IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

In my mind, one of the most inspiring times to read blogs was during the fallout from our losses in 2004. For me, this was a special time because we were able to focus on what we wanted from our Democratic Party. Markos started the "Reform Democrat" meme, which helped shape the debate in the race for DNC Chair.

As short time later, Kid Oakland pushed the effort further with To Be a Fighting Democrat (which received 377 comments on the front page of Daily Kos).

I don't care if you're liberal or progressive, and vote for everything I support...if you can't get out there, stick your neck out and pitch in to our common fight, then, sad to say, we don't need you.

What does this mean in pragmatic terms?  Well, for one, it means that in 2005 we are going to have to come up with a set of judgements about how our candidates are doing....and be prepared to run primary challenges in 2006 against those who are simply "phoning it in." 

Phone-it-in Democrats no longer cut it, and need to be told so...and that is the dominant message the activist wing of the party needs to send. (not ideological purity...not litmus test issues...not "we can help you with the internet"...fight in spirit and in deeds is our demand.) [emphasis from the Oakland Kid]

Back then, being a Fighting Democrat had nothing to do with military service. In fact, Kid Oakland wrote:

And, I think, we need to be the party that incorporates some form of "national service" into the educational program of the United States, whether voluntary or not....we Democrats need to win back the mantle of patriotism with a proposal for national service that works...bringing equity to military service and broadening, once and for all, the concept of "service to country" beyond the act of taking up a gun to defend it.

The idea was a solution to the phone it in, DLC cowards who had lost us the last election. Then along came Paul Hackett.

Hackett had served in the Marines and volunteered to do so again when we went to war in Iraq, even though he was opposed to the war. He came home and served again, as a candidate for congress. Hackett campaigned as a Kid Oakland style Fighting Democrat, inspired people across the country, and gave Democrats a glimpse of the potential of fighting each and every day in every district no matter how red...instead of just phoning it in.

Then Mother Jones ran the cover story, "The Democrat who fought. Some people focused on the fact that Hackett had served in Iraq as the key to his success, conveniently ignoring the fact that he was a Fighting Democrat for the way he campaigned, not just for his time in the service. Hackett was a Kid Oakland style "Fighting Democrat" who had also been to Iraq, so it was like, "He's a fighting Dem, literally, ha ha."

True to the original Kid Oakland concept of "service to county" going beyond the act of taking up arms, Hackett posted a diary A Call to Service where Hackett asks people to join him in service to country that doesn't involve fighting in the military, but fighting for our democracy at home.

Since then, the notion of Fighting Democrats has been used as an excuse to support Ladda Duckworth, who has honorably fought, but has yet to show any signs that she is a Fighting Democrat.

If anything, her campaign has represented the worst of the "phoning it in" problem that Kid Oakland spoke of when he coined the term. She has tried to buy the election with piles of glossy mail and excessive TV ads, paid for by out of state money that wants her to win in spite of the Fighting Democrats in IL-06 who have been fighting and organizing to beat Roskam.

If Duckworth wins the primary, it will be at the expense of the grassroots. Hackett received nationwide support because of his local support while Duckworth receives support from other phone it in Democrats despite her lack of local support.

The entire process of this primary has disgusted me. The DC Democrats have fought against Cegelis from the start, Duckworth is just the latest of the candidates they have recruited to run against her. If the DC Democrats win this primary, it might very well be a Phyrric victory much like Ohio. In that primary, Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel were successfully in conspiring to force Hackett out of the race, yet now Sherrod Brown is down by 16 points and the race isn't even competitive, with Mike DeWine over 50%.

When the grassroots started talking about Fighting Democrats, what we had in mind was for our leaders in DC to fight against Republicans, not against the base. Yet as we painfully learned in Ohio and as we are seeing in Illinois, this was not to be.

As the DC Democrats phone it in against Cegelis, remember what 'Fighting Democrat' once stood for. They can raise more money, they can deploy a campaign in a box, but they have yet to prove that this will succeed in winning seats during a post-broadcast environment when people can use the new progressive communication infrastructure to call bullshit.

In Illinois, Fighting Democrats are calling bullshit, yet the DC Democrats will waste no expense in their attempt to force upon the base the notion that they know better. Count me with Christine Cegelis.

Tags: fighting democrat, IL-06, Paul Hackett (all tags)



Cegelis will make us proud

Check out her campaign.

by blogswarm 2006-03-11 11:51AM | 0 recs
Thank You Bob

Thank you for "drilling down" to the heart of the matter, and setting straight the TRUE meaning of "fighting dems". Your diary points out, succinctly, how out of touch the Beltway Boys are with reality OUTSIDE the Beltway.

It's not just happening IL-06; It's not just happening to Hackett; Rahm & Co. are doing this EVERYWHERE...From Florida to California...And many, many places in between. It's time we sent them a STRONG message to Cease & Desist...A message so strong, that they ignore at their own peril.

Electing Christine Cegelis will send just that message. Count me in for Christine, because SHE is a TRUE "Fighting Dem".

by dabuddy 2006-03-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

I am a fighting democrat because Christine Cegelis is in the race for the 6th. As Rosie the Riveter once said: We can do this.

by feminist123 2006-03-11 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

Then recommend the diary and let's have a discussion.

by blogswarm 2006-03-11 01:52PM | 0 recs

And appreciated.

I can't say it enough...THANKS AGAIN BOB, for (finally) setting the record straight!

by dabuddy 2006-03-11 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

I support Cegelis because her life story resonates with mine much more than Duckworth's -- I never had any ambitions to go to war, to fly a blackhawk, but I do have a kid and I am nervous about his future.  I never believed the Iraq War was a smart thing -- and I want someone in Congress who can see the disaster in the making before it happens.  We were not all for the war before we were against it -- some of us were against the war from the beginning. And we need someone in Congress who understands raising a family and seeing the opportunites for her children melt away -- who understands that there are plenty of people out there with damn good educations who still have trouble finding a job in this "boooming" economy.  

by Maven 2006-03-11 01:50PM | 0 recs
Who Was It That Said....

..."War will end only when people love their children more than they hate their enemy."?

That person got it. So does Christine. It's about the FUTURE, stupid!

by dabuddy 2006-03-11 03:09PM | 0 recs
My LTE to the Chicago Sun-Times


Thank you so much for posting this, putting so eloquently what I have been trying to say.

On a recent DailyKos thread, I pointed out several passages in "Crashing the Gate" that demonstrate why Cegelis deserves our support. Much to my surprise, Kos not only came to Duckworth's defense, but attacked me personally in the process. Something very odd is going on here!

I wrote the following LTE to the Chicago Sun-Times in response to their recent endorsement of Duckworth, because the reasons they gave for endorsing flew in the face of the facts:

Duckworth is no Hackett

As someone who drove to Cincinnati to help get out the vote for Paul Hackett in the Ohio 2nd Congressional District special election last August, I was incensed by your comparison of Tammy Duckworth to Major Hackett in your misguided endorsement. While it is true that Hackett's status as a Marine returned from Iraq helped garner some attention, what really drew people to his campaign was his outspokenness on the issues and his visceral dislike of President Bush and all he stands for. Hackett didn't rely on established politicians from outside his district to get his message out for him. And he certainly did not rely on precinct workers for other politicians to get him on the ballot at the last possible moment.

This is in sharp contrast to Tammy Duckworth, who is ultra careful not to say anything "controversial" and who has relied entirely on the efforts of Rahm Emanuel and other Washington politicians to raise money for her and organize her campaign. You cite Duckworth's "opposition" to the war on Iraq, but she in fact rejects the idea of recalling our troops until they have, in her words, "finished their mission" (whatever that might be at this point). It is Christine Cegelis who opposed the war from the start and who proudly stands with ex-Marine Congressman John Murtha in calling for the speedy withdrawal of our troops who are increasingly becoming sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war.  

Your endorsement also claims that Duckworth brings more "energy" to the race than Cegelis. If Duckworth has so much energy, then why is she so often a no-show at local forums such as the Elk Grove Village Democratic Club Forum (Jan. 19), IVI-IPO special endorsement session in Des Plaines (Jan. 24), DuPage United Forum (Jan. 26), League of Women Voters Forum (Feb. 7), Indo-American Democratic Organization (Feb. 12),  Cable Access Candidates Forum (Feb. 16), Glenbard West Young Democrats Club (Feb. 22), and Winfield Democrats forum (Feb. 27)? In fact, a look at her schedule suggests that Duckworth is unwilling or (more likely) unable to handle more than one event per day.

Cegelis, on the other hand, is running everywhere, meeting with voters at forums large and small at every opportunity, and has an army of motivated volunteers (speaking of campaign "energy") knocking on doors for her throughout the district. Duckworth, by contrast, is relying almost exclusively on glossy mailings and TV ads starring other politicians to get out her "message." As one resident of the district blogged recently: "Cegelis shows up everywhere; Duckworth shows up in my mailbox."

Christine Cegelis is a longtime resident of the district who started her campaign in 2003 against Henry Hyde. She knows the district, its concerns, and its needs from talking to voters for the past three years. Duckworth is not from the district and is not going to learn about it by talking to Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, and other Washington Democrats raising gobs of cash for her from people on the East Coast. On March 21, Democrats in IL-6 get to decide whether to run one of their own in November or go with Washington's choice.


[Jim in Chicago]

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: My LTE to the Chicago Sun-Times


I love the way you called bullshit with facts and first-hand, front-line experience...Facts and experience that are hard to dispute.

by dabuddy 2006-03-11 03:22PM | 0 recs
Thank you

When I read the endorsement, the letter really wrote itself. I thought I might as well post it here since it appears the Sun-Times is not going to print it (I assume I would have heard by now).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-11 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

Thank you, Bob, for writing a historicity of the phrase "Fighting Dem."  Those you forgot the terms first signification clearly suffer from the same amnesia as the Republicans they criticize.  I am so glad Bob exists.

by illinois062006 2006-03-11 04:51PM | 0 recs

Steve Filson who said, if memory serves me right: "I may not be the best champion of Democratic values but I'm electable" is called the "Fighting Dem" in CA-11.  

Bob, I appreciate you trying to set the record straight.  

by Matt Lockshin 2006-03-11 08:45PM | 0 recs
please consider posting this on DailyKos


As I alluded in my earlier comment, Kos himself seems to be pulling for Duckworth, despite everything he wrote in his book that would suggest the opposite.

Please consider posting this diary over there sometime. You are widely respected in the blogosphere so I think it would help frame the discussion of this race -- with all its national implications for Democrats -- better.



by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-12 08:59AM | 0 recs
Great article in today's (3/12) Daily Herald

echoing many of Bob's points. Despite their editorial boards, it looks like the reporters at the local papers may be pushing back against the Emanuel juggernaut: 166399

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-12 09:02AM | 0 recs
Speaking as someone who is

part of the blog team working to promote Fighting Dem Vets (one of the two usernames we currently use, with Markos's permission, at dKos), I do not believe that Veterans are the only Fighting Dems.  Being a Veteran is a special thing but that alone does not make one a good candidate.  As a group we find the Fighting Dem Vets are stuck with the Fighting Dems name even though the official name of the group formed by Veterans running for office is Veterans for a Secure America.  I wish the best of luck to all candidates running for office and believe the people should have a chance to choose which candidate they like best.  I have great respect for Christine but I happen to think that Tammy is the best candidate, like it or not, because of the high profile she can bring to this race.  I hope that if Tammy wins against Christine that she will be gracious and give her the respect she deserves for the excellent job she did in 2004.

by Mike Pridmore 2006-03-12 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

It would be better if the voices supporting Tammy Duckworth did so because of her fitness for office or her merits on the issues, not simply because they see her as a good PR opportunity.

by Feh 2006-03-12 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

As I said, being a Veteran is a plus to me but that by itself does not make one a good candidate.  If I didn't think she was fit for office I wouldn't say she is a better candidate.  She brings a high profile and, IMO, is otherwise an acceptable candidate.  And I am fully aware that opinions differ on that. I understand that Cegelis supporters feel betrayed by the Democratic leaders backing Duckworth.  I would too in their shoes.  But I also think their anger blinds them to some of Tammy's good qualities. I hope that feeling of betrayal somehow gets resolved before November.

by Mike Pridmore 2006-03-12 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

This would be better, again, if Duckworth's supporters could muster real arguments to support the proposition that she is the better candidate.

But Great PR Opportunity + "acceptable" doesn't cut it.  It is all but admitting that she was in fact singled out for the photo ops, not any superior fitness for office.

You need to look further than November, you need to look further than the candidate-as-candidate to the Representative.

Our system of elections has produced too damn many photogenic electable candidates with no brains behind their pretty faces and good dental work.  I don't want to hear what a great public relations coup it is to have a certain candidate running for office, I want to see a good representative filling that office.

by Feh 2006-03-12 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

Our system of elections has produced too damn many photogenic electable candidates with no brains behind their pretty faces and good dental work.  I don't want to hear what a great public relations coup it is to have a certain candidate running for office, I want to see a good representative filling that office.

While it true that candidates are sometimes elected more on style than substance, Tammy has brains.  When I said she is "acceptable," I meant that she would do the job well, not that she meets some minimum criteria.  She and Christine are both intelligent and dedicated.

by Mike Pridmore 2006-03-12 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

I don't doubt that they are both intelligent and dedicated candidates - yet you offer nothing to choose between them except the PR aspect.  Nothing, not a single word, to suggest that Duckworth is the superior choice as Representative for IL-6.  Yet on the PR alone, you want to throw the entire weight of the netroots behind her.

This is the PR leading the candidate, or in other terms, the marketing leading the product.

This isn't democracy.

by Feh 2006-03-12 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

Feh, when you make a comment like this, it would be helpful to give a quick argument why Cegelis IS the best candidate -- it may be obvious to you but to those of us non-local folks who aren't totally familiar with the race, this kind of reminder is needed..

by PeterB 2006-03-12 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

Cegelis is clearly the more progressive of the two candidates.

Cegelis would have voted against the Patriot Act, Duckworth would have voted for it.

Cegelis is for withdrawing from Iraq as soon as possible, Duckworth doesn't want to set a timetable.

Cegelis is opposed to AFTA treaties, Duckworth supports them.

And when it comes to Fighting, I've seen Cegelis fighting now for 3 years to take this district away from the Republicans.  She fought against Henry Hyde when everyone said it couldn't be done, and she came closer to doing it than anyone else ever did.  She kept on fighting after the 2004 election, when it became clear that Hyde was on the to retiring.  She kept fighting when the DCCC establishment in the person of Rahm Emanuel kept trying to shut her out of the race, to shut her out of the money, recruiting one candidate after the other to replace her on the ticket, finally when Durbin came up with Duckworth.  She has never given up, not after all the obstacles they've thrown at her.  An article today in a local paper quotes her as saying she couldn't give up, because her supporters would never give up.  That's a Fighting Dem.

by Feh 2006-03-12 06:45PM | 0 recs
Al From wants an easy vote

Looking at your above comment we see why the DLC's Emanuel would expend way too much of DCCC resources to cover his ass. In the corporate world this would a scandal but when the DCCC does it we should cheer because it isn't as bad as it could be?

by blogswarm 2006-03-12 07:15PM | 0 recs
Yes this is democracy.

And this is politics.  I happen to agree with Tammy, for example, that timetables in Iraq are not exactly what we need.  Tammy is following the lead of General Wes Clark on this one.  I don't need lectures from you on who is progressive and who isn't.  I respect Christine but I just don't see her as the superior candidate.  You're going to have to accept that other people can look at the same things you are looking at and have different opinions.  Insisting that everyone agree with your opinion is more like something a Republican would do than like a Democrat.  I wish Christine the best of luck and if she wins the primary I will support her because she would make a great congresswoman.

by Mike Pridmore 2006-03-13 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes this is democracy.

I think you're being a tad bit testy this morning.  Or you're ignoring what my post actually said.

I am not demanding that everyone agree with me.  I am asking if Duckworth supporters have concrete reasons why they consider her the better potential Representative in Congress.  Now, in your last post, you do, finally, present at least one reason, related to the issues, why you prefer Duckworth.  It does not make her the more progressive candidate, but then, we can't all be progressives.  [upon which subject, btw, I was not lecturing you but responding to another poster's reasonable question]

But I stand my ground on the statement that democracy is not supposed to be about who can generate the best ad campaign.  And to the extent that it is become so, it is the shame of democracy.

by Feh 2006-03-13 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes this is democracy.

You are right.  Progressive cannot include just anyone because they happen to have a D next to their name.  Ladda is anything but progressive.  Indeed, she is a centrist who switches her position in order to please everyone while offering everyone nothing of real substance.  And if she supports the war, then she is simply not a candidate to support.  In fact, it reveals that her priorities are skewed, as we have already wasted too much money in Iraq.

by illinois062006 2006-03-13 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

And if Christine wins I hope Tammy and all her backers will be just as gracious towards Christine, and get out there and give her the same support they are providing Duckworth's campaign.

If Cegelis does win, I believe that will be a huge story in itself, and give Christine a huge amount of momentum as the story line of a grassroots candidate beating a candidate with the full backing of the national party will be a sensational story that few will fail to cover, bringing national attention to Christine's campaign and the work she has done in the district.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-12 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is

Michael, if Christine wins, I'll send her $250 the next day.  Promise.

by Adam B 2006-03-12 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Speaking as someone who is


She is for real. Canvassing this weekend just makes be believe it more.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-12 04:36PM | 0 recs
Who Is A Real Fighting Democrat?

This quotation from the Daily Herald's article on Cegelis answers our questions:

"She [Cegelis] also opposed the Iraq war from the start. Like her other opponent, Wheaton College professor Lindy Scott, she disagrees with Duckworth's assertion that setting a timetable to withdraw troops will only encourage insurgents to settle in."

Here is the link.

by illinois062006 2006-03-12 10:50AM | 0 recs
"Encourag[ing] insurgents to settle in"

Seems to me the boat sailed on that one a long time ago!

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-12 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re:Media and "Fighting Dems"

Two posts up at SoapBlox/Chicago relevent to this discussion. The first, by michael in chicago, is about shifts in the local media's reporting and how they are now beginning to examine the actual differences between the Cegelis and Duckworth campaigns beyond just the Duckworth as a "Fighting Dem" storyline. The second, by me, is about an article in Congressional Quarterly entitled "IL 6: Duckworth Will Be Test Case for Veteran Candidates".

Taken together they show a nice contrast between what the candidacies are really about and how they are being portrayed. It is also interesting to see how different the narratives are getting to be locally versus nationally.

by ltsply2 2006-03-12 12:04PM | 0 recs
It is truly sad that Duckworth is seen as

the test case for fighting Dems. It is really Paul Hackett who should be carrying that banner. And it would be but for Sherrod Brown going back on his word about not running for Senate. Of course, you didn't see the DSCC riding to Hackett's rescue -- just the opposite in fact. Seems to me they want "fighting Dems" who toe the line -- making the entire concept an oxymoron.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-03-12 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

Why Duckworth does not have a stance on abortion:

"Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn't spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: "These guys are gun-shy because they're used to getting clobbered on the issue."

by illinois062006 2006-03-12 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: IL-06: Who is a Fighting Dem and why?

The reason the DC Democrats are losers is because they think they have lost for a reason and internalize the GOP talking points. Even when Americans agree (like pulling out of Iraq), the DC Democrats won't support it because people with pathetic polical instincts like Emanuel fucked up and now 100,000 people are dead.


by blogswarm 2006-03-12 07:32PM | 0 recs
Huh? Seriously. HUH?

From Duckworth's campaign announcement:  "I think most people in our area, of all political stripes, also believe that it's not the place of government to make the wrenching, personal decisions that should be left to a woman and her doctor, or to the grieving family of a brain-dead patient."

by Adam B 2006-03-12 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

Nobody believes a stance of a candidate they think is a Tool.

by blogswarm 2006-03-12 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

In honor of Cook County, that is a capital 'T' in 'Tool'.

by blogswarm 2006-03-12 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

And given that Emanuel ventriloquizes his various positions through Duckworth, it is safe to assume that she would not take a real stand on abortion.  For Duckworth abortion is not a federal issue; according to her, it is a state issue.  And she is on record saying she will vote for parental notification laws.  In other words, she desires to chip away at Roe.  I do not call that a stance.  In fact, I call it prattle, prattle orchestrated by the strings with which Rahm controls Duckworth's body.

by illinois062006 2006-03-12 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

I recall that Duckworth has a significantly different opinion than Emanuel on, um, THE WAR.

And in terms of parental notification, that chip in Roe was done almost 15 years ago.

by Adam B 2006-03-13 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

Then I would rather have a Congresswoman who desires to replace the chips.  That is not a defense of Duckworth; that is mere apathy.  In regards to the war, she desires to stay.  How this is different from Emanuel remains to be explained.  And she would have voted for the Patriot Act.  Wrong for America, Ladda is also wrong for District 6, showing us once again how she is utterly out of touch with our values.

by illinois062006 2006-03-13 04:59AM | 0 recs
a few notes

1.  Her name is Tammy.  Your incessant "Ladda Ladda Ladda" is juvenile.

2.  Her statement on the war makes clear that she doesn't want to stay in Iraq, believes the war was a mistake, but believes that leaving immediately would be irresponsible.  

3.  There is overwhelming national support for parental consent laws -- 70-80% of Americans.  And still, Duckworth does oppose them.  What she has said (on the radio debate) is that if they're going to exist, they need to contain a judicial bypass option.

by Adam B 2006-03-13 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: a few notes

Actually, her name is Ladda.  While you may consider it prattle, its her name.  I don't pretend to know the history of why she adopted an Anglo nickname nor should it be relevant to the election.  She is listed on the primary ballot as L. Tammy Duckworth. Suffice to say that calling her Ladda or Tammy is no more insulting than referring to Cegelis as Christine or to Scott as Lindy.  

by pascal1947 2006-03-14 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Huh? Seriously. HUH?

That is a finely crafted saying that doesn't spell out where she stands on a woman's right to choose. In candidate forums she has attended, she has been inconsistent on parental notification and what limitations on abortion she would or would not support.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-13 02:46AM | 0 recs
Has she?

Could you provide quotes?  Dates?  Anything beyond Your Unbiased Conclusion?

by Adam B 2006-03-13 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Has she?

Even if he chooses to provide them, you will try in vain to rationalize them.  But if you were truly in touch with the campaign and not mindlessly defending Ladda, then you would have read all of Michael's posts, and you would no that Ladda has been inconsistent on virtually every major issue of concern to the voters of District 6.

by illinois062006 2006-03-13 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Has she?

No, I've read Michael say that.  But given his conflicts/confluence of interest on the matter, I'd rather see the facts on which the conclusion is based.

by Adam B 2006-03-13 05:10AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads