Senator Clinton Agrees, Disenfranchisment Not Acceptable.

I wanted to take a minute to acknowledge the blatant and outright disrespect- nay, disenfranchisement- Obama supporters have been shown on this site. And I want to thank Senator Clinton for the courage and strength to give me the right words to use to frame this very important argument.

There's a reason why so many have fought so hard and sacrificed so much this primary season. It's because they knew that to be a citizen of this country is to have the right and responsibility to help shape its future. Not just to have your voice heard but to have it count. People have fought hard because they knew their rec/rate ability was at stake, and so, by proxy, was their children's futures.

Those people refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy into the blogosphere. Just like the abolitionists, and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. Just like the tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote.

We're seeing a situation occurring just like this, right now in Zimbabwe. Tragically, an opposing viewpoint was held, the site moderator lost it, and then refused to abide by the will of the people.

So we can never take for granted our precious right to rec and rate. It is the single most important, privilege and right any of us have, because while rec'ing and rating, we are all equal. You're equal to a billionaire. You're equal to the president, every single one of us.

Why, Jerome? Why are you disenfranchising us? It's unconstitutional. Sure, you may say, this blog would constitute a private organization, and as such abilities such as "voting" are entirely at organization's behest, but really- this transcends such legalities, because it's so important. Sure, Obama supporters apparently "broke" the rules, but those rules were unfair to begin with, and even when we agreed to them, when the situation changed, we all know we no longer have to agree with them or abide by them.

Don't disenfranchise us, Jerome, or we may not show up in November to click on links and drive site traffic for you to remain profitable with. I'm not bandying that about as a threat, mind you- we'll all have very valid reasons for not showing up come November. In no way is this an episode of "stamp feet, take ball, go home"- this is serious. And you should take it seriously.

Thank you.


Poll
Is Jerome disenfranchising us?
Yes, and it's a horrible crime!
No, that's a duplicitious overexageration akin to no other argument I've heard about anything, particular involving Florida and Michigan, yet this primary season
Pancakes

Votes: 34
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Don't Disenfranchise Me, please! (1.00 / 0)

if your vision of Hope is based on suppression of dissenting views and complete authoritarian absolutism then you can leave now, why wait till November, I am sure we will not miss you.


by tarheel74 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Me, please! (2.00 / 2)

He's right, folks, Jerome has been replacing hope with suppression of dissenting views and complete authoritarian absolutism.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Me, please! (2.00 / 2)

Oh please, don't give that nonsense. Jerome just laid down the banhammer just last night.

But, if you want a Hillary echo chamber so bad, I know a few places you can go. Unfortunately, this site is for electing democrats. Or at least it's supposed to be.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think its a ridiculous argument (none / 0)

The Obama folk should be worried about disenfranchising Clinton supporters by not having a healthcare plan they can afford.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or anyone can afford. (1.00 / 1)

If Obama wasn't black, people would be up in arms that this is all he is presenting after eight years of Bush.

DON'T WE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or anyone can afford. (2.00 / 1)

Arhitek,  I would guess that you were Geraldine Feraro but I doubt she can operate a computer.

Maybe you are her son?

I don't know, but I won't call you a racist, just following in your leader's footsteps, say outrageous things just for hype.

Yes, thats right, I did just compare you to the biggest villain (just after Lieberman) of this campaign season.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or anyone can afford. (2.00 / 2)

He's a troll. The best bet is to ignore him; he hates that.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or anyone can afford. (none / 0)

Yea man, I glanced at the ignore the troll diary last night before I fell asleep.

We do need to just ignore them,  your reply is helpful because that way anyone who reads this knows to ignore in future diaries.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think its a ridiculous argument (none / 0)

There are a range of opinions about whose plan lowers costs more effectively.  Krugman backs Clinton's, Robert Reich prefers Obama's.  Whichever plan is implemented, and in whatever final form, it will be everyone's supporters, even McCain's and Barr's.  But, of course, you know that.  This diary is about ability to participate in a debate and process.  Your non-sequitur is fallacious and seems an act bad faith.  It reads like a cheap shot.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think its a ridiculous argument (2.00 / 2)

He's a troll, just ignore him. Even the Clinton supporters ignore him.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think its a ridiculous argument (2.00 / 2)

Noted.  Thanks.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Me, please! (none / 0)

It is for supporting and electing progressives.  That doesn't mean just democrats


by colebiancardi on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Me, please! (none / 0)

I didn't rate that comment at all and Joe McCarthy Armstrong removed my rating privileges.

hrrrmmmmmm


by Deadalus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

From talk of "disenfranchisement", to "unconstitutional", to "voting".  I mean, I get that you are attepting to stir up emotions by using those emotionally charged words, but the overall argument is still entirely nonsensical.

And in closing, as I was told by many, many, many people when I left Daily Kos, "don't let the door hit you on the way out".  Instead of complaining about what you don't like about MyDD, why don't you just find a website you like better?  I suggest Daily Kos.  

You people complain about Hillaryis44 (I've never even seen the website), and Taylor Marsh (I know who she is from The Huffingtobama Post, but have never frequented her website either) all the time, and it is clear from your comments that you refuse to participate on those forums, because you don't respect the forum, the diarists, the diaries, and/or the administrators.  

Meanwhile, you do the same thing here, but never consider leaving???  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

But you're wrong. This is precisely as serious as I've laid it out to be, and you're only aiding in the disenfranchisment if you disagree!


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

I left Kos because I couldn't stand the Obama echo chamber. So, I came here, hoping to have rational discourse with fellow democrats, even if they didn't agree with my candidate choice. After all, isn't this what this site is about?

If not, then Jerome needs to let everyone know so we can go to an actual site that is truly dedicated to democratic values, and leave MyDD to become the Clinton echo chamber most people seem to want it to become.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 0)

What Jerome is objecting to is the obnoxious pile-on behavior of some Obama supporters, who will gleefully swarm on certain Clinton supporters with unwarranted TRs. Personally, I don't mind the occasional TR from some Obama supporter who doesn't like my arguments -- in fact, I usually take it as a sign that I've gotten the better of an argument. But this swarm-like behavior, except for when the comment is truly offensive, is both juvenile and unhealthy to the promotion of any kind of discourse.

I'll also note that I had my ratings privileges revoked by Kos back in the days when the primary wars were largely fought between Edwards supporters and Obama supporters -- my crime was merely to uprate the comment of an Edwards supporter in a single testy exchange.

Moderators obviously have the final say. I don't begrudge Kos for his actions -- it made it easier for me to leave that site, which I agree has become an echo chamber. I suspect that Jerome is withholding ratings privilege precisely because he doesn't want this site to become an echo chamber like that site. Because of the differing demographic appeals of Clinton and Obama, Obama supporters outnumber Clinton supporters on "the blogz" and Jerome doesn't want Clinton supporters chased off this site the way they were chased off on dKos. Frankly, I respect him for that.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

This is wasn't, never was, and never will be anything close to an "echo" chamber for Obama- Clinton, now, that's another story, my friend. It was one week when Armstrong was gone in April, and then not until after NC/IN I ever saw a pro-Obama diary on the rec-list. Period.

And you might've had a point, if Jerome hadn't willfully ignored the pilings-on of Clinton supporters in the interim. And this isn't the first time he's wholesale stripped Obama supporters of rec/rate abilities- the last time, it was for rec'ing a diary written by Bob Johnson.

But if you want your own personal echo chamber, fine. Be my guest. Enjoy it.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

Do you honestly see this as an echo chamber for Clinton supporters? Check the recommended diaries -- check the number of diaries by Obama Supporters vs. the number of diaries by Clinton supporters. It's really hard to maintain any kind of balance, given the hostility between the two groups, and I can't think of any other blog that manages to do so as well as this one.

If your final sentence was an intimation that you plan to leave this site, all I can say is that's your decision. I know that I was happier after I left dKos, so perhaps you would feel more at home elsewhere.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

I'm saying, things have been turning around- and if you pull a copy of who rec's Alegre's diaries, for instance, you'll notice the vast majority of those people never participate here, or in the comments- she pulls them in from places like Hillaryis44.org to rec 'em up.

However, watch now- I'm promise you it'll swing back the other direction, given what transpired. But explain to me how it's fair to have up to three Alegre diaries, and two months without any even moderately neutral or pro-Obama diaries on the list


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

That doesn't make sense, though. Withholding certain people's ratings privileges -- especially since it seems like it's all Obama supporters having this happen to them -- CREATES an echo chamber, as Obama supporters lose their abilities to rate up or down posts and diaries.

Am I misinterpreting the possible results of removing rating abilities?


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

People can still recommend diaries, so this has no effect on whose diaries become recommended or on people's abilities to comment. I will acknowledge that having one's rating abilities revoked is annoying -- from personal experience on dKos I know that I missed the ability to uprate comments that I liked, because I tended to read more than comment. I almost never TRed on that site (I think I did so about 3 times in my entire 4.5 years on dKos) so that was never an issue for me. But the bottom line is that losing one's abilities to rate comments has NO effect on being able to converse or to recommend diaries.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

No we can't


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry about that ... (none / 0)

I see now that you are right. I remember that the last time Jerome removed abilities, he left people with the ability to recommend diaries. I thought he did that in this case as well.

Given that four of the five recommended diaries up right now are pro-Obama diaries, I suspect that this site will remain balanced between the two camps. I don't think Jerome wants this site to become a Hillary echo-chamber, despite his latest action. Perhaps what he's trying to accomplish is simply impossible given the nature of this present internecine feud. Perhaps every blog will eventually have to go the way of either Daily Kos (for the Obama faithful) or TalkLeft (for the Hillaristas).


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FWIW ... (none / 0)

I rarely check out the recommended diaries. I will admit that back when I was an ardent Edwards supporter I shamelessly recommended just about every readable Edwards diary that I saw. My unrepentant excuse is that there was so little coverage of the Edwards campaign in the MSM that I needed to be cheered by the fact that Edwards diaries at least dominated the dKos rec list.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps Jonathon Singer is concerned that there is (2.00 / 1)

a concerted effort to game the system by certain Obama supporters, by way of gang-TR'ing, but no such comparable effort by Clinton supporters.  

(Notice I said Jonathon and not Jerome - Jonathon supports Jerome's actions and frontpaged his diary - and he's an Obama supporter, so there goes the conspiracy theory about echo chambers.)

I know that I don't see mass TR'ing or even uprating by Clinton supporters, the way I used to see it all the time on Daily Kos, and the way I've unfortunately seen it lately by Obama supporters here at MyDD.  The comment cited by Jerome is a perfect example.  Show me a comparable comment by an Obama supporter that was TR'd over 40 times in a short time-frame by Clinton supporters.  It just doesn't happen.  There appears to be a concerted effort to game the system and control the dialogue here by a roving gang of Obama supporters (or perhaps trolls or perhaps a mix of both), and Jerome is attempting to prevent it.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps Jonathon Singer is concerned that ther (none / 0)

I've seen a great deal of ratings abuse from Clinton supporters, but nothing like 40+ TRs.

But I also find the guidelines here extremely vague. I've seen people negatively rate comments that didn't deserve it and continue to do so to this day, and I see others who don't.

The only pattern I've seen is that Obama supporters get punished FAR FAR more frequently than Clinton supporters.

You may take that to mean that Obama supporters behave worse, but I'm speaking of abusers on both sides.

Clinton supporters seem to have a "Get Out Of Jail Free" ticket here.

Which really doesn't bother me, actually. Just a curious thing I've noticed.


Obama in November.
by Artemis Jax on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the 40+ TR's was a warning sign to admins. (none / 0)

I've seen a great deal of ratings abuse from Clinton supporters, but nothing like 40+ TRs.

I'm guessing issues like the 40+ TRs is one of the reasons Obama supporters are "singled out" more than Clinton supporters.  In other words, the admins are busy, and don't have time to police every diary, let alone every comment.  However, when they notice out of the corner of their eye something as out of the ordinary as 40+ people TR'ing a non-offensive post, I assume a red flag came up in their minds, and they did what they felt they had to do to respond to it.  Giving that when they are administrating the site, they don't typically see 40+ Clinton supporters TR'ing an innocent comment, there is less likelihood of action being taken against them.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

Wow.  You don't see the parallels.  Interesting.


by Same As It Ever Was on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (none / 0)

"You people complain about Hillaryis44...and it is clear from your comments that you refuse to participate on those forums."

Tinfoilis44 does not allow a post to appear until it's "moderator" approves it. Hence, no one has ever seen a pro-Obama post appear there. It's amazing.

You may've never gone to Tinfoilis44, but whether or not you know it, you've read some of their diaries. Lol.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:31:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

"Instead of complaining about what you don't like about MyDD, why don't you just find a website you like better?  I suggest Daily Kos."

We don't run away from dissent like the cowards that ran from Daily Kos.


by aIegre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a really strange diary. (2.00 / 1)

Oh Snap,  that is so true it hurts.

If it wasn't for said "strikers" I never would have known about this site.  (I wasnt even a Kos user, just stopped by and noticed the strike thread, after ROFLing I came over)


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We just make up screen names to make fun of (2.00 / 1)

other members, huh?

Your screenname says everything I need to know about you.  In fact, it tells me two things.  

First, of course you wouldn't "run away" from Daily Kos like a "coward".  Based on your screenname, you appear to use the internet as a place to stir up conflict, not avoid it.

Second, it tells me you're more of a troll than an Obama supporter, as you've either been banned or lost privileges, causing you to start a new account (which I thought was a bannable offense on most sites, but appears not to be enforced here).  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We just make up screen names to make fun of (none / 0)

Look here homey,  I love my screenname and have gotten props.

Do I go and stir up shit for Republicans as much as I can and as hard as I can hell yeah!

Do I return the favor to turncoats like the evil Joe Lieberman OF COURSE!

A "friend" of mine did get swept up under the Obama REC list sweeps.

There are SO MANY people here with new accounts, I Would say at least 20, and they are not trolls.

As soon as June 5 passes and Jerome does his amnesty thing he talks about, my "friend" will come back to this site.

But I like my name, I enjoy catching republican trolls on this site.

I feel a decent responsibility in erradicating Chitowndenny.
Still puts a smile on my face.

Someone else did the hardwork (google) and found him out.
I kept calling him out everytime he trolled.

Because he never defended the accusations, and in or two diaries bragged about it, he was banned.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One problem: My comment wasn't directed at you. (none / 0)

My comment was to "AIegre", whose username mocks another member known as "Alegre".


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this snark? (2.00 / 1)

Serious question.

(I lost my powers in the Night of the Long Knives too)


by Builderman on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST

Re: Is this snark? (2.00 / 1)

Brilliantly done snark in fact.  Cuts right to the bone.


by Same As It Ever Was on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Obama supporters, please! (2.00 / 1)

Very brave diary Ragekage. Very brave.


Obama/Warner 2008
by MissVA on Tue May 27, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Obama supporters, please! (2.00 / 1)

Thank you kindly, ma'am. Soon, this'll all be over and we'll be campaigning for our nominee and making sure Virginia goes blue this year.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Obama supporters, please! (2.00 / 1)

Obama supporters could benefit greatly from being:

a) gracious, when winning
b) respectful, to the near 50% of voting Democrats who did not or do not want Obama leading the Democratic party
c) considerate, of different view points that in their truth point out the bad aspects of an Obama presidency.

To ask for for more respect is not the same as deserving it outright.  

I'm not attacking you personally, but instead of writing a diary about "how to treat the Obama supporters better," maybe you should write a diary TO THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS asking that they start behaving with a more inclusive attitude instead of an often gloating, I told you so, it's with us or against us attitude.

-Steve


by Steven B on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:09:16 AM EST

Stop threatening to not vote Obama (2.00 / 3)

Why don't you lead the way.  Help by telling your side to stop destroying the party.  Your side is threatening to protest the fucking convention!  Do you realize how damaging that is to what I thought was our mutual political goals?

You wonder why our side is pissed?  What if Hillary was ahead by 160 some delegates, and Obama supporters raised hell claiming they'll destroy the party to get Obama elected.  Don't you see what the problem is?  Start fixing your own side please.


by aIegre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Obama supporters, please! (2.00 / 1)

I would argue here that the vast majority of Obama supporters on this site actually treat Clinton supporters with exactly the respect you advocate here.  I have written many times that it's important for both sides to judge each other by the best examples instead of the worst.  The behavior of obnoxious Obama supporters (whose existence is both undeniable and unfortunate) receives constant attention here.  The converse obnoxiousness is at least as prevalent if not more.  This is one of the fewer places where it is addressed.  It's easy to bandy it back and forth (I'll stop when you stop, your side is so much worse).  It's more effective and productive to recognize the slights inflicted on the other side.  I can only control myself.  I criticize bad behavior among my own comrades.  Can you recognize the same among yours?  If you can, then there is a clear way forward.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Disenfranchise Obama supporters, please! (2.00 / 1)

I see, and being "considerate, of different view points that in their truth point out the bad aspects of an Obama presidency" isn't a contradiction in terms?

To be considerate of different viewpoints is something completely different from accepting the "truth" of one particular side. Your definition of being inclusive is, then, to agree with one side of an argument: yours.

Sorry, but that's not inclusive at all. It's imperious (i.e. your point of view is THE truth).


by DrPolitics on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senator Clinton Agrees, Disenfranchisment Not (none / 0)

Clever, clever snark.


McCain: because not everyone's ready to say goodbye to W yet!
by Matt Smith on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:14:58 PM EST

Is this serious? (2.00 / 1)

Snarky question.


John McCain smells like mothballs.
by asherrem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST

Re: Senator Clinton Agrees, Disenfranchisment Not (none / 0)

Is this snark?
Serious question.
Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST

Oh, I see what ya did there. Clever snark. (none / 0)

Love some of the Clinton supporters' responses to this diary. And I voted "pancakes" in your poll, as any good patriot would.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.