This Isn't Over

Cross Posted on Dailykos

Both Democrats and the netroots won a big victory today when John Edwards refused to cave into the pressure of a right wing smear job. This was huge in several ways:
  1. The vast majority of established, beltway consultants would have told Edwards to fire Melissa and Amanda. By not doing so, it shows that he is capable of moving beyond tired, worn out advice. He is open to new ideas, including those coming from the netroots. We need more leaders like that.
  2. It sets a precedent for all other Democratic campaigns this cycle when it comes to right-wing smear jobs and swiftboating. Unlike in the past, it shows that Democrats don't have to cave, and are not ready to cave. Any other campaign in a similar situation will now be judged by the yardstick Edwards has laid down. At this point, caving will make you look very bad.
  3. Relative to the Republican Noise Machine dominated established news media, it increases the power of the netroots as a voice in the Democratic party. They listened to us, not to the establishment, and not to the right-wing. This will help build the movement, and free the Democratic Party from conservative Republican influence in our primaries. We are one step closer to choosing our leaders on our own.
Great victories indeed. I am so relieved for Amanda and Melissa. I am just as relieved for John Edwards, who I really did not want to write off my list of potential candidates to support in the primary. Now, I will happily identify myself as an Edwards supporter. The only way I could imagine that changing is if another candidate shows a superior ability to help grow the movement. While there are a few more with that potential, no one has really come to close stepping up yet.

Still, despite our victories, this is far from over. First, because he refused to cave to right-wing pressure and establishment campaign advice, Edwards will receive a significant amount of criticism. When this happens, we need to remember that he stood with us during this fight, and so we have to stand with him against the forthcoming attacks. This goes for everyone, whether or not you are an Edwards supporter. He didn't throw us under the bus, and so we can't let him get thrown under the bus, even--especially--if another Democratic campaign is trying to do the throwing.

Second, while Edwards did not cave into right-wing pressure, which was dutifully stenographed by the media, the power structure that allows Republicans to push any conceivable smear of Democrats and progressives into national focus is still fully operational. The current, bullshit attacks on Pelosi are a case in point. As such, it is time to turn our attention to how this story was reported on in the first place.

It is bitterly ironic that established news outlets are failed to provide context, do proper research, vet sources, and otherwise uphold basic standards of journalism on a story about bloggers. After all, bloggers often receive exactly the same criticisms from the established media. However, few people heard about William Donahue's long history of vicious religious intolerance--instead, they only heard that he was a Catholic who wanted Amanda and Melissa fired. Also, few people heard that John McCain's staff has been criticized for controversies far surpassing this--instead, most were given the impression that this was the first case of a blogger / campaign controversy. Others heard outright falsehoods about the story, such as the notion that Amanda tried to delete her past comments.

Now, it is time the media hears from you about this. BlogPac has set up a page where you can email the news organizations and reporters who acted as stenographers for the right-wing smear machine on this story. Take action, and contact them now. Tell them to do their jobs instead of being mega-phones for the Republican Noise Machine.

Tags: Activism, BlogPac, Democrats, John Edwards, Media (all tags)

Comments

58 Comments

Re: This Isn't Over

Thank god, I won't have to vote third party if Edwards wins the nomination. He is on a short lease, but he is off my shitlist.(Oh, I am sure you all know which single candidate is on it).

by Pravin 2007-02-08 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Thanks, Bowers. I'm on board with this.  Take Donohue down.

by dereau 2007-02-08 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over
Thank you, man. Sorry Id idn't get back to you earlier. It has been a busy twenty four hours in this fight.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:08AM | 0 recs
cool, thanks for the take action page

it's really easy to use and I'd encourage everyone to use it.

Why is Donohue EVER on TV?

by TarHeel 2007-02-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: cool, thanks for the take action page
thanks for the feedback on the action page. I'm glad you found it helpful.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: cool, thanks for the take action page

What TarHeel said - very easy to use.

I won't say yet that I'm an Edwards supporter (though I can understand why you now consider yourselfe one) but I'd been leaning rather strongly his way, and it's good to know I can keep doing so.

Still, I liked what Bill Richardson had to say yesterday.

by RT 2007-02-08 10:55AM | 0 recs
A couple serious questions for Chris...

1. By saying that you "support" Edward are you in essence "endorsing" John Edwards? And, if so, how should we view your reporting on the '08 race?

2. You imply that your decision to "support" Edwards follows from this symbolic defense and loyalty to the netroots.

Do you really feel that strongly aligning a campaign with folks like me, the quintessential MyDD demographic -- white, male, non-religious and in my 30s -- is the make or break position that determines your support for a candidate?

Believe me, I'm proud to be a self-described member of the netroots movement. And, of course, agree that we are an emerging force. But, isn't this a narrow view that excludes the values and perspectives of a much larger segment of the population?

(No snark intended here. Hope that comes through.)

by Vermonter 2007-02-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple serious questions for Chris...
I guess I never really--ever--thought of "endorsing" someone on MyDD. I always think of it as working for someone or not. Maybe the key difference is between just endorsing someone--that is, saying you want them to win, but not working for them--and actively supporting them--which means channeling resources.

MyDD won't be channelling resources to anyone as a group. I may very well start giving resources to Edwards, but I won't use the front page to do so, out of respect for the other bloggers. Also, BlogPac doesn't give money to candidates, so I won't be doing that there, either. But I could end up writing a lot of good things about Edwards.

As for #2, well, I already was leaning Edwards anyway. And I tried to explain why this move would mean so much to me last night.

I hope that answers your questions.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:13AM | 0 recs
Thanks very much...

I appreciate your responses.

From your definition then, "support" is a much higher degree of advocacy than "endorsement."

To be honest, though, this fact will make it hard to see any general '08 diaries that you may write without being alert to hints of bias, however subtle.

It's not an easy thing to navigate, and I have a lot of empathy for the challenges that you'll likely face in trying to be both an advocate for a candidate -- and the netroots movement at the same time.

I write on http://greenmountaindaily.com , but since deciding to publicly support Barack Obama, I no longer feel that I can write front page posts about anything related to the '08 race, no matter how general the subject.

And just this week, I basically turned down a really excellent opportunity in public broadcasting because I was unwilling to keep my Obama support to myself.

Damn my political obsessions!

And good luck to the Edwards campaign. This Dean for America supporter hopes that we can all keep this primary season from becoming as contentious as it was in '03/04.

Neil Jensen
http://vermontersforobama.org

by Vermonter 2007-02-08 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple serious questions for Chris...

Why not endorse a candidate?  Major newspapers traditionally do and that is a perfectly acceptable paradigm.  Why not think of myDD as a netroots journal of record, as it were?

You might want to wait a bit though.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-08 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A couple serious questions for Chris...

What makes you think that blog readers are primarily white male 30's, single, non-religious?

I don't actually fit those categories very well nor do any of my friends.

Acutally internet news sources are growing in importance. Naturally, the "early adopters" are mostly younger and more computer savvy, but that's changing every year.

It's time to abandon that stereotype as well as the others about internet bloggers being "nerds" that was all the rage in the MSM during the last election -- complete with showing the blogger newsroom with the storyline that these people were mostly all the type of kids real Americans used to bully in high-school, combined with an inerview with Talkleft's Jeralyn Meritt, because GASP! she's an attorney and an attractive woman, and not a closet star-wars geek! Who could have thunk it! A WOMAN using the internet!

We can't even trot out our snarky references to Obi-Wan-Kenobi!

by Cugel 2007-02-08 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple serious questions for Chris...

From the MyDD survey that was just done.

Results are here:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/5/18758 /69039

White, Non-Hispanic: 90.1%
Religion None: 46.5% (I oversold this one)
Male: 77.9%
Median Age: 41 (I'm 37)

by Vermonter 2007-02-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A couple serious questions for Chris...

Shit, Francis was right.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-08 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

I think it is good that Edwards kept the bloggers but he didn't handle this well for several reasons.

1) if he was personally offended by the comments why did he hire them?

2) If he didn't know about their comments before he hired them, why didn't he do his due dillegence?

3) It seems to me that he fired the girls and then reconsidered when the progressive blogs got angry. So where is he showing spine? This was his best political move given his strong support here.

4) Chris- Why are you in his camp now based on this decision? He made a bad choice (by firing them, or considering firing them) and then reconsidered. He still made a bad choice that got him into this mess. Should that be rewarded? Had he just stood up for the gurls from the outset you wouldn't have promised him your support.

by dpg220 2007-02-08 09:58AM | 0 recs
It's a vast improvement

it's clear Edwards at least listens which is more than we've ever had with a top tier presidential candidate (besides Dean)

by TarHeel 2007-02-08 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

"It seems to me that he fired the girls and then reconsidered when the progressive blogs got angry. So where is he showing spine? This was his best political move given his strong support here."

That's how I feel. He knows that his populist campaign has the strongest support among the netroots and therefore he flip-flopped his position to avoid alienating us. I'm seeing a trend here.

by PhillyGuy 2007-02-08 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over
4--See my comments last night on why this meant so much to me, to explain that one. Keep in mind that I repeated said I was leaning Edwards anyway.

As for your other points, I understand, but try to keep this in perspective. In 2004, they would have been fired, no questions asked. the attacks would have continued. Progressives would still be at the mercy of right-wing smears. By contrast, now, they are still on the campaign, and we are on the offensive.

It is not everything at once, but it is a big step compared to where we were quite recently. It will be a lot harder to swiftboat us this time around.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

no one has answered my questions No. 1 and No. 2. If he is personally offended by their comments why did he hire them in the first place? No due dillegence?

by dpg220 2007-02-08 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

I don't believe due diligence always entails reading every single word your mid-level staffers have written in the past.  Especially not if you're a busy presidential candidate who leaves the hiring of mid-level staffers to higher-level staffers.  You didn't seriously expect him to have read all of the thousands of words both women have written over the past several years, did you?

by antidoto 2007-02-08 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Do you everything written by everyone who has ever work for you? Especially if they are in alower level position in an organization that you are growing? In other words, your questions are unrealistic although I imagine you will dispute that with some argument about candidates needing to know everything. the reality is that's not reality, and never will be.

by bruh21 2007-02-08 10:49AM | 0 recs
not losing is not a victory

But I agree with the media stuff and sent an email.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-08 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

It will be interesting to see how Obama and Hillary respond to these rightwing attacks when it's their turns.  I'm not expecting much from Obama, but would like to be pleasantly surprised.  And I expect only triangulation from Hillary.

by fasteddie 2007-02-08 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

he froze out foxnews and he handled the madrassah story well.

by dpg220 2007-02-08 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over
Obama did well with Fox News. Now with Edwards stepping up, it could put Hillary in a very difficult position that would go against her instincts, and those of her consultants.

Of course, she has often been combative int he past herself. Remember the "vast right wing conspiriacy" comment? She can hit back too. Actions liek these will help her, and all Democrats, do so.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Hi everyone, long time reader, first time poster. I have to say, with the greatest repsect to John Edwards (I liked what he had to say in the recent interview on mydd) that his actions over this issue in the last 36 hours - rather his inaction - make me  feel very dubious about his ability to be a good candidate in 2008. Unlike Obama, who jumped on Fox immediately re: the Madrassa bs, Edwards stared into the glare of the GOP affiliated smear machine heeadlights. He's got to have faster reactions than this. Therefore, although he, of course, has done the right thing now, the time it took for him to do it worries me. It's a little junior varsity, let's hope he hardens up, and quickens up.

by shoeless 2007-02-08 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

How is this a victory?

One of the most influential bloggers (you) called edwards to the carpet and said you would either support or oppose him vigorously, depending upon the outcome.  It took a day for him to issue a statement on the matter.  Its not like this was a principled stand, IMHO.  More like politically calculated.

by areucrazy 2007-02-08 10:06AM | 0 recs
the guy was out of state

traveling  in 27 cities in 30 days. and had appearance on NPR shows yesterday and today..

the delay was a bit longer but did not miss any news cycles.

by TarHeel 2007-02-08 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: the guy was out of state

How many cities did he travel to yesterday?

Anyways, my point is that Chris, who is one of the tope 5 influential bloggers offered his full support for edwards.  How many people does he influence?  How many people respect his opinion?  Edwards just got a free lunch.

by areucrazy 2007-02-08 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: the guy was out of state

If Chris has the kind of power to affect candidates' decisions that you think he has, then we're in better shape than I knew.

by Steve M 2007-02-08 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: the guy was out of state

lol.

How many bloggers does Chris influence?  How many thousands of people read this blog?  Its not a large number by normal standards, but its the activists and to a certain degree we drive opinion.

by areucrazy 2007-02-08 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: the guy was out of state

I can imagine a Republican candidate for President thinking "Gosh, I better not offend James Dobson."  It's hard for me to imagine a Democratic candidate thinking about Chris Bowers in the same vein.

But if Chris really has the power to crack his whip on this blog and force the candidates to toe the line... hey, I bet we'll end up with a great nominee!

by Steve M 2007-02-08 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: the guy was out of state

MyDD was mentioned and linked in the NYT yesterday and an AP piece specifically identified the netroots pressure as a possible consideration of the Edwards campaign team.  It is a factor and growing with each election cycle.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-08 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

The one thing we have to give Edwards slack with is the length of time it took him to figure this out.  He is still learning the internets (and all those tubes).  But seriously, he's out in relatively uncharted territory.

What I will say, is that Edwards first response is to follow the conventional wisdom of D.C.  But, one thing that I like about Edwards, is that when he thinks, he does the right thing.  So, Senator, learn to take your time in a hurry.

by Jim Treglio 2007-02-08 10:07AM | 0 recs
You didn't win

Keep in mind, the framing is still going on. The blogs are celebrating the simple fact that Edwards didn't actually fire the bloggers. This is clearly the right thing for Edwards to do, and I could not reasonably ask any more of him than he did, but it isn't much-- would anyone have been impressed by this reaction had Salon not [apparently falsely?] reported they'd been fired? Donahue demanded they be fired, yes, but he seems to make outlandish demands like that all the time and I would be surprised if he seriously expected it to be followed through on.

In the meantime, have you seen the coverage of Edwards' announcement this morning in the normal media? Edwards may not have done what the noise machine wanted, but the media still is.

"Edwards keeps controversial bloggers". "Bloggers regret anti-catholic postings". "Edwards' workers scolded for blogs". The effect of the tone of essentially every article on the subject this morning is to increase or sustain the pall upon Marcotte and McEwen. Why are Marcotte and McEwen "controversial"? Are these labels that Donahue or Malkin ever get tagged with when they show up in normal media stories? Why are so many articles accepting the spin that the posts being apologized for were in fact "anti-catholic"? Marcotte and McEwen were surely right to apologize for any legitimate offense their comments may have caused, but both clearly stated it was not their intent to disparage personal faith. If Donahue considers those posts "anti-catholic" (along with Barbara Walters, etc), why take this at face value but simply ignore the bloggers' own assertions that anti-catholicism was in no way their intent? Is it becoming of a journalist to use judgmental terms like "anti-catholic" in such a flippant manner, in headlines, etc? For that manner, is it reasonable that so many media sources take it at face value that Donahue speaks for mainstream Catholics?

It may well be a step forward for progressivism that a Democratic presidential candidate didn't immediately follow orders from the far right. But at the very least there is pretty clearly a long way to go here. In terms of pure media outreach and framing, as far as I can see the far right won every single point here.

by Silent sound 2007-02-08 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You didn't win
And that's why we continue to fight.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: You didn't win

Fair enough.

by Silent sound 2007-02-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
But the right clearly did win, no question

The right's goal wasn't to get the bloggers fired, that was just the talking points that they knew would achieve their goal.

by Bob Brigham 2007-02-08 10:25AM | 0 recs
Great to have you on the team!

While this was a pretty hellish ~24 hours, I think the Edwards campaign -- and the Democratic party in general -- is stronger for it.  

by Neil the Ethical Werewolf 2007-02-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
Oh come on...

This was a tiny, minor thing. 99% of voters will never hear about it, and the only reason it bugged you because you let the right-wing trolls get under your skin, which is what they love doing.

We are fine, and we will win the white house with either Obama or Edwards, I bet.

by delmoi 2007-02-08 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh come on...

Actually, I'm a huge Edwards supporter, and I thought it'd be a disaster if Amanda and Melissa were fired.  But the lemons have turned into lemonade.  

by Neil the Ethical Werewolf 2007-02-08 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

I still don't see how this is a "great victory."  

Marcotte had to surrender her principles and claim that she wasn't serious about all the stuff she wrote, claimed it was all sarcasm (and she deleted her previous posts in a tawdry attempt to conceal them) and Edwards comes across as a disingenuous opportunist.  Far from displaying an unwillingness to cave in, he simply caved in to one side over the other.

As I pointed out before, the wingnuts are having a field day and, as much as I hate to admit it, Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom makes some good points.

But let's not confuse the effect with the rationale--which is both risible and insulting.  Because were it really never Marcotte's intent to malign anyone's faith, she probably wouldn't have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know--maligning anyone's faith.

Of course it was her intent.  Just as it was McEwan's intent.  And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of "trust," is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they'll behave, now that he's promoted them to the grownups' table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I've ever seen.

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/webl og/entry/22327/

by Mary Zerro 2007-02-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over
She didn't delete her posts. That was a right-wing blogger claim that they were forced to retract.

But I'm glad you link to another right-wing blog to support her claim.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-08 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Well, I'm certainly glad to see she didn't hide her posts and I apologize for that.  However, the fact remains that she basically caved in and abandoned her principles.

by Mary Zerro 2007-02-08 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Wow!  I went through the Pandagon and then Malkin links you provided and looked at some Marcotte's stuff from Pandagon.  I hadn't seen that post before in which she attacks the Duke Lacrosse players as rapists after rape charges were dismissed.  OK.  Sorry, that is just crazy.  Marcotte is a deranged loser.  Edwards really should have never hired her.

by Mary Zerro 2007-02-08 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Brand new account, links to Protein Wisdom, words like "deranged loser"...

Trollerific!

by jsw 2007-02-08 10:55AM | 0 recs
I agree.

I think it's pretty messed up to insult the guys who, in all likelihood were falsely accused of rape. Also, there was never any evidence that they had sex with her at all (which is what she claimed) Messed up.

Still, I don't think she should be fired for it. People can have weird views, but whatever. Besides, right wingers say all kinds of crazy shit all the time and never pay a price for it.

by delmoi 2007-02-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Oops

Seems like you might be a single-issue troll, in which case I don't agree with you!

by delmoi 2007-02-08 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

OK, so he didn't cave. That's acceptable. But it's not great. Great would be going on the attack. Something like:

"Taking lectures from Donahue on bigotry is like taking lectures from Mussolini on fascism. He doesn't speak for the average American person of faith. He speaks for a narrow constituency with nobody's interests but their own at heart. He probably hasn't Democrat since Strom Thurmond ran for President and I'll be damned if I take campaign advice from him."

OK, so something much more diplomatic than that, but you get my point. You don't win points by refuting unfair criticism, you do it by turning the attack back on them.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-08 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

I sent out the BlogPAC thing.  Mad props to you guys for doing this.

by whogotthegravy 2007-02-08 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

Let me say that if this is how you're using BlogPAC, then I'm thrilled I made my year-long recurring donation to it.  If nobody else wants to build this movement, we'll build it ourselves.  And I urge everyone else to donate to BlogPAC if they want to see more of this.

by dday 2007-02-08 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: BlogPac

I didn't know it existed until this post.   Thanks for making it easy to fire off a comment to the MSM.   They can be a bunch of scrubs and Donohue definitely doesn't stand for all Catholics.

I will post about BlogPac later on my blog.  

Thanks again,
Benny

by benny06 2007-02-08 11:32AM | 0 recs
HEY MAN!

Now, I will happily identify myself as an Edwards supporter. The only way I could imagine that changing is if another candidate shows a superior ability to help grow the movement. While there are a few more with that potential, no one has really come to close stepping up yet.

Hey man, you said you would support him forever!  No take backs.

This whole saga has shaken my desire to support him.  I still like him, but this was a major misstep that could have been avoided. Obama has shown a little leadership on Iraq, and I think he has a lot of potential, although he still has a lot of work to do to earn my support.

But as long as It's not Hillary, I'll be happy!

by delmoi 2007-02-08 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

I think the Malkin might be starting to lose traction with the rest of the media and the public at large. She's producing too many flops and it's getting harder for people to overlook the fact that she's absolutely ridiculous. No doubt she'll continue to be the standard bearer for the far right bloggers but I suspect she may be sliding into increased irrelevance with moderate conservatives.

The best thing that you can do (I say you because I'm a Canadian) is to not to lend her attacks any more gravitas than they deserve. She'll respond to the slide into niche irrelevancy by becoming increasingly shrill and embarass herself more than you ever could.

by Jose 2007-02-08 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

He decided to go with the bloggers and fight the swiftboaters.  I am pleased.  He sponsored the vote to take us into Iraq leading to the deaths of many thousands.  I am f***king angry as hell, and I don't forgive him for it by being nice to two staffers of his.  

You can support him for making the right decision on this.  I, too, am happy he didn't roll over and play dead for the right wingers, but can you really vote for this man on the basis of his PR move?

by candideinnc 2007-02-08 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

That's not really the issue. This whole furore is the product of a slow news day. I doubt it'll have any effect either way on Edwards' numbers in six months time.

The issue here is throwing it back at the wingnuts, exposing their idiocies and showing the Democratic party that the netroots doesn't have to be just an ATM, it can also be, for example, a rapid response team for messaging.

by Englishlefty 2007-02-08 02:45PM | 0 recs
Sometimes little stories are watersheds

Agreed on the slow news day aspect of the whole affair. However the drama might well prove to be one of those forgotten, easily overlooked watersheds. From here on in it only gets easier to shrug off smear from the far right.

It's interesting to note that Malkin and the far right bloggers didn't get mentioned in the MSM piece I read. Instead it was Donohue vs. liberal bloggers. Are the MSM tuning out the radical fringe on the right? It's hard to tell but it's an encouraging sign.

by Jose 2007-02-09 02:18AM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

When it comes to attacks from the militant Right we are all in this together, when we've beaten them off for awhile then we can choose sides and have a righteous ol' brawl among ourselves.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-08 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: This Isn't Over

"This will help build the movement, and free the Democratic Party from conservative Republican influence in our primaries. We are one step closer to choosing our leaders on our own."

More power to you. The more influence you folks have on who the Democratic candidate is the easier it will be to defeat them in the general election. So keep on dragging them to the left.

by Thomas Jefferson Fan 2007-02-11 04:28AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads