want it to be popular vote and electability, others want pledged delegates, if the supers are independent as Hillary argued then heck they could decide by the color of their shoes and thats fine.

    its all about which metric will sway the most delegates, and I stand by, pledged delegates will sway NOT all of them, but enough of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Which metric? (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:24:38 AM EST
    How about (gasp!) which candidate will be the best and strongest president?

    [ Parent ]
    You are probably right (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    That is most likely what will happen, regardless of the cost to our GE prospects.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, yes, (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:23:16 AM EST
    but for this summer, the SD's will be feel more  important if people keep in mind that those delegates must vote at the convention before it really counts.  And history shows mind changing is endemic at democratic conventions.

    Egg on your face, anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Your comparison shows your ignorance (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM EST
    or intentional bias to pervert the news, whichever.

    For one, McCain securing the nomination is much different from Obama securing half of the pledged delegates.  And you must know that.  If so, your attempting to equate the two on this blog suggests that you think we are low-info voters.  Best go back to the blogs where that silly equation will get you a hundred huzzahs.

    If you really don't know the difference when you attempt to equate the two, then you would do well to just lurk and learn here.

    Until it is clear which of the above you are, I won't bother further engaging with you.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain has several hundred (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:10 AM EST
    MORE delegates than needed to achieve nomination. He is, however, called "presumptive" because the convention vote is necessary to seal the deal.

    There is absolutely ZERO comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    They were punished already (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:21:11 AM EST
    No one campaigned in FL and MI, so they lost millions of dollars in revenues and contributions to the party.

    For the 10,000,000th time, not one person is proposing changing, or not following, the rules. It was always a part of the rules that the loss of delegates could be appealed. That is what is happening.

    Seat the delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#35)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:34:30 AM EST
    you'll have to take that up with Harold Ickes.  He's the proponent of the punishment, which the party and all the candidates agreed to.

    Certainly, there will be a compromise, but there must be some punishment, and lost revenues doesn't cut it.  

    [ Parent ]

    Lost revenues doesn't cut it? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:31:53 AM EST
    You must live in one a them well-to-do states that hasn't has an entire industry shrink to a fraction of its former size with the attendant loss of income and tax revenues and so on and so forth.

    You think they call it the Rust Belt for nothing?

    There's the DNC again, making friends and influencing voters.  

    [ Parent ]

    If you want to quote a candidate (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:48:11 AM EST
    how about the video of Obama from three years ago saying he was not qualified to be president and would not run?  Let's hold him to his word.  Why should he be different from Ickes?

    [ Parent ]
    She Shoots, She Scores n/t (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:51:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right on, Kathy! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    Once again a short and to the point answer that spells it out perfectly.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry, (2.33 / 3) (#58)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:57:12 AM EST
    but no, it doesn't cut it.

    If MI and FL had needed the revenues, they should have heeded the warnings given, prior to their legislation, that there would be punishment meted out.

    And please don't say (as in the case of FL) that it was a Republican legislature that passed the law.  The Dems in that state enthusiastically voted for the change.

    Both states, in their attempt to have early relevancy, mistakenly thought that if they didn't change, the nomination process would be over before they voted.  They guessed wrong.

    I don't wish to disenfranchise the voters of those states, but by the same token, the party must have rules.  I believe in a compromise.  One was just passed in MI, which clearly was a compromise, yet Clinton, after first supporting it, then nixed it.

    Why?

    Please, for all our sakes, come up with a compromise.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think they should do nothing at this point (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    What's done is done, doing anything now is just asking people who have been disenfranchised to sit back and enjoy it.

    Besides, so Obama needed some help from the DNC to win the primary.  That surprised no one.


    [ Parent ]

    You are making an excellent (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:03:42 AM EST
    argument for Who Needs Parties?

    I mean hey, if you end up with no delegates, no money and no political clout and pretty much get kicked to the curb - why bother?  Just go Independent and watch both the Democrats and the Republicans go crazy trying to get your votes.  It lacks the organizational oomph, but at least you get to keep your dignity and self respect.

    [ Parent ]

    The Republicans And John McCain Will Be (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    thrilled if the Democrats are willing to trade two delegate rich states in the GE for the sanctity of the RULES.  They will be more than happy to accept this gift.

    [ Parent ]
    See you again (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:04 AM EST
    in 4 years?  Or not.

    [ Parent ]
    They were voting for a paper trail (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:12:59 AM EST
    for the FL electronic voting system that the Republicans attached to the same bill knowing the Dems would have to support it.

    By punishing the FL Dems in this way, the DNC has actually encouraged the Republicans in every state where they control the legislature to do the same thing in the next election cycle.  The Republicans have seen how easy it is to make the Dems shoot themselves in the foot, all at only the cost of half the state delegates for themselves.  They can take one for the team at the convention, and guarantee a Rep win for their state in the GE.  In FL the Republicans campaigned up and down the state with no Dem response, and no money being collected for FL and national races.

    Way to go, DNC.  And yes, the candidates were wrong also for not speaking up sooner.  All of them.

    [ Parent ]

    "The rules" state these delegates can (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    be seated. Are you trying to change that?

    The other states that moved their primary up were not stripped of their delegates. If the party must have rules, are only some states tasked with following those rules?

    I vaguely remember the FL Supreme Court deciding not to count votes based on some "rules" in 2000. I thought members of the Democratic Party were outraged. Perhaps I was mistaken.

    [ Parent ]

    My understanding... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    is that there was an important paper ballots initiative (HB537) connected to this legislation that if the Dems voted against, it would've been...well...not good.

    [ Parent ]
    No, Ickes was not the proponent (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    of the punishment to strip all of the delegates.  The original rule was half of the delegates.

    That rule was amended by a motion by an Obama super-delegate (Dawson from New York, as I recall) and really was the work of Donna Brazile, another so overtly Obaman that it has become a joke -- when even Campbell Brown calls her on it.

    Stop with untruths.  They confuse this issue even further.

    [ Parent ]

    And Scarlet answered, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    "Fiddle-de-de!"

    [ Parent ]
    Proportionate action rather than extreme either-or (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:41:36 AM EST
    Jumping on the DNC roolz as if they were beyond dogma, at the cost of disenfranchising millions, enshrines DNC arcana above the penal code, above holy dogma, even above the constitution.

    By logic, compassion, reason or any combination, do you really believe that DNC rules are civil society's thin squiggly line between order or complete feckin' chaos?

    Really?!?

    Please, think about what you're saying, not just about the "score" but elevating these "rules" so loftily above what really counts that it actually shreds your argument better than I ever could.

    If Obama's the champ, let him win decisively and not because he gamed the system early and ran out the clock so that a huddle of Party Cardinals could keep throwing old, crunched and spat-out "impressive" numbers for media repetition. Increasingly those require so much squinting and tail-chasing revolutionary argumentation, simply as a requium for the long slow death of basic common sense it's best to clean the slate and do some fresh and honest math here.

    (I'm not trying to be mean here. I've had pleasant exchanges with you in past cyber-lives at the Cheetoh Blog and respect your judgment other than on this particular argument, to which I'll just add, oh come on!)

    [ Parent ]

    There are no ROOLZ (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by angie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    that's the rub -- the written ROOLZ called for a 50% reduction of delegates for states that went early -- the DNC chose to ignore/amend the written ROOLZ to "send a message" to FL & MI. Furthermore, the ROOLZ required no campaigning in FL & MI -- Obama ran ads there, in violation of the ROOLZ, and the DNC chose to ignore that. So, citing the ROOLZ is a weak argument, when the DNC has consistently ignored them to, imo, "help" Obama and "hurt" Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, nice to know (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:39:23 AM EST
    that Hillary has a bright future with the party she has worked for for 35 years, and helped save from total obliteration in the 90's.

    She has already said she will accept the outcome, and work her heart out (her words) for the Obama if he is the nominee.  Have Obama or his supporters said anything similar?  They are the ones threatening mayhem at the convention if they do not get their way.

    Calling him McSame is not going to cut it in November.  We will all be feeling the pain if we don't nominate a candidate who can beat him in the big electoral vote states.

    [ Parent ]

    This kind of patronizing message (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by Boston Boomer on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:23:02 AM EST
    from BO supporters only makes me more determined that I will never vote for him.  There is no way he can beat McCain in November.  If Obama is the nominee we will have President McCain.  

    And this is beyond insulting:

    Hillary has a great future in the party, as one of it's best leaders.  But she, and her supporters, would put that future in danger if (and I repeat IF) the party is torn apart because they refuse to  accept the outcome.

    Good luck convincing Clinton supporters to rally around Obama with that kind of talk.  In case you haven't noticed, the party has already been torn apart.  There are many of us who already know we can never in good conscience vote for Obama.  Condescension and threats will simply guarantee that our numbers increase.

    However, I'm convinced that Hillary will be the nominee.  I don't believe that a majority of the superdelegates will be willing to lose the election in November with Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, the party has been torn apart (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:28:12 AM EST
    and Clinton isn't the one who did it.  That's what ticks me off--the implication that she, through her evilness and selfishness, used all of her spiteful power to rip apart the party.  Just another one of those convenient "women are power hunger b*tches" stereotypes.

    I am with you, Boomer.  Clinton still has a chance, and I will stand with her through the nomination and on to the White House.

    Rise, Hillary, rise!

    [ Parent ]

    "I feel your pain" (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Leisa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:23 AM EST
    I do not think many of us are feeling pain...  We are frustrated having to deal with unthinking canards.

    Please compare and contrast their health plans and tell me they are similar...

    Next, please reassure me that he will stick to his stated commitments to woman's rights, taxes, the war, improving the educational system, securing social security, and improving the economy.  What about his vague promises to the AA community?  Now is our time...  how is he going to help them?  What exactly has he proposed to do?

    You see, I have witnessed him stand before audiences expressing a strong conviction on issues, only to waffle and take them back or deny ever saying those things.  

    I think he is a manufactured candidate.  There is very little that he stands up and says that is original.  He just delivers the recycled and perfected Axe speeches so well. Then, I look at who some of his advisers and money bundlers are and I really think that he will not deliver Universal Health care or help the economy at all...

    Your candidate does not have a history that proves to me that he is dedicated and consistent on issues I think are important to our country.  He needs to spend more time developing and defining who he is by actions, like voting and leadership in Senate committees before he will be elected POTUS.


    I truly do feel your pain, it's hard when your candidate comes so close, but doesn't win.  Maybe it just wasn't to be, in this time or place for Hillary. But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good.

    Last, please don't condescend and say you feel my pain.  That is just plain insulting.  BTW, Obama is still not the nominee.  It is not over yet.


    [ Parent ]

    Compare and contrast, you say? (3.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Chincoteague on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:18:18 AM EST
    How about this.

    We'd have had full national single payor healthcare by 1998, because there was a bipartisan plan fifteen years ago, that started off without that mandate that Hillary still insists be part of the plan.

    There were 49 co-sponsors of that bill, 22 Republicans and 27 Democrats.  Yet Hillary would not even consider it.  It was her way, or no way.  So, we did not get any healthcare reform. Not only did she not consider it, she then tried to punish Cooper, who had simply brought the bill to her attention.

    She still won't consider compromise, and if she's our president, we still won't have a national healthcare plan.

    I want national healthcare, and I want a president who is at the least willing to look/listen at others plans.  That is not Hillary.

    If you doubt me, which I'm sure you do, just google Cooper healthcare.

    [ Parent ]

    No mandates? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:17:25 AM EST
    Wow.  That would have been so ineffective.

    Weird, isn't it when people don't want to support a plan that they know it is bogus?  Why didn't Hillary just cave in and let people walk all over her?

    Don't know.  Perhaps she was interested in actual results and benefits and not just political expediency and pandering?

    That's shocking!  Shocking I tell you!

    [ Parent ]

    Jim Cooper (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    is trying to re-write history. He's pretty much a DINO, too. Blech.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    fought for mandated health insurance and did not allow the insurance companies to design her plan (as did Cooper who ranked 215th on the Congressional progressive scale).

    Saying if we enacted Cooper's plan in 1993, we would have had national health insurance by 1998 is, aside from  Republican spin, silly,  because if we had enacted Hillary's plan in 1993 we would had mandated health insurance by 1998, duh!

    Only more proof that Obama supporters favor "blue dog" solutions and not progressive policies

    [ Parent ]

    If you Google "cooper healthcare" (4.00 / 4) (#160)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    You get the homepage for Cooper University Hospital, South Jersey, New Jersey as the first entry.

    Turn up the juice, man.  When you visit Talk Left you need to be one of the brighter bulbs in the scoreboard.  Get a linkee thingee, instead of a lame reference to Google.

    Just for laughs, I contacted Cooper.  The receptionist told me that the Clinton healthplan would cover 43% more people in their service area, reduce costs by eliminating the emergency room impact of uninsured folks seeking help & put an end to the Chap. 13 medical bankrupticies that trash the balance sheet every month.

    What you attempt to reference doesn't show in the first 10 Google entries.  But Corrente does.  This destroys your allegation:

    Who is Cooper? Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) is a "blue-dog" Democrat and Bush enabler. Cooper told the Memphis Daily News that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Hillary Clinton was too mean to him. Some Cheetopia diarist picked it up and it became a most recommended diary yesterday.

    Cooper is also cited as evidence that Hillary is ruthless and vindictive. It seems that Cooper had a competing bill (similar to Obama's current health-care reform proposal) that undercut Hillary's plan:

    "They turned up their nose at my bill, and that's fine. But then they constructed this secret 500-person task force to draft a whole new bill - and I knew it would go nowhere," Cooper said. "So I went privately to the White House to warn (Hillary Clinton). No publicity. No nothing.

    Secret 500-person taskforce?  Yupperz!  Good ol' Jim Blue Dog Cooper.  Wow.  Y'all got yasef some fine company there, kuz.

    [ Parent ]

    How dare you tell me you feel my pain!!! (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:08:45 AM EST
    How dare you tell me that "their policies are so similar"

    I am passed pain, I am passed anger, I am a passed your type of blog appeals for unity.  I am a cold blooded outsider now witnessing the implosion of the D. Party, and hoping for as countercoup in Denver.

    As for the meme of your "similar policies" statement: there are 15 millions differences, one for each person left put of Omaba's discriminatory healthcare plan.  Plus many more such as privatization of Social Security, their tax plans, etc.  

    As for "feeling my pain", here is a little test for you:

    Do you know as I do the pain of:
    Watching you mother die as a candle burning from both sides because of breast cancer and no insurance?
    Watching you sister going through the same death? and no insurance
    Going through a bilateral mastectomy and chemo as I did? and no insurance
    Watching the anguish and fear in your daughters and nieces' faces because of the breast cancer gene in the family and no insurance?

    I hope you can answer no to each of these questions because I am not vindictive.  But please, go away with your "I feel your pain" shtick

    [ Parent ]

    they'll just reply that you're racist and Obama (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by suzieg on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:49:57 AM EST
    will tell you as he did in Houston that he'll wait to see if the mandated health insuran