Dishonoring Hillary [UPDATED]

[UPDATE--I have now been thrown off Hillarysvoice, a site owned by Alegre. Dissent, it seems, is only a quaint idea to someone who has made so much about her abuse for dissenting with others!]

Does anyone care about Hillary anymore?

A website whose reputation and business quadrupled when it backed Hillary Clinton's candidacy is in the-- Resurrect Hillary business now.

No that's wrong. It is in the Screw Obama Anyway You Can business now.

A well-known blogger has created her own website to promote Hillary's candidacy--well, until the end of  August anyway. But by then the website will be up and running. Front page positions are available Yoohooo.

But while these voices are clamoring, Hillary is facing a silence as bleak as any she has ever known. So before we move along, this is for Hill:

Now, about mydd, the website  that provided a home to the famous blogger mentioned above after she famously marched out of dkos--well, gosh, it has been a big Hasta la Vista, Baby! I used to wonder why this blogger didn't care if she had 3 diaries on the rec list, all put there by her private army of backers on call to rec as requested? I guess because her commitment to mydd was temporary, a  soapbox that's all. Who cares if they were nice to you, and took you in when you marched away from the other guy?

Hell, for all I know mydd has said, `Hey, terrific. Go for it. More the merrier.' I guess that would be taking the high road.

And I do know by now that I should definitely throttle this tendency to think of  this place as a community. Don't lecture, me, ok?  I know it is silly. People come and people go. On any given day only a handful of people who have posted before will do so again. And I know that people who get banned come back under new names and then do the same creepy stuff all over again.

When I first came on this site, Seymour Glass was here and YellowDem. My next love was Undiesided.[These are just names that came off the top. My favorites might not be yours, so chill, ok?] I remember liking them--through their diaries-- a lot. And then I got to know so many other contributors, all Clinton supporters; they are mostly all gone now. And so many of them seem to hang out now at these these old pro-Clinton, now hate-Obama sites.

The truth is everywhere I look I see these people creating websites to tear down Barack Obama and promote Hillary Clinton's candidacy--still. They are also endorsing John McCain.  It actually looks like a huge cottage industry. And they promote each other. A happy family.

And then there are those of us who are doing as Hillary asked. We are supporting the Democratic nominee. There is no reputation to be made, no crusade and no drama. Just people playing by the rules, doing as Hillary requested and loving all she stands for-- still.

I read yesterday that Hillary is taking an extended vacation. She will return if necessary for crucial votes in the Senate, and party leaders are backing her on this. I also read somewhere that to be defeated in a close run for the nomination, or for the Presidency itself, creates a depression like no other.

Who doesn't remember when Al Gore grew a beard and wandered the world? Other  candidates like Gary Hart, who battered her endlessly during the primary campaign, have offered advice in Huffpo, no less. I'm sure she felt cared about by that one. But as was intended, I read it. And between Gore and Hart and McGovern, Ferraro, Mondale and Dole-- who have all written about it, there is no question that Losing the Big One is devastating. They all say that "It" is the Hardest Loss.

Of course Hillary didn't lose the Presidency. But you see, she did. The Democratic nominee will win the White House this year. You can take that to the bank. And she was campaigning for the nomination  for 18 months. It had to take an enormous toll. Acceptable if you win--a terrible burden when you do not. And then there is the pressure of such a campaign. As Ed Pilkington who traveled around the US interviewing failed Presidential candidates writes in the Guardian:

As I meet more members of this exclusive club I realise quite what an ordeal presidential candidates go through - they are subjected to afflictions that can reasonably be compared to torture: sensory overload; ritual humiliation; strangers invading your body space at all hours of day and night; disorientation; sleep deprivation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/ mar/29/uselections2008.usa

I know people say she has faced up to hardship, disappointment and loss before. And so she has. But I cannot help but wonder how it feels to Hillary to see all these people who say they support her, ignoring her last request. Making a business out of defying her--all in her name.

Of course, maybe she doesn't see it at all. Who knows for sure?

What I do know is that Hillary is more than a candidate, more than an icon, and more than a political platform. She is also more than the candidate to back if you didn't and still don't  like Obama. Hillary is a person. When Emily Malcolm, founder of Emily's List, said recently  at a panel on sexism in the media that Hillary told her breathlessly in New Hampshire

Emily, I am the first woman to win a Presidential primary.
My heart ached like someone had slugged it--hard.  Because it was true, and no matter how many more primaries she went on to win, the media never, ever talked about it.

I know it  is hard to be a standard bearer for a cause, and icons can be lonely. She certainly became my hero.  I have never been so proud of being a woman as I was when watched Hillary Clinton in those 22 debates. Would I have liked more of that--you betcha. Would I have loved to see a woman put her female's hand on the  Bible and swear to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic--God yes. I think I would have liked this as much as many African Americans will like it when Barack Obama puts his hand on the bible on  January 20,  because he will. I do not think he can lose. [I am not saying, by the way, that I won't like it when that happens. What I am saying is for many African Americans it will be exceedingly, and then exceedinly again, Special.]

I also wish with all my heart now that Hillary would be his Vice President. I expect that is not to be either. Either way  I am doing my best to support the nominee. And in the meantime I think about Hill. I look at all the people who I used to think of as my friends who are bashing Barack and promoting her still. And when I read about her extended vacation, I think, `they are not helping her.' They don't really care about her. She isn't a person to them. She is a business, a cause, a means to drive traffic to a  website. She is a claim to fame.

But Hillary is bigger than they are, and she cares about the well being of this country as much as anyone I have ever seen on the public stage. Hillary inspires me now, no less than she did throughout the entie campaign, because  unlike so many of her so-called supporters, she will do the right thing. And then she will go private, as she already has done, away from the clamor and cameras, to a lonely beach somewhere or maybe into the privacy of her own home. Alone--or not. But certainly with God. And with her beating heart safely tucked away, out of reach from all those who would sell it for their own advancement.



Display:


Re: Dishonoring Hillary (1.86 / 23)

My respect for Senator Clinton makes my seeing how others are using her name to fight against her issues all the more painful.

I really have to wonder if anger and bitterness from the few have blinded them to the fact that they are now enemies of their champion...


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST

You have to ask what this was always about? (2.00 / 4)

Was it about democratic principles?
Was it about progressivism?
Was it about a woman's right to choose?
Was it about ending the war in Iraq?

Or, was it about the diarist and their anger all along.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Banned Members Club (2.00 / 1)

And I know that people who get banned come back under new names and then do the same creepy stuff all over again.

Jeez I had a friend who did that many times. Hehehe


by stevens7139 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

when I was banned (2.00 / 2)

I made a new account and kept my old account name in the sig.

kept me honest. (other name was BlogSurrogate57)


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when I was banned (none / 0)

I'm on like my 4th or 5th name.


by stevens7139 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Drop them a link using the contact us (none / 0)

button at the bottom. it took them about a week, but my screen name came back! (I asked them politely why they had taken it away)


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (none / 0)

???


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (1.66 / 6)

"But Hillary is bigger than they are, and she cares about the well being of this country as much as anyone I have ever seen on the public stage. Hillary inspires me now, no less than she did throughout the entie campaign, because  unlike so many of her so-called supporters, she will do the right thing."  - Linfar

There are very different roles that politicians and their supporters play, and each is essential, and complementary, not contradictory.

According to the latest ABC News/WAPO poll, a total of 37% of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, and we have a perfect right to our positions, which vary in their basis.

What Hillary decides is "right" for her to do is not "right" for anyone but her, and everyone has both the right and obligation to examine what is right for them. Hillary is a public servant who has both obligations to her constituents to preserve the political power they need her to maintain in order to serve them best, and her own personal vision and dreams to fulfill. She has her understanding of where her obligations and responsibility lies. Her supporters also have our rights and responsibilities to stand up for our beliefs, truths, special personal mission in life, and responsibilities to voice those views.

Hillary could not have gained the opportunity to run for the presidential nomination without being a "team player", and that is one of her gifts. It has severe limitations, which need to be complemented by the dissent of everyone who is not restricted by responsibilities and constraints on their ability to speak truth to power.

Society needs both team players and dissenters to function, and both positions deserve dignity and respect, along with vigorous debate.

Trashing either Hillary, or any of the tremendous number of her supporters who disagree with supporting Obama and refuse to do so, avoids dealing with the issues at hand and offers only a segue into meaningless vitriol. No point to it whatsoever, except to derail an otherwise important discussion.

People have a variety of reasons we will never support Obama, and they will not be changed at all by trashing us, which only alienates us further.


by 07rescue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (1.75 / 4)

Did you even read the diary?

You do not speak for Hillary Clinton or her supporters.


We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin
by spacemanspiff on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (2.00 / 11)

I wouldn't say that linfair is extending "meaningless vitriol" nor "trashing" Hillary's supporters. Linfair, as we all know, has been one of her greatest and most outspoken supporters here. As a long-time Obama supporter, we have disagreed (sometimes greatly), but she has always been fair.

She is right to call out the Hillary "supporters" who are threatening (or promising) to vote for McCain. That is in direct opposition to what Hillary stands for. In fact, President McCain would veto every single bill Senator Clinton writes.

She asked her supporters to support Obama because Obama is the Democratic nominee. We are all free to make our own choice in the matter (that won't change and we aren't taking that right away), but no one can pretend that their vitriol toward Obama nor a vote for McCain in any way reflects Hillary's stated goals.


by not Brit on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (1.92 / 14)

not Brit--Exactly. Exactly.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll rated? (2.00 / 5)

I love that CoyoteCreek troll-rated you for this comment, but not me for mine. Was it because you agreed with a long-time Obama supporter or simply because you are a "traitor"? Perhaps it was because you repeated yourself. Who knows.

In the end, linfar, I want to say thank you. The reason I am a Democrat is because our party has survived through hardship and trial since Jefferson. We grow, we evolve, we represent the people, and, yes, we compromise. Had it gone the other way and Hillary been our nominee, I would hope that I had had your courage to pick myself up by the bootstraps and say, "Let's get to work!"

Troll-rate THAT, CoyoteCreek.


by not Brit on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody is dishonoring Hillary Clinton by refusing (none / 0)

to support Obama if he in turn refuses to do what's right and put her on the ticket.


by handsomegent on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree, depending on what exactly you mean (2.00 / 3)

by "support." I wouldn't expect someone who had some strong anti-Obama sentiment to actively campaign for him, so I couldn't really criticize for that. But to abstain or vote for a candidate other than Obama in November would mean decreasing the chances that policies Hillary Clinton supports would get enacted, and increasing the chances that policies Hillary Clinton has spent much of her life opposing would get enacted. So yeah, if your vote in November is what you're talking about with the word "support," I think you would more or less be spitting in Clinton's face by withholding your support for Obama.


Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire
by kydoc2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree, depending on what exactly you mean (none / 0)

Well if she's NOT on the ticket I won't vote for him and neither will potentially millions of other Clinton supporters. I believe you have to take a stand even if it means your POV will suffer.


by handsomegent on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you have to take a stand (2.00 / 2)

for the issues that impact people's lives, and if you get so wrapped up in who the standard-bearer is that the issues take a back seat, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face (at best). So I agree about it sometimes being necessary to make a sacrifice in order to stand on principle. I just think it's better to sacrifice one's own pride for the principle of the common good, rather than to sacrifice your country(wo)men's welfare for the principle of...well, I guess I'm not too clear on what the principle is that you're talking about taking a stand for. Maybe you can explain.


Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -Voltaire
by kydoc2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We can take a stand (none / 0)

without having it be hillary on the ticket.

How about General Clark, last seen kickign off anyone who wouldn't support hillary out of his staff?


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well sometimes you have to simply take (2.00 / 1)

a stand and use your vote as an instrument of protest.


by handsomegent on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See, that's where you're screwed up. (none / 0)

Vote counts are pretty thin data.  If John McCain gets 50 million votes, there isn't going to be included in that count any distinction between how many of those votes were for John McCain and how many were protest votes by petulant Clinton "supporters."  If McCain wins, your vote for him would count towards his "mandate" just the same as my dyed-in-the-wool Republican father's would.

You want to protest?  Fine, protest.  But remember what drew you to Hillary Clinton in the first place.  If it had anything to do with her progressivism, her concern for the welfare of all Americans, her devotion to sane foreign policy, or her commitment to women's rights, you betray every single one of those values if you cast a ballot for John McCain.  It's really that simple.  

By voting for John McCain, you assent to being counted among those who oppose women's rights, support war, and think the Bush economy is just fine.  It doesn't matter what you actually think; a protest vote counts just as much as a true believer's.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really heartfelt diary (2.00 / 7)

Recced. I'm sure all the folks who still haven't come over to the Obama side will soon.  Bloggers tend to be passionate people, and when they get passionate about something they get big head of steam like a runaway train heading down a mountain, at some point they are going just to go instead of to change the world in ways they care about.

These people will soon see another issue that will lead them to realize Obama is the only way to go at this point, and once you put down your barriers to Obama you start to see all the great things he has to offer the country.

They probably will always think Hillary was the better choice, but they will realize the gulf between the two leaders is not as great as they thought.


by libertyleft on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST

I'm one of those folks . . . (2.00 / 8)

not on any of the diehard web sites, but just not yet there, altho' I'm sort of kind of half way there - -
And the best thing you can do?
Do what you do when your infant is eating strained peas and cheerios in the kiddie seat while you're enjoying a nice dinner - - ignore them 'til they're done.  If you look too closely, they'll gross you out.  If you try to stop them, you'll just get strained peas in your hair.
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one of those folks . . . (none / 0)

The people who are there don't actually support Hillary.

They want to destroy the Democrats' chances in November.

How do you feel about that, kosnomore?


by JoeW on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one of those folks . . . (2.00 / 3)

A lot of them may be working out of spite, but there are more democrats in there than made up republican trolls.  

They will let go of their spite once they start looking around again instead of seeing the primary as the only issue.


by libertyleft on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My point exactly - - (2.00 / 6)

fighting / arguing / whatever is counter productive.  Saying "get over it" doesn't make anyone get over anything ever, it just raises their hackles.
Don't forget - - from Iowa to today is approximately the same length of time as from today to election day.  Plenty of time to get together.
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point exactly - - (2.00 / 3)

Many seem to overlook the big picture when discounting the "Hillary lost-deniers".  The DNC, i.e., the Dem party (and Barack), has to answer to those who feel there was a bias for Barack from within.  
Not an argument I want to undertake at this point, but a reality that exists.  "Hillary lost-deniers"  have a different agenda than just Obama-hate, imo.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My point exactly - - (2.00 / 1)

This to me is the very definition of deadend-ism.  What could this "answer" possibly be?  Other than that Obama is some kind of fraud?  If that's not the acknowledgment that you're yearning for, please clue me in.

The "reality" you talk about was really the need for the process to be brought to some end. It couldn't go on forever. That end happened sooner than you wanted it to-- the night of the Indiana primary.  By that time, Michigan and Florida, the Wright scandal,  whatever was said in Iowa or New Hampshire or memos about South Carolina-- it was all water under the bridge.  The inversion of the primary process was not that it was an insider game, but that it failed to produce the intended result of an early winner.  It's built to exhaust itself quickly.  Its endurance was somehow simultaneously exhilarating and disapppointing and led to unexpected poignancy when we saw Bill Clinton stumping in South Dakota in June.  No one was supposed to give a shit about South Dakota, destined to go red in November, least of all the Clintons.


by redwoodsummer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

there's clearly a balancing act (2.00 / 1)

you seem to suggest that everyone should just ignore the people attacking Obama, but it obviously wouldn't be a good idea for members of progressive blogs to allow anyone to put up smear attacks on Obama or other Democrats (imagine that!)  and leave them completely unchallenged.  


4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.
by ashriver on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one of those folks . . . (2.00 / 2)

I don't think that's entirely true.  Many Clinton supporters are more conservative than Obama supporters on certain issues.  There are three wings to the party and Senator Obama is associated with the left-wing.  I don't think they're terrible people--I think they don't feel like they have a home.  One the one hand, you have some Obama supporters who say that you should uncritically support everything Obama espouses, but they can't and feel like they're true to their own values. To me, this makes them normal people, who sometimes hold conflicting positions.  There is a minority which is trashing the Democratic Party, but I'm hesistant to tar all with the same brush.  If they can't support the nominee, they probably should change their affiliation-to Independent.


by TinaH1963 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

{insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain} (2.00 / 3)

If Obama represents the left wing of the party, I'll eat my shoe. He's a good man. I'm going to fight like hell to elect him president. I wouldn't even say I'm in the far left wing of the party, and I'm far more liberal than Obama.

Conservative dems feeling like they don't have a home.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH. That makes me feel like throwing a stink bomb. There interests have been far better represented for the past 16 years than mine.


by Mobar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain} (1.80 / 5)

Mobar, I think this is accurate. when you consider that hillary and barack's voting records in the senate are nearly identical--it says a lot.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain} (none / 0)

Mobar,

When I first started commenting I noted that both Clinton and Obama had remarkably similar positions, and in fact, voted much the same.  Many people didn't seem to see that, and thought that Obama put himself out there in a way that Clinton did not.  But, many on the left have lionized Senator Obama as the standard bearer for the new left, and that's ok--it's just never been true.  My point is that the party has several wings, and there is an effort to marginalize those in the center and on the right.  In fact, some are even trying to attack Democrats in conservative districts--check out Glen Greewald in Salon. Conservative Republicans hijacked their party and it became narrow and extreme.  We shouldn't make the same mistake.


by TinaH1963 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain} (none / 0)

If a centrist is the alleged standard bearer of the "left" wing of the party, who's being marginalized? I strongly support the weakening of the centrist and right wings of the democratic party. Particularly since many of them (including Obama) seem to be centrists as a matter of political calculation rather than the sincere belief that the policies they advocate are the best ones for the American people. The point is not to attack the people, it's the policies.

The republican party became narrow and extreme because it's the natural outgrowth of "conservative" policies. It's how they evolve. That isn't the necessary evolution of liberal policies.  


by Mobar on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:46:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: {insert Lord's name -fbomb- in vain} (none / 0)

I'm sorry, but I think you're speculating when you try to suss out a person's motivations.  I happen to think compromise is a good thing.  The people who've been canonizing Senator Obama as the herald of the Left are the people on the left--that's why he's the de facto leader.  I've always seen him as a centrist candidate, but many have not.  I don't think leftwing dominance, if it is doctrinaire and rigid, is any better than rightwing exuberance.


by TinaH1963 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one of those folks . . . (2.00 / 1)

I've always said I have no problem with moderates/centrists or conservative Democrats who decide to support McCain because of policy positions.  I have a problem with people calling themselves liberals or progressives and doing the same out of 1) spite, 2) racism, or 3) sexism.


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (1.00 / 0)

Really.  No.
AFSCME?  Yeah, just a hotbed of neocons!!!
Seriously, some of the most leftist elements of the party supported Hillary, and some of the most right wing (Sam freakin' Nunn ????) supported Obama.
Again, why the need to argue, put down, characterize?  Why invite people to leave the party 5 months before the election?
Now is the time for all good men to . . . chill.
John McCain says he would stay in Iraq for 100 years? That's crazy talk!
by kosnomore on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (none / 0)

Hey, kosnomore--AFSCME endorsed Obama yesterday :)


by linfar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (none / 0)

I'm not inviting anybody to leave the party, but not talking isn't constructive or honest.  These are real concerns and ignoring them will cause many to vote for McCain.  I'm not a Cassandra, but I do know that when we don't have an honest dialogue, people speculate and come up with their own incomplete answers.


by TinaH1963 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:31:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm one of those folks . . . (2.00 / 8)

Hey, kosnomore,thanks for a good laugh.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yea, that was funny (2.00 / 1)

And it's an understandable metaphor.

I hope Senator Clinton comes back with a passion and devotes all of her energy and great determination in getting a Democratic President, more Senate and House seats, and is rewarded with the Democratic appreciation she deserves.

That is how we can, both, get what we all want and save her reputation from those who want to drag the Democratic Party down in her name. That has to be a hurt that rivals losing the nomination, people using your name fighting against everything you ever believed in.

And who would get the blame if those groups accomplished their goals of destroying Obama and the Democratic Party this Fall? You have to wonder if they know and just don't care.

You are so right Lin, so right. And you have my promise that I will not fall for that if it happens. I will remember true Clinton supporters just needed to heal and fought for Democratic principals.

The Republican trolls over at those sites want us to blame Senator Clinton. They want us divided. I won't fall for that.

Great diary, Lin.


by DaveDial on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

just a question linfar.... (2.00 / 1)

who exactly are you accusing of being her paid army to go out and rec her diaries? how many hundreds is she supposed to have at her beck and call? Is it even remotely possible she got at least a couple rec's because of what she wrote or are they all evil now?


by zerosumgame on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just a question linfar.... (none / 0)

Her army seems to have dispersed somewhat - her latest diary at Hils bloggers garnered a whopping 5 comments!  Oh how the mighty are fallen.


by interestedbystander on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:23:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: just a question linfar.... (2.00 / 1)

well that is why I sked the question, I like Lin and read her stuff when she does a diary but the whole "army" thing just got me curious as to where they all went...LOL


by zerosumgame on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ELLEN Malcolm founded Emily's List. (none / 0)

"EMILY" is an acronym: Early Money Is Like Yeast.  It is not the name of any of the founders, who, by the by, were lead by Ellen Malcolm.


by mdFriendofHillary on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really heartfelt diary (none / 0)

Ultimately, Clinton supporters (and that includes me) will back Obama as only a vote against McCain--not necessarily a vote for Obama.

It's not about Obama!!! However, at this point, when and IF he gets Clinton supporters' votes, they will do so holding their noses.

Let's move pass the fact that EVERYONE will see Obama with rose-colored glasses.

...because that....AIN'T HAPPENING! But a vote is a vote...that would be all that I'm going to do...at this point...IF I DECIDE TO EVEN VOTE.


by Check077 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (2.00 / 7)

Wow.  That was nice.  Great Diary.

I have honestly surprised by all the people that went the puma route.  It just seems intellectually dishonest and I wonder if they ever really supported her in the first place.  I think there are many people that are still very angry and there is a very small group who are working feverishly to inflame their anger.  Its sad.

Recced.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST

let them be angry. (2.00 / 2)

hell, i was tempted to put up a diary or two where we take down site rules and let people scream at each other about the primary.

Just to let the rage out quickly, you know?


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let them be angry. (2.00 / 5)

I am okay with the angry people.  They are allowed to be angry.  I was seething in 2004 (Kerry really?).   They will, as I did, realize that the cause is more important than their candidate.

The people who are using those who are angry for personal gain or to push their own agenda have lost my respect and should be ashamed of themselves.

Just remember McCain is bad.  John McCain will ruin our country.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: let them be angry. (2.00 / 3)

Speaking of Kerry, I'm pretty sure that McCain is the Republicans' version of Kerry in 2004.  They had an energizing and passionate candidate in Huckabee, but the majority of Republicans guessed that he wouldn't  be able to win (which is probably true, I hope), so they went with the non-energizing John McCain.  Huckabee is their Dean, McCain their Kerry.  And just like we Democrats made a mistake in going with the supposedly safe choice, the Republicans have also.  They likely would lose with either candidate, but now they are going to lose AFTER having sold out their principles.  Even if McCain wins, the neocons will have officially taken over the Republican Party.  Non-neocon conservatives (those of the cautious military action, small government, moderately focused on moral issues) will have been totally shut out.  As someone who respects conservatives (though we disagree on literally everything) and does not respect neocons, I don't see that as a good development for anyone.  We can't have civil debate with neocons because they are totally irrational.  


by ProgressiveDL on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

addendum (2.00 / 1)

let them be angry, so long as the anger receeds.  Which i believe it will.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

linfar. (2.00 / 9)

are you now joining the alegre-obsessed bandwagon?  its a shame, because your diary is pretty awesome and i would have rec'd it if you would have omitted the first bit.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:26:26 PM EST

Re: linfar. (2.00 / 5)

Well, like it or not, Allegre does provide perhaps the most candid view of a particular type of voter.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope sorry. (2.00 / 5)

whether or not you agree with her. there are almost daily references to her here in diaries (including a shameful event last week you'll recall) and she was accused of being a paid blogger (i guess now people will take that back).

she is fully and wholly entitled to blog and vote how she wants.  she is no longer here at mydd and therefore IMO should be left alone.  this bullying mentality is really awful and turns a lot of people off


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope sorry. (2.00 / 4)

She chimed in here pretty recently, as I recall.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if she isn't here (2.00 / 4)

then she won't see this "bullying behavior" and there's absolutely no harm in Linfar using Alegre as an example of the idiocy of the PUMA movement.


by JJE on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:45:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she isn't here (2.00 / 2)

you, i and everyone else here sees it.  isn't that enough?  anyway - i do not want to hijack this thread with talk of another blogger.  IMO a general example without attacking alegre would have made this diary much more effective.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she isn't here (2.00 / 3)

The thing that counters that is how much she was a symbol of ardent blogging Clinton supporters. She was an acknowledged leader, or even THE acknowledged leader, quoted in the Nation and Vanity Fair.

In some sense, she is a "public" figure, and most importantly for us, she is and represents the Clinton supporters that we worked with and talked to.

She wrote the diary formally boycotting Daily Kos, and that split isn't healed yet. I think many of us, and certainly I, would like to see it healed.

Does that makes sense?


by Falsehood on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it makes total sense. (2.00 / 2)

although IMHO it wont be healed anytime soon.  why?  first - some will not ever vote for BO for whatever reasons.  two - during this primary (ironically with the unity candidate winning) there has never been more disunity in the party.  and lastly - the immensely skewed presence and resulting vitriol of HRC and her supporters in the primary online was a travesty and blow to the medium and effectiveness of its purpose.  i have been working on a diary to the effect for a long time now although its not going very well.  in any case - she is who she is and that is it - and she will blog or vote whatever way she wants to regardless of what you or i say.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she isn't here (none / 0)

THAT split will never be healed. Never.


by Tolstoy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:51:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

She's not really PUMA. They acknowledge (2.00 / 1)

that Obama won the nomination.

Alegre hasn't gotten that far yet.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's not really PUMA. They acknowledge (2.00 / 2)

How do you call these? Saber tooth tigers?


by french imp on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if she isn't here (none / 0)

One of the geniuses at her website said that we must "punish the country" by voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, or the vice presidency.  Great stuff, eh?


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She wasn't paid, but she was on the (2.00 / 1)

Maryland Women's Leadership Committee for Hillary.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She wasn't paid, but she was on the (1.66 / 3)

Please, lets not play this game again.

Blogging is meant to be anonymous even if the blogger is an idiot.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given that the Clinton campaign has linked (none / 0)

to her posts as Alegre using her real name, hasn't she shed her anonymity, though?


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Beyond idiocy. (2.00 / 3)

I think Linfar was making a point about the hypocrisy of the PUMA mindset. I couldnt' agree more.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Beyond idiocy. (2.00 / 5)

Sumo, thank you for getting it. canadian gal-- while seeming to be offended at the idea alegre was mentioned--altho she wasn't-- pretty much guaranteed this would be all about alegre. The diary is emphatically not oriented that way at all.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope sorry. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, last week's (was it only a week ago?) events were beyond shameful.  But what I'm getting at is that her behavior provides insight into particular voters' mentality that we may need to understand before this process is over.  Also, since she is both a diarist and apparently running her own website now, legitimate criticism of her is no different than criticism of Dkos here (or of the mainstream media, for that matter).  Her public comments are open to fair criticism.


by rfahey22 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope sorry. (1.87 / 8)

As the author of the "shameful" diary from last week, I agree that she is wholly entitled to blog and vote how she wants. And she shouldn't be personally harassed or attacked for doing so. I don't agree with what transpired in the comments of my diary (which is why I deleted it), and I don't understand the level of enmity that some people have towards her.

That said, every action has consequences. Alegre has decided to set up shop elsewhere for the express purpose of encouraging others not to support the presumptive nominee. She has written that she hopes some event will prevent Obama from becoming the nominee and she has disparaged the Democratic party. Those are choices she is free to make, but I believe that by doing so she gives up certain things in return.

She loses the right to  be treated differently than any other person working against the Democrats' goals.

She loses the right to be shielded from open criticism.

She loses the right to expect our respect or to ask for our patience.

In other words, she doesn't deserve special treatment just because she used to be part of this community, and people shouldn't be accused of "bullying" for saying they disagree with her choices.    


by jdusek on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope sorry. (2.00 / 2)

She is fair game because she really was more than an individual blogger. People like ALegre were way too prolific and their blind rigging of the rec list really denied other important diaries a chance for exposure by being pushed down the list too fast.

Now that would tolerable if Alegre actually blogged about other Democrats. I really didnt understand why she came to MYDD if she was interested in only Hillary. She could have done what she did on Hillary.com and bask in the adulation of fellow Hillary supporters. She was a perfect echo chamber and rarely had an independent thought on this blog. If Hillary advocated something, Alegre would blindly spread propaganda here without attempting to understand other democrats.

And hasn't she returned under some other ID? I don't have any sympathy for her. I will welcome linfar and Canadian Girl since they have at least shown some interest past the primary despite my disagreements with linfar in the past.

There have been some blind Obama loyalists and I do  not see some of them anymore here. And I do not miss them. But the Hillary crowd really transformed this blog into something else.


by Pravin on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's not here (2.00 / 1)

Under the name "Alegre", that part is true.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: linfar. (2.00 / 6)

That's disingenuous.  Maybe Linfar isn't obsessed, but instead, disappointed?  Maybe because someone that was trusted has turned out to be bitter, a turncoat, and in it for reasons not all so great?

I know that if I were a die-hard Clinton supporter in the primary, and unsure about Obama and considering going the PUMA (what a dumb, dumb acronym) route, I'd be looking very carefully at the Alegres of the blogging world and wondering exactly what THEIR motivations were.  


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i dont want to hijack this thread. (2.00 / 1)

about another blogger - see my comment above to rfahey.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont want to hijack this thread. (2.00 / 4)

Fair enough.  But one has to ask (and this is perhaps a wider question, certainly not limited to Alegre)- when you're blogging daily, crossposting under the same name on several blogs, and developing a network of readers that recommend your work upon publication- at what point does your work become more of a public matter?  

Better phrased- what is the difference between someone like Alegre and someone like Maureen Dowd, other than the fact that one uses her real name and one doesn't?  

I fully support anyone's right to stay anonymous (and the "let's find her in the real world" shit was despicable)- and I'm not interested in discussing her- but saying we can't question public content she posts, simply because the diarist chooses not to post it here, doesn't quite work for me.  She DID use MyDD once she left Kos, and a lot of people have the right to be a bit irked.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:49:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

its an interesting question... (2.00 / 3)

however IN CONTEXT we both know this 'obsession' goes way, way, way beyond that in the netroots community.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its an interesting question... (2.00 / 1)

Possibly, the net knows all manner of stalkers and such. However, she is a symbol, and the split for DKos was widely publicized.


by Falsehood on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its an interesting question... (2.00 / 2)

Perhaps.

I think as blogs become a bigger and bigger source for news, this is going to become an interesting question that should be pondered- if not answered.  

We hold the media accountable for falsehoods and untruths.  We know before reading an article that Ann Coulter is going to have nothing to say.  But what of a medium where you can simply sign up for a new handle, or retreat out of sight on a Dem blog and resurface on a Republican one?'

It's interesting, to me.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its an interesting question... (1.14 / 7)

She bundled 20k for Hillary and was rewarded by the campaign.

She spread despicable lies about Obama that, had the campaign been held responsible, would have caused much embarrassment.

But instead "alegre" the protected was allowed to bundle and smear anonymously.

Protected by a set of blogging ethics that were counted on to provide the cover needed.


by Is This Snark on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: its an interesting question... (2.00 / 2)

But it is rather silly to act like criticism that does not extend to her personal identity should somehow be perceived as a threat to her.  


by Tenafly Viper on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: linfar. (2.00 / 5)

ihaveseenenough, you got the word right. I am disappointed--in a lot, a lot of people. Have you asked yourself where all the clinton bloggers on this website have gone? At least 20 have vaporized. Others on this site, including I guess canadian gal are obsessed with only one of them--I miss the whole damn crew.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: linfar. (2.00 / 1)

I miss 'em, too :(.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why antagonism? (2.00 / 1)

because i think that by calling out alegre in your diary you are actually going against its purpose?  i do miss the group of bloggers that left- its just that i think i am being a little more realistic than most about their reasons for leaving.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: linfar. (2.00 / 2)

cg, you are funny.  Me thinks you will always find a reason not rec a diary of mine.  As for your question, since I do not mention anyone by name in my diary,  obsession seems to be in the eyes of the reader--uh, I think that's you.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry... (none / 0)

was i mistaken?  if so i apologize.  if you werent referring to alegre i will heartily rec.  let me know.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're glad linfar is gone (none / 0)

from hillary'svoice!


by CoyoteCreek on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We're glad linfar is gone (2.00 / 4)

Coyote-- do you and many others remember all the "disappeared" on dkos--for saying what you thought was true, for being honest? The hypocrisy is stunning. I mean beathtaking. It is called a dialogue. And you have used this diary to engage in it at length. Why not keep dialoguing? What is so hard about dissent--about accepting a friend has a different view. I didn't grow horns overnight. I see it dfferently from you. I will keep talking. I have done nothing on hillarysvoice to warrant being thrown off except voice my opinion.


by linfar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're entitled to your opinion... (none / 0)

and so are we - we're glad you're gone.


by CoyoteCreek on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (2.00 / 5)

Don't worry, those people were obviously just using her name to further their own blogging career or sense of ego. There is no way a true HRC supporter votes R after this year, regardless of how anyone feels, there are no similarities to how McCain and her feel on pretty much any issue, so it is impossible to support her and vote him.


by Dog Chains on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST

Slamming Alegre? (1.36 / 11)

What is up linfar? Why don't you "let go of the anger" as Obama's people tell Hillary supporters to do.

Some of us do not want to see unacceptable behavior rewarded. Some of us respect experience, that matters a lot.


by catfish2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST

will you vote for Cheney? (2.00 / 1)

or maybe you can find someone with slots in "before the Nixon administration"?? (err... Kennedy counts, in that. facefault on my end).


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Experience isn't helpful if the ideology of (none / 0)

the person (and other things) are terrible.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slamming Alegre? (1.66 / 6)

She deserves to be slammed.  She does not and has never shared Hillary's values or love of the party.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Slamming Linfar? (1.83 / 6)

What is up catfish2?  Why don't you "let go of the anger" as catfish2 tells Linfar to do?


by JJE on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slamming Alegre? (2.00 / 1)

I haven't asked anyone to "let go of their anger," and I don't appreciate you painting those who support Obama with such a broad brush.

As far as "Unacceptable behavior," remember the buttons in Texas? Do you want to reward their "unacceptable behavior?"

I don't think the Obama campaign did anything horrible, but we disagree on that point. Even so, don't use the actions of supporters to justify what you're doing.


by Falsehood on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GOP booted the button guy (1.00 / 0)

that was the right thing to do.


by catfish2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 05:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget to defend the GOP (2.00 / 2)

at every chance you get, "democrat".


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats are about dialog (2.00 / 1)

and the freedom to debate ideas. They're about anti-discrimination, and would like the GOP to be less discriminatory as well.


by catfish2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slamming Alegre? (2.00 / 5)

And some of us can't let go. I am not angry, catfish2, I am ineffably sad. I am exactly what this diary says. And I see people doing things--all in Hill's name that she does not approve. If you hold on to the unfairness of it all, you wouldn't get up in the morning.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:45:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slamming Alegre? (2.00 / 3)

There is no reason for this to be TR'd.


Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain
by psychodrew on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Slamming Alegre? (none / 0)

Experience.

Hillary = 8 years in office.
Obama = 12 years.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you... (2.00 / 10)

a beautiful diary.

I say now, as I said before the primaries were over, that all Hillary supporters (on myDD) will vote for Barack in November. I couldn't believe, and still don't, that such dedicated progressive voices could willfully allow froward anger to lose us the election, or to imperil it.

I remember when a good few people were calling you a troll (I'd like to say I reserved judgement, but that would be polishing the truth too much for my taste).

Thank you for proving them wrong, and for making the Democratic party stronger with your presence.


His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?
by RisingTide on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:27:36 PM EST

Re: Thank you... (2.00 / 6)

I am, it turns out, a much better democrat than I thought I would be. I wondered only a month ago what I would do if the unthinkable happened? Well, it happened, and it has been excruciatinlgy painful, and still is; but also easy. I just did as Hillary asked me to do.  


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:48:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (2.00 / 10)

Whoa, seriously, as a tough guy and all, I am feeling this one, it's emotionally intense... and so well written, it concludes like a portrait of a strong champion bowing out after a tough loss.

Excellent points, excellent imagery, excellent recognition of all the reasons for this pro-hillary (really anti-obama) mess- one that had eluded me until now was that I figured most of these sites were made up of "dead-enders" or "trolls" posing as HRC supporters to help McCain's fight,  but that many are just as likely exploiting her stardom for internet traffic/monetary gains on these sites.

I couldn't imagine running for office just logistically, it does seem similar to toture.

Sorry for rambling on, but you just blew my mind


Please don't associate moose with Palin, she likes to kill them.
by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 04:31:54 PM EST

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (2.00 / 2)

KLR--What a lovely comment. Much appreciated.


by linfar on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dishonoring Hillary (none / 0)

No worries, keep up the excellent work!


Please don't associate moose with Palin, she likes to kill them.
by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:07:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]