Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Edwards effing well CAN beat Hillary

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:12 PM
Original message
John Edwards effing well CAN beat Hillary
Edited on Tue Dec-18-07 09:52 PM by jsamuel
Much more here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/18/191236/88/73/424026

by McSnatherson

False Claim #1: Money

So, apparently it's come back in vogue to talk about TEH UNSTOPPABLE POWER OF MONIES. Let's have ourselves a little reality check here, shall we? In the '04 primaries, John Kerry had to mortgage his house for campaign funds as Dean consistently raised 3 times or more than he did. And the end result of that? Kerry ran away with the nomination after taking Iowa, while Dean (more's the pity) fell to a humiliating third. The Moral Of The Story, for any rational observer? Money has a strictly limited value, whatever K Street might like you to believe, and momentum counts for a hell of a lot more. And as noted, John Edwards is excellently poised to take that momentum.

False Claim #2: Polls

Uh, yeah. This claim is, if anything, even more willfully ignorant of our own recent history here in the Democratic Party. Let's take a look at some national polling reports from the '04 primaries. Let's see - CBS News, as of 1/12-15/04 had Dean in a solid first place with 24%, Clark in second place with 12%, Gephardt in third place with 11%, and poor John Kerry and poor John Edwards just BURIED back at fourth and fifth place with 7% and 5%, respectively. How can those fools possibly carry on?! Don't they know they're DOOMED? Don't they know they're... oh, wait. Here are the numbers from just a little later, as of 2/24-27/04. Kerry is in a runaway first place with 57%, Edwards is bringing up second place with 18%, and the next highest candidate who's even still listed is Al Sharpton with a whopping 4%. Funny how that happened, isn't it? Why, it's almost enough to make a fellow think that anyone who's seriously trying to use national polling or anything similar to it - like, say, polling numbers for the Feb. 5 states - is either stunningly ill-informed or deliberately disingenuous.

False Claim #3: The Black Vote

The claim here in essence appears to be that John Edwards has absolutely zero appeal to black people - which I suspect might come as a surprise to the numerous African-American leaders who've endorsed Edwards (link's from June - sorry I couldn't find a more current list, since I know more have endorsed him since then), by the by - and therefore Hillary Clinton will automagically scoop up all the black support that Obama would hypothetically shed and crush Edwards with it. There's a couple problems with this. First, this simultaneously assumes both that momentum means nothing and Hillary will maintain her vastly inflated poll leads, and that momentum means everything and Obama's black support will abandon him at the snap of a finger, making it available to Hillary. I'm not the only who can see how that's crazy, right? And second, it assumes that Hillary really is the default and necessary alternative for the black community. Look at the numbers quoted in that diary again - Hillary's only polling between 20-30% in both of them, and the low figure (21.2%) is in the state that's had the MOST exposure to her, South Carolina. That's supposed to show that Hillary will smush John Edwards in that demographic, since he still polls much, much worse than her there. But what it actually shows is that when African-Americans actually get exposed to Hillary, it cuts her poll numbers in half from their national levels. That's a sign of WEAKNESS, not of strength. That's only reinforced when you compare the NC and SC numbers again - Hillary's numbers drop by fully 10%, without either of her opponents' numbers going up appreciably. That means that those black voters aren't being lured away by another candidate, they just plain don't like Hillary all that much once they get to know her instead of her national hype. With that in mind, I'd suspect that that 20-30% figure is much closer to the ceiling of Hillary's black support than to the floor. And that means that - especially if Obama crumbles - there's a huge opportunity for Edwards to step in and introduce himself. Remember, his lack of coverage among African-Americans has been just as profound as among other demographics, and blacks are no more immune to the appeal of momentum that I discussed before than anyone else.

False Claim #4: Edwards Can't Win the Other Early States

Ugh. Look, the momentum from Iowa has just as big - if not bigger - effect on the other early states as it does on the national polls. With regards to SC, IIRC roundabouts 50% of likely voters haven't made up their minds yet. In '04 Edwards and the SC electorate were in similar places poll-wise, and in the end they came home to him. It's very far from implausible to think the same thing'll happen this time. With regards to Nevada, the caucus-going population was IIRC ~7,000 last go-round, and Edwards has already gotten endorsements from Nevadan unions with several times that in membership, as well as the endorsement of the 600,000+ member California SEIU right across the border who can drive across and help organize. He's also rumored to be the front-runner for the hugely influential UNITE-HERE endorsement if he picks up even one of the states' prior. Quite frankly, if Edwards wins Iowa, I'd be quite surprised if he doesn't pick up SC (the state where he was born, incidentally) and Nevada as well. New Hampshire I'll concede is iffier, if only because I know less about it. All I can say there is that Edwards has a number of good union endorsements there as well, that polling data show that more often than not New Hampshire follows Iowa, and that the claim that NH isn't amenable to populist appeals is highly dubious - Pat Buchanan won the NH primary back in the day on just such populist appeals after all, albeit from a right-wing angle. On top of that, Edwards is hardly only about economic appeals - he's also the the strongest environmental candidate in the race, and the only candidate to be endorsed by a major environmental organization (Friends of the Earth), which in addition likes him so much they're running an independent expenditure campaign on his behalf in NH. I think we can all agree that the environment is an issue with some resonance in the Northeast, yes?

My Bonus Reasons for Edwards

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Absoeffinglutely!
Edited on Tue Dec-18-07 09:51 PM by frogmarch
There's not a doubt in my mind that Edwards can beat Clinton - and Obama. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midlife_mo_Jo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Biden and Edwards are my first two choices.
I'm better matched for Biden, but I really like Edwards populist appeal, his push for healthcare, and his willingness to take on the corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. Snuffelopogous!!
Edited on Wed Dec-19-07 07:46 PM by Jeff In Milwaukee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's the one I want to win...


I'm not sure what his chances are, but he's the one that sounds most like a Democrat to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Run John Run. you are the one that can win in 2008 Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. New post up on Labor $$... don't pay attention to crap about Matching Funds..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Effing-A
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy823 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. Good post
Sure he can, and they know it. He can also beat Obama, and that's why the Obama camp has come out with this crap about Edwards not being able to beat Hillary, or the post about "why" Edwards can't win. It just show who scared the are of Edwards, and they have good reason. He is going to take Iowa, and go on to win the nominatin! :woohoo:

If Hillary and Obama keep up with the negative attacks, their run for the nomination will look like this :nuke: !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. Go Johnny, go
Go Johnny, go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yuugal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. Awesome post
Momentum is everything and distant primary polls are pretty much useless. One Dean scream is all it takes to get sunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. How dare you encourage the "Edwards Haters."
Here they come...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. What's wrong with that?
BTW, I don't hate him. In fact, hate isn't the word. Disgust is.

FWIW, I think it's YOU Edwards supporters who have the problem with reality and I feel sorry for you for it.

The guy is, was and always will be a conservative Democrat. You're believing his rhetoric over his actions is annoying, at best and hair-pullingly sad, at worst.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Ta-dah!
There are at least three "Edwards Haters" in this thread who follow Edwards threads around obsessively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. We can't avoid them!
I'm so sick of seeing his name, I could croak.

I have to open the thread to hide them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. have you read his book Four Trials?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
We need to win in the general election, and Edwards is the Democratic candidate most likely to do so.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. I lean Obama, but I like Edwards too. I wouldn't be disappointed
if he got the nomination.

Both Edwards and Obama can beat Hillary at this point. She and her husband and their subordinates have shot her campaign to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. in this whole thing, matching funds limits are not addressed......
Neither Kerry or Dean accepted matching funds during the 2004 primaries.

Kerry did not accept matching funds. He mortgaged his house, won the nomination and paid himself back...

so I'm not sure what the Dean and Kerry in part 1 of the op is supposed to signify.

Meanwhile, for the 2008 primaries, John Edwards has accepted matching funds. He could have done what Kerry did, but decided not to use any of his money.

The real point, therefore, is that Edwards may win the nomination (so number 2 doesn't offer any relevance), but that is when our Edwards funding problems would begin...because Edwards will have a hard time competing against his GOP opponent during the key period counted as 7 months between mid Feb and the end of the convention.

The Kos diary you have posted does not address the issue of what Edwards will do once he has spent the 53 million dollar spending cap (with further state by state restrictions), which takes into consideration all monies spent by John Edwards since he formally announced his run and filed his papers until August 28 of 2008. According to this thread, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3860147&mesg_id=3860147 , Edwards will already be close to having spent his limit by the end of Super Tuesday....and then he will have to wait till Aug 28th for more GE funding.

Edwards may not coordinate with the state parties or 527, and they may not use his name or advocate for his election (although they can in the Generic) although they can advocate for or against specific issues. The Republican will also be able to do this with or without having accepted matching funds with their 527 and state parties.

If the specific on how Edwards will handle this matching funding cap issue is somewhere in the OP, please copy and paste that part in your response. I just don't read anything in the body of the op that answers this.

In a nutshell, this is why Hillary considers Edwards a more beatable opponent for herself; because Edwards' spending caps is a legitimate talking point that an opposing question can put out there; how does Edwards plan to win the election if he is playing on an uneven money field and still have his message effectively be heard without interruption and distortions from the opposition. That is what makes Edwards less "electable" from the Hillary campaign's point of view compared to an Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-18-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. He'll be broke, you're right.. there won't be any $$ coming in from anywhere.. I don't know
why we bothered to let the guy enter the race to begin with. Or Biden for that matter. Or any of those other poor slouches who can't finance their own campaigns out of their pocket or the pockets of Saudis.. oops.. I mean Caymens... oops,or BIG Oil, BIG Pharma, and BIG Insurance; well, whatever. Anyway, you're right, it's an absolute waste of time. We should stop the whole process now. Either that, or people should shut the hell up and let the process work and the people have their say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The "process" can't work because the process is broken in many places......
Edited on Wed Dec-19-07 01:00 AM by FrenchieCat
But I was responding to the OP's rationale of posting what he did.....

The OP was posted because there are some on this board that say that Hillary would prefer that Edwards beats Obama in Iowa, because Hillary believes that Edwards would be less competition for her due to his funding limits.

I was simply pointing out that the problem is not whether Edwards would have enough funds to beat his Democratic opponents including Hillary, but whether he can effectively compete with the opposing party once the nomination is secure.

The fact that Hillary Clinton would be able to state that Edwards won't be as "electable" as he claims because of funding limits during a crucial period is what it all boils down to. Obama has no such restrictions, and therefore, it is said that Hillary would rather not have to compete with him, because she can't pull that particular card out of her "why not so electable" pocket.

Because most Democrats don't want to "kind of win"....or "perhaps win", but would rather "really win" the general election, this is an "electable argument" for those candidates who didn't accept matching funds.

Edwards didn't have to accept matching funds....as he had "Fortress" money to lend his campaign, if he could have chosen to. It only shows that Edwards wasn't so confident in his message and his candidacy.......cause sometimes, one must take a chance to gain what they want. Maybe Edwards didn't want to chance any part of his personal fortune. :shrug:

Bottomline is that it was Edwards' choice, not done out of neccessity without options, like a Biden...who has no personal fortune, and therefore had no choice.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. Because that is the elephant in the room.
Even now Edwards is likely being choked by the limitations pub financing places on his ability to spend money in Iowa (between $1.5 & 2M total).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. I'm a black Edwards supporter from the get-go
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE a woman or African American president...just LOVE it! However, it seems that both Hillary and Barack feel the need to pander to the straight white male crowd who might otherwise be reluctant to consider them for office. Therefore, I see their support being built on corporate interests (based on fund-raising numbers), the "Democrat" Lieberman crowd and those who want to see either a woman or black president regardless of their equivocation.

Of course, it would be presumptious of me to dismiss any sound reasons that a progressive might have for voting for either of these candidates (I would vote for either of them in the general election), however I have always found Edwards to be the candidate that I dreamt a president would be: ALL-inclusive (without pandering), SANE and forward-thinking... I also have this affinity to $400 haircuts, but I digress.

As a gay person, I do take issue with his stance against gay marriage; however, I do not see him forcing this opinion down anyone's throat. And I will not ignore his vote for the Iraq war, or other questionable votes. But what he is saying today, in 2007, resonates with this black American. I just hope he can get his message out to more people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Yeah baby!
Heck, I could vote for a female African-American in the end - IF - she had the American people's interests at heart! And I'm NOT just saying that to sound cute!

Similar to what John's said, I've made mistakes along the way and LEARNED from them. I think those are some of the most influential moments of education one can get! If learning stops the moment you're handed a diploma, we're in deep doo-doo. I'm saying all this because I LOVE what Edwards is saying at the moment. Man, when he renounced corporate money for this run, THAT sealed it for me! Hillary and Obama are BEHOLDEN to those that stuff their coffers. HOW ON EARTH can they act in the best interests of lil' ol' me???

Edwards is GOING TO BE our next President and we're gonna reap rewards that we can't even begin to comprehend at this point. We're gonna send "President Relavance" packing along with a good number of his lackeys in Congress! Ta-Taaaaa, Fascisim and Deceit! Ta-Taaaaa, lies and world derision! Go slinking back under your respective rocks and stay there!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. I'm beginning to feel the momentum too! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
18. I still think it could end up being any one of them, or.......
Or, in a deadlocked convention, they could turn to............
wonder of wonders, Al Gore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
19. For the record
John Kerry had the backing of the Democratic establishment who wanted to sink Dean. Once he was able to win Iowa they threw their whole weight behind him. I don't know if they will do the same for Edwards. All in all I'm optimistic though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beausoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
20. I am very pleased that he is surging. I like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
21. i do believe he can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. "I'd suspect that that 20-30% figure is much closer..."
"I'd suspect that that 20-30% figure is much closer to the ceiling of Hillary's black support than to the floor."

That's precisely why, for years, I've said she will not get the nomination. Her support is not only fluid, but 30-40% is her ceiling. This means once the race has narrowed, she has 60-70% who prefer another candidate. Due to the fluidity of her support, as well, if she loses Iowa (which I'm positive she will), approximately half of her support will jump ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
24. I'm hoping Biden is the big surprise in Iowa....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
27. The landslide begins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. Doubtful. It's not a very good argument
The poster relies almost entirely on a Dean/Kerry paradigm, which I believe doesn't lend itself to 2008. And he ignores Obama as big factor. Counting on Obama to fade isn't exactly persuasive. And Iowa is historically worth only about a 10 point boost- at best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
29. Polls taken on here, and by Thom Hartmann all show that Edwards
is the favorite of progressives, by far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Why?
Kucinich should be.

Edwards is, was and always will be a conservative Democrat. Why don't you people understand this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Edwards is a moderate, not a conservative. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
35. Excellent refutation and debunking
...of an anti-Edwards thread posted yesterday.
Point by Point.
Excellent!
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rAVES Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
36. A small Terrapin with the word "progressive" etched onto his shell could..
Edited on Wed Dec-19-07 03:41 PM by rAVES
the M$M just wont let you in on that secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
37. Go Johnny GO!
Be good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
39. He's the only one I hold out hope for ...
... and the only one I'd remotely trust (aside from DK), were he to be elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
40. Save our nation ... Kick Hillary to the curb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-19-07 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
42. It is disturbing that
the two candidates who have the least chance of winning a national election have the most money and deemed the favorites by the corporate media. The corporate media selecting our candidates is a reflection of how low our system has sunk.
The only way the Democrats can make a dent in the South is with a white male candidate from one of the Confederate States. That's the cold hard reality of American politics, and the Democratic leadership just plain sucks.
They discount the netroots and the power of the blogs at their own peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC