Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Grand Canyon

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-02-08 05:07 PM
Original message
Grand Canyon
I. It’s Big. Too Big to be Healed by One Feel Good Public Event in Unity, New Hampshire

Unity is the opposite of “Chaos at the Convention” which is what John McCain and all his little (or in Rush’s case not so little) right wing helpers have been trying to achieve for the Democrats. If you have not read my journals, please do so. They start back last fall, which is when I detected the scheme. Some people, like Joe Connason at Salon saw the writing on the wall as early as January, 2007 when he wrote about how the Obama/Moonie/Madrassa story

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/01/26/obama/


was the exact same ploy that Nixon’s CREEP (here is a description for those too young to remember)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

under the direction of Pat Buchanan used to sow seeds of disharmony among the ranks of the Democratic contenders and their supporters in 1972. The next link gives a scary summary of dirty tricks played on Muskie, which included slipping him drugs and making it looked as if he was guilty of doing awful dirty tricks against other Democrats.

http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html

CREEP II, the operation to make it look like Clinton was guilty of dirty tricks against Obama and vice versa, was a tremendous success, even at DU, even with people like me blogging about it on a regular basis. By the time the first stage of the Republican dirty tricks operations were over, Obama supporters were talking about cattle futures and Vince Foster and Clinton supporters were talking about how Obama was owned by the Chicago Daley machine. Obama people were convinced that Clinton had used race, and Clinton people were convinced that Obama had used gender. In fact, most of the damage came from the corporate media working for the RNC. MSNBC lead the way with their election night coverage. Nora O’Donnell instructed Republicans in Wisconsin in how to last minute register and vote in the Democratic primary to interfere with the Democratic selection process—while interviewing a guest who described Chicago 1968. Rush openly dreamed of “Chaos at the Convention.”

Now, the Democrats are pretending that the gaping chasm in the middle of our party does not exist. That is called denial. If we are not careful, we are going to fall into the Grand Canyon, and the country will get four more years of Bush-Cheney policy.

II. Grand Canyon

Danny Glover: So what do ya think?
Kevin Kiline: I think it’s not all bad.
Grand Canyon



My mother, the yellowest of yellow dog Democrats could probably replace Gallup Polls when it comes to accessing how Democratic professional women think. She is a retired computer scientist from NASA. She was with me in NOLA in 2005 for the Jazz Funeral for Democracy. She supported John Edwards until the notorious dog pile on Hillary Clinton during the New Hampshire debate, when she switched her allegiance to Hillary, because she got fed up watching two men attack a woman. She and her husband contributed the maximum to Clinton. She was a community organizer. She absolutely despises Barrack Obama, because of the way that he and David Axelrod attacked Hillary Clinton during the campaign, and she swears that she will not send him a cent and does not care who wins this fall and she is considering going to Denver to picket the convention. This from a woman who has never voted Republican in her life.

I was discussing various things about the upcoming general election with her, and the only scenario that gave her pause was when I asked “How would you feel if Hillary Clinton was the Vice Presidential candidate?” That made a difference. In that case, she would care about the election again. In that case, she would actively support the Democratic ticket.

The last thing that John McCain wants is for people like my mother---who are currently on one side of the Grand Canyon---to find a way to cross over to be with the rest of the party. He wants them to be so disaffected that they do not contribute money, they do not go out to volunteer, they do not even bother to vote and---in extreme cases---they vote for him. Keep in mind that we are talking about middle aged and older women, the kind that are often active in election politics because they are used to volunteering for political causes.


III. CREEP II Round 2 Has Begun, Operation Keep Hillary's Supporters Pissed

John McCain was so desperate to introduce race into the race that he produced a series of ridiculous attack ads, each sillier than the one before. Finally, he produced one in which “big” Barrack Obama’s penis was represented first by the leaning Tower of Pisa and then by the Washington Monument. The world’s two most famous white women who do not wear panties, Brittney and Paris walk by. Obama does the classic “rubberneck” and music simulates the sound Woah! or maybe that is supposed to be No!. Fear the sexuality of Barrack Obama is the message. Pretty corny stuff.

Obama responded by warning that some were trying to make people fear him. He referred to an ad in which his face was superimposed on a $100 bill. The John McCain campaign seized their opportunity to interject race into the race, even though Obama had not mentioned race----the Paris-Brittney ad could be interpreted as fear of a handsome virile young man of any race (think JFK or Bill Clinton). Republicans always smear young Democrats with sex.

Many members of the press have claimed that introducing race in the general election is supposed to benefit only John McCain. I disagree with this, but that is for a different journal. Here, I want to talk about why McCain brought up the Race Card now as opposed to saving the topic for September or October, when it would have more impact on the general election.

What is happening this month? The Democratic Convention.

Who still bears a grudge? A whole lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who know that their candidate was unfairly labeled as a racist by the press and by fellow Democrats and by progressive bloggers and who have waited for the Obama campaign to issue some kind of public acknowledgment that almost all of the claims of race baiting made in the name of the Obama campaign by supporters were bullshit. Hillary Clinton has no problem waiting, because she knows that once the books are written, history will exonerate her. However, supporters do not have the patience of politicians. They get emotional. They get invested. They get angry. Especially when they have been keeping their tempers in check, as their candidate has instructed them to and supporting the Party’s nominee for the good of the country.

Anyone who thinks that this repressed anger is unimportant needs to go back in time to 1972, when Hubert Humphrey was vilified by supporters of McGovern. Though Humphrey was a good Democrat who fell in line after the convention, his people knew what had been said about him----and what dirty tricks had been done to him and attributed to McGovern. So, on election day, many of Humphrey’s Black supporters did not turn out to vote for McGovern and many of his white supporters crossed over to vote for Nixon.

Anyone who thinks that Karl Rove, Pat Buchanan and John McCain have given up on this plan, just because Hillary Clinton personally plans to support Barrack Obama has a screw loose. They have worked too long and hard on “Chaos at the Convention.”

That is why you are going to see a lot of stories in the coming weeks like the ones I will show you in the next section of this journal.

IV. Deconstructing the Democratic Convention

The press is not just going to let us have a Democratic Convention in peace. They were promised this



And they are going to get that if it kills them.

John McCain introduced The Race Card (which is subtly different from race ) in the month of August, in order to remind a bunch of former Hillary Clinton supporters that they have a grudge against a bunch of fellow Democrats, progressives and Barrack Obama campaign workers (especially David Axelrod).

Keep in mind that their anger may be at least partially misplaced. There is at least a 50% possibility that the so called “Race Memo” was written and disseminated as part of an effort to recreate the dirty tricks that Nixon and Buchanan used so successfully in 1972 to divide and conquer the Democratic Party. The question here is not who is to blame, but rather who is going to pick up the pieces?


Now that John McCain has re-introduced the phrase “Race Card” to the election dialogue, certain publications have been quick to remind their readers that Bill Clinton also accused Obama of “playing the race card. These include the LA Times, which is now part of the empire of billionaire Republican Sam Zell who is subject to blackmail by the Bush FCC in order to keep his media empire together:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign1-2008aug01,0,923336.story

In the hard-fought Democratic primaries between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, race flickered on and off as an issue. Obama supporters took umbrage on several occasions at remarks uttered by Clinton surrogates. Former President Clinton, in turn, complained at one point that Obama had "played the race card on me" -- a comment that McCain echoed Thursday.


The LA Times rubs salt in the wound by linking this article to one about how Hillary Clinton is being snubbed by the Obama campaign and cut out of the Democratic Convention bit by bit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton1-2008aug01,0,2128273.story

The Guardian UK----which was stridently pro Obama during the primaries---has had a change of heart now that Obama is the nominee. First they did an article about how Hillary Clinton was the victim of unfair attacks. Now, they bring this up---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/01/barackobama.uselections2008?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Race first surfaced as an issue in December in the contest between Obama and Clinton, when Obama's team blamed Bill Clinton for bringing it up. The former president later complained that Obama had "played the race card on me".

Snip

Obama's team denounced as "outrageously offensive" the Ludacris song Politics: Obama Is Here. In it, Ludacris says: "Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant ... McCain don't belong in any chair unless he's paralysed. Yeah I said it 'cos Bush is mentally handicapped." Bill Burton, Obama's spokesman, said: "As Barack Obama has said ... rap lyrics too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to ... While Ludacris is a talented individual, he should be ashamed of these lyrics."


Oh my! Since Obama denounced the song, why on earth did the Guardian publish those offensive lyrics in their paper? Are they trying to claim that Obama is somehow responsible, because he is Black and the artist is a Black supporter, the same way Clinton was responsible for what Ferraro a women supporter said? Are they trying to piss off a bunch of Clinton supporters? Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant.

As I have mentioned before, I suspect that a primary concern for the British newspapers may be Northern Ireland. The Clintons may have been unacceptable, because they treated Catholic Northern Irish leaders as leaders and not terrorists. With the recent move to label Northern Irish independence leaders as “terrorists” again, it is likely that the British press will begin to support Republican candidates, since the Democratic base contains so many Irish-Catholics. Therefore, take everything you read about the U.S. election in any British newspaper with a big grain of salt.

As usual, the worst offender is Ben Smith at Politico. Here is a man who can be credited with starting the whole Clinton is a racist bitch issue in the primary . He misquoted Clinton about her remarks on LBJ and JFK (initially her comments were only indirectly about MLK Jr until Ben Smith altered them and then KO aired the altered version and everyone began repeating the distortion even after Ben Smith printed the retraction and Media Matters kept slapping wrists left and right but not KO. Maybe if they had slapped KO, people would have stopped.)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/#

]But Schmidt said McCain had learned the lesson of Clinton's campaign, which began by taking her and her husband's affinity with African-American voters for granted but wound up seeing days and weeks consumed by racially charged gaffes and allegations, ranging from a New Hampshire supporter's suggestion that Obama had dealt drugs to Bill Clinton's own comparison of Obama's campaign to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's.

Remarkably, in fact, Schmidt sees a sort of political soul mate in Bill Clinton. "Say whatever you want about Bill Clinton," Schmidt said, "but it's deeply unfair to suggest his criticism of Obama was race-based. President Clinton was a force for unity in this country on this subject. Every American should be proud of his record as both a governor and president. But we knew it was coming in our direction because they did it against a President of the United State of their own party."


More from the article that this is taken from

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12224.html

A former chief strategist to Hillary Clinton, Howard Wolfson, echoed Schmidt's comparison.

"I think the McCain camp watched our primary on the Democratic side very carefully and they know that any accusation of racial divisiveness can be very, very harmful for a candidate's prospects," Wolfson said on Fox News Thursday, adding that the allegations against Clinton were unfair. "They heard something that Senator Obama said and they felt they had to respond quickly to make sure that nobody got the impression that they were engaged in those kind of racial politics."

Schmidt said McCain's aides felt forced to talk about race, and that they don't plan to do it again.


Pardon my French, but this is bullshit. Accusing your Democratic opponent of using racist tactics in the primary will destroy the competition. It is an almost sure fire win strategy for a Democratic candidate, the same as accusing your opponent of having an illegitimate Black baby in the Republican primary. Accusing your Republican opponent in the general election of using racist tactics will only provoke yawns---and John McCain and Ben Smith know it. There is no way in hell that John McCain played the “Obama played the Race Card” card as a pre-emptive attack.

Bottom line, John McCain wants the words “Race” and “Card” out there in the mainstream media during the month of August, because those two little words have been bugging the hell out of a whole lot of Democrats and Republican women and Independents who were set upon voting for the first female president of the United States.

John McCain is trying to stir up a hornets nest at the upcoming Democratic Convention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-02-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Honestly, I hold the media most accountable.
They are acting worse than John McCain - and he's acting worse than Bush.
:banghead:

Nice job on your post!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caseymoz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-02-08 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Democrats must be smarter, and more forgiving of each other.
Thank you for the warning and keeping everybody alert that not all Republican tactics are visible. Fact is, I think the Democratic party can and will survive it. The Democrats are in the majority and as long as we're expecting dirty tactics, stick together against them, and counter them, we can win. We need to be willing to get our fingernails dirty against these attacks. :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desktop Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good article, DU's who want Obama to win should take note
Good points about the gap created between Obama and Hillary supporters. Many here blame the media and the GOP for creating this divide, and they certainly were a driving force. But democrats and DU's participated by riding on that wagon. I for one was saddened by the hate spewed towards the Clintons found in this website. Many women supported Hillary and still do for perhaps a little more a gender basis than other reasons. But I myself supported her and now Obama because I believed then and I believe now she is the more progressive (liberal) candidate. I will not go over all the issues where I think this is true, because that race is over and I support Obama now. The point is that if Democrats now keep attacking the Clintons they are playing into the hands of McCain. This race is much closer than many DU's would have you believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RTBerry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. recommended - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. what a silly, silly crock of crap
do the people reading and praising this nonsense actually read it? Hmm.

The baloney about the Guardian and how the Brits found the Clintons unacceptable because the Clinton administration treated Catholic Northern Irish leaders as leaders is a particularly absurd bit of revisionism. It's absolute bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hi, Cali!
You know I don't make such things up. I wish I did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/07/northernireland.usa

It was the kiss that was heard around the hotel lobby. Martin McGuinness's noisy smacker on Hillary Clinton's cheek today beneath the glittering chandeliers of a posh Washington hotel was all the proof anyone needed that here were old friends reunited.

Clinton's relationship with McGuinness and Northern Ireland's first minister, Ian Paisley - who greeted her with a chaste handshake - was forged during her husband's presidency in the 1990s when he appointed a peace envoy to prod the peace talks forward.

"It's wonderful to see them both and to reminisce about times in the past," Clinton said today after their meeting.


This all sounds like innocent fun to American readers, (although the imagery was grotesque), but to British readers, it meant so much more back in December 2007.

From another cite that can discuss British prejudice more openly:

http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/terrorist-condemns-terrorists.html

Just watched IRA terrorist godfather Martin McGuinness being interviewed on TV about the recent murder of a young man in Londonderry by dissident Republican terrorists. Martin the Statesman intoned that there was no popular support for this type of killing and he urged people to turn away from violence. I suppose when Martin and the gang were ensuring blood ran down the same streets of Londonderry and elsewhere the "popular support" they enjoyed made all those murders different to the one he condemns. I also suppose the murders of Robert McCartney and Paul Quinn - carried out by IRA terrorists - have no causal link to the savagery of the IRA. Listening to scum like McGuinness talk about the futility of terrorism when carried out by anybody but the IRA is akin to listening to Robert Mugabe hail the virtues of democracy. It sickens me to hear this goon talk and to see the lickspittle media treat him with honour.


Basically, the Guardian piece was the equivalent of the NYT writing a story about Obama being French kissed by William Ayres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. This is a poster who blamed Gen Xers for Reagan and Bush
Despite the fact that the majority of us couldn't vote for Reagan and that her precious Baby Boomers were the ones who voted for Dumbya in the majority. She didn't know what she was talking about then and she doesn't know now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
8. But I have a serious problem with a Clinton vice presidency.
I don't need four to eight years of reading that Hillary is conspiring to kill Obama if he gets so much as a hangnail. It would require me to spend an obsessive amount of time praying for his good health. The virulent sexist insanity promulgated here and elsewhere is not going to go away. Doesn't matter where it came from anymore. It lives here.

Also, I don't think the Veep is going to be allowed to do anything but attend funerals and weddings this time around. There NEEDS to be a big pullback from the horror of Spider Dick Cheney spinning his webs of greed and deception. I'd a whole lot rather see a man playing wifey in the Veep role than the first woman to hold the job.

I understand how your mother feels. Right to my bitter bones. It happened to me after the Anita Hill mess on Capitol Hill. And it has made me feel even more strongly that men do NOT represent me. I got a push poll call recently, trying to inform me about some candidates running for a judgeship. Two or three men and one woman. I said I didn't give a damn about the background or qualifications, I was going to vote for the woman. Just because.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RTBerry Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. There needs to be a pullback from the Unitary Exec. theory;
but not necessarily from the strong VP. There's nothing wrong with a balanced "team" approach to the executive branch. I don't think the VP needs to be reduced to a ceremonial position, just because Dick abused his authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-04-08 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. We can't be running two governments at once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Your mom needs to read this essay
It's going to piss her off, but it's the truth.

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/WhitenessShowing.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. That is a silly article. It could be RNC oppo designed to widen the Grand Canyon.
Here is a suggestion. Drop the "you must love Obama because he is Black" line and adopt a "you must support Obama because he is the Democratic nominee" platform. The latter is much more persuasive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. While not intended this is in fact a criticism of Senator Clinton that I find completely untrue.
The basic thrust is that there is a big divide between the Democratic Party and supporters of Senator Clinton, here is a sample:


A whole lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who know that their candidate was unfairly labeled as a racist by the press and by fellow Democrats and by progressive bloggers and who have waited for the Obama campaign to issue some kind of public acknowledgment that almost all of the claims of race baiting made in the name of the Obama campaign by supporters were bullshit. Hillary Clinton has no problem waiting, because she knows that once the books are written, history will exonerate her. However, supporters do not have the patience of politicians.





For this 'Grand Canyon' to exist and become a serious problem it requires that you believe that Senator Clinton is insincere with her support of Senator Obama and that she is completely incapable of persuading her supporters of what is in their own best interests.

Both of these assertions are insults to Senator Clinton and they should be categorically rejected.

Senator Clinton has made her position absolutely clear and anyone who took the time to watch her address to the national convention of the NLC union last week could easily see that she has lost none of her clear thinking, smart writing and persuasive speech making. She brought the crowd to their feet and their was clear unanimity on what Democrats need to to happen in November.

These attacks on Senator Clinton and her ability to persuade her people to enthusiastically unite for the GE do not reflect Senator Clinton's true convictions and her ability to rise above her personal station to fight for the broader interests of the party and the country. Her request to forgo nomination and a roll call at the convention clearly confirms her intentions.

It's too bad some folks don't listen to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-08 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. You do know that by that logic, you're on the McCain side now?
You point out that the McCain campaign and the far right would like to split Clinton supporters off from the rest of the party.

Then you restate the false claim that the Obama campaign engaged in racebaiting and owes Hillary an apology for forcing Bill to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson, et al.

Let me repeat that: NOBODY, except die-hard Clinton supporters, believes for a split second that the Obama campaign used race to win the primary. Because they didn't. This is not up for debate: it is an objective fact.

So why are you working in favor of the McCain agenda by perpetuating this lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-04-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
16. All I can say is that Bill and Hillary Clinton have always been supporters
of the black population as well as of the needy and the poor and our children. They are great human beings with the charisma to change the world. Now we can add Barak to that list of dems who care about the world and its citizens and have the drive and the means to assist in important ways, a political direction which was initiated by Jimmy Carter and personified by him and his strength and goodness. I am sure that Obama will be a superior president, but his legacy has not been enhanced by the DUers who think they need to build him up by demeaning the Clintons. I do NOT think for one moment that Bill Clinton used race in the primary; that would be totally out of character and dimissive of all he has stood for. I can believe easily, however, that the Pugs and the MSM used him to suggest such a course. Much of what he said was taken out of context just as the MSM are now taking Obama's words out of context, thereby altering their intention. In addition, the media are ignoring McCain's incessant goofs and missteps with exceptional skill. Can anyone, by the way, imagine W going out into the world and helping his fellow man and freedom as Carter and Clinton have? Of course not! He is going to be paid for his speeches, or so he hopes. How does a person who cannot speak with any clarity give a speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-04-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. I had to stop reading after item 2. GRAND CANYON. To insinuate that Hillary Clinton must
be the Veep in order to kowtow to a bunch of wacko feminists is just frickin bizarre.

I'm sure your mom is a smart woman but she let her feminist fervor blind her to the reality of the campaign. Nobody piled on Clinton. She got beat up on just like every other candidate did. It was a Presidential Primary Campaign for Christ's sake.

I daresay there are more people who WOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA if he selected Hillary as his veep than would vote for him if he did.

AND I AM ONE OF THEM.

Can't we just leave the Hillary for Veep shit behind?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC