Chances for nominating a left Democrat as party presidential nominee

[Terwilliger]

this denotes Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Sharpton, and Ms. Moseley-Braun

[gully]

1. Your idea of 'left' differs from mine, thus I'll abstain from voting...

:smoke:
However, given the fact that the three persons you noted are polling at around 2%, I'd say none are likely to be our next President...

[Terwilliger]

3. oh I see

so Howard Dean is actually a "hippie" like the pukes say?

[gully]

7. NO, and I'm not interested in a 'hippie' for President...

I had a hippie for a mother who had an IQ of 154, but I wouldn't want her running the country thanks.

[Terwilliger]

9. wow...glossed right over the question

let me try capitalization

DO YOU THINK HOWARD DEAN IS A HIPPIE AS THE PUKES AND SOME CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS SUGGEST?

See? That's not hard.

[gully]

12. Was my answer hard to understand? I said NO.

What part of NO didn't you understand?

[Julien Sorel]

14. I thought I saw a bold NO in the subject line of his post.

Yes? No? Not clear enough?

[gully]

16. her post, but thanks!

;)

Guess I better update the ol' profile.

[Terwilliger]

18. I thought you could read

:shrug:

And how will the Palestinians fare under ANY of your Dem choices? Probably give Sharon a blank check for eradication.

[Julien Sorel]

21. LOL

As always, a complete inability to stay focused on the topic. In this case, I can understand the desire to run away, though. ;-)

[Terwilliger]

23. you laugh about the eradication of Palestinians?

no wonder you support war mongers

[Julien Sorel]

29. LOL

No means 'No'

[gully]

25. Well under Dean's 'evenhanded' approach...

you know, the one praised by former President Carter ... I think they'd fare 'farily' well.

Although, I don't know if peace in the middle east is possible (after thousands of years of fighting) I sure hope it is.

http://globalstewards.org/democrats.htm#lib

However, you should re-do your poll to include John Kerry. He is the most liberal of all the candidates with a voting record. He also holds a higher 'overall' score on enviromental issues then Dennis does...

[Julien Sorel]

33. Kerry is guilty of an absolute crime: he is an electable Dem.

In the eyes of some of the fringe, that makes him worse than Bush.

[Another Bill C.]

11. They're with you on this.

I think the rest of the country is with you on this, too. It looks like most people don't want a president who may be smarter than they are.

[Terwilliger]

13. *ahem*

hehe

[gully]

15. well, I've known a lot of 'smart' hippies...

but I think productive is also an important criteria. :shrug:

*edited to add, welcome Bill C!

Another Saint Paul (part) Irish Democrat here :toast:

I checked out your home page... ;)

[Terwilliger]

19. that's right!

gotta keep that machine grinding!

who next? the dangerous Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? Let's productively give George Bush authority to wipe out whoever he doesnt like while we mewl about "jobs" and "universal health care"

[gully]

30. I don't equate production with WAR Terwilliger.

as usual you changed the subject...

:crazy:

BTW, Norm Coleman was a 'hippie' for what it's worth.

[Terwilliger]

45. no he wasn't

and the fact of the matter is, your "production" produces war

if the bitter reality of that is hard to stomach, stop voting for Democrats

[gully]

53. stop voting for democrats?

I voted for Gore and we would not be at WAR right now were he sitting in the OO. A little point you Naderites who are so opposed the war in Iraq tend to overlook rather conveniently. :eyes:

So I say VOTE DEMOCRATIC Terwilliger!!! If you want peace.

By the way I have pics of Normie Coleman protesting the Vietnam war, want em?

[Terwilliger]

58. look, I dont care about Norm Coleman

if he's now a Republican, he was never a hippie. He may have called himself a hippie, others might have seen him as a hippie, he might have seen himself as a hippie. He was NOT a hippie.


And, OH YES< Ralph Nader caused the war. I forgot :eyes:

[JVS]

61. How are the Democrats supporting peace?

Each of them except Kucinich wants to keep occupying Iraq(Actually I don't know about some of the minor candidates, but the frontrunners will continue occupation). It will still kill 1 or 2 American soldiers each day. Or do bodybags only count when a republican is president?

[gully]

62. Look JVS, Dennis and others in the running

want to bring in the UN. DK is not alone in this goal. However, we can't make promises for the UN. They may say F-U. Koffi Annan (sp) has already said 'we never authorized this war' why on earth would any country want to contribute lives/money given that fact!?

Also, Bush plans to invade 7 countries. Give him another 4 and we'll see to it he does.

If you don't see the foreign policy differences between Republicans and Dems, I can't help you, because you clearly don't want to see.

[JVS]

65. Kucinich said "Bring the troops home now" at the debate

Others talk about long plans or bringing in the UN, which would really just be making sure that some of the dead kids aren't americans. What part of now do these candidates not understand.

[gully]

67. What Dennis doesnt realize is that the UN has to be willing?!

Dennis is pandering on this issue IMO. He says much about what we 'should' do, but little about how to do it KWIM?

I realize he's a hero to many here, as he should be but let's understand it's not as simplistic as it sounds. In essence he is saying, he UN, bring in your sons and daughters to be killed, spend your money (on the war we started, against your wishes) cause were outta here?

Sorry JVS, but I don't think that'll go over real big at the UN.

I'm off to the library now, have a great discussion everyone :hi:

[JVS]

68. The UN didn't have to be willing for them to be put there.

What makes you think that the UN will even want to get involved in this mess?

The only person who decides whether they go or stay is the POTUS. Staying there longer is just another "peace with honor" scenario.

[gully]

74. The only person who decides whether they go or stay is the POTUS?

Not quite. Were that the case, Iraq would not have been a unilateral adventure in the first place.

[JVS]

75. You think that Bush didn't want to send them?

[gully]

90. Yea, and they didn't go remember...

case in point.

[Tinoire]

81. The UN is willing and has been

But Bush has been demanding control of the occupation and of the oil fields. This has been a huge pissing contest at the UN for months.

They are not only willing- they are wanting to but America and the UK stand to lose thier monopoly over all that lovely oil and won't be able to install the right puppets.




http://news.google.com/news?q=UNited+Nations+occupation++control+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=G&scoring=d

[gully]

88. The UN is pulling out staff as we speak...

because it's becoming so hostile.

"But Annan has indicated that if security is not improved, he might not be able to allow the return of international staff in the numbers needed to oversee more than the minimum humanitarian needs, and a larger U.N. role possibly helping with a new constitution and elections would be out of the question."

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030926_208.html

I stress we should be careful in our language. We should not speak in terms of assuming anything about the UN who Bush told to F-off just months ago. We need to humble ourselves and assume nothing.

In fact, I heard Koffi Annan say recently "we did not authorize this war" when pressed on the issue after meeting with Colin Powell. The UN is pissed, and frankly who can blame them.

Now, I am quite certain if we relinquish control they will 'take over' so to speak as it is their duty in a sense. But, some of our sons/daughters are there for the long haul no matter what, as we are part of the United Nations.

The UN appears divided on this issue and there are a great many details that need to be addressed.

Here are some of Deans positions the matter.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8649&news_iv_ctrl=1421

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8845&news_iv_ctrl=1421

Here is some info on Dennis's website as well.

http://www.kucinich.net/issues/issue_iraq.htm

[Terwilliger]

72. you dont understand much gully

the only reason the UN doesnt want to do business with the US is because George told them to fuck themselves and give the US what it wants. That's what they object to. And facts are facts...Democrats gave Bush the power and authority to tell the UN to fuck itself.

Kucinich will turn over military and civilian authority to the UN in Iraq. Then he'll pay for most of the rebuilding and a large chunk of the cost of UN troops. He is not like ANY other Democrat (except Sharpton or some other non-candidate Dems) in his policy on the current conflict.

[gully]

76. The UN taking over is no guarantee, and to assume so is arrogant.

However, Dean has said the same thing, the US must relinquish control to the UN, it's not only Dennis who wants our troops home.

In other words, DK doesn't have the corner on the "lets get the hell out Iraq" market.

I'm really out for now. See you all in a bit.

[Padraig18]

77. Thank you for pointing that out

:)

[Terwilliger]

79. UN would take over...its Democrats who want to perpetuate the occupation

Dean is all about giving Bush his $87 billion. For a Democrat you're quite a liar...or are you not symptomatic of the party?

[gully]

83. Dean doesn't have a vote on the matter Terwilliger. So who's the liar?

Also, we have children over in Iraq fighting that need help via $$$$.

Those that support giving Shrub $$ realize that small but essential fact.

I have heard the Dems say they want an accounting as to what that 87 bil is being used for. In addition, they want our exit strategy.

It costs money to get em home too Terwilliger.

[prolesunited]

32. No as the 2000 election showed

far too many of them prefer one who would they would like to have a beer with.

[gully]

54. he he... n/t

[UnapologeticLiberal]

69. Completely agreed

That's what bothers me about Kucinich - he seems like an ideologue, someone who is more interested in staying true to his beliefs than getting anything done. That is admirable, to an extent, but I'd rather have a president who is going to make the concessions needed to get stuff passed than a president who would let a great piece of legislation die rather than change one element of it to get enough support.


Goal: $500
Achieved: $410
Contribute

[Terwilliger]

71. in a Repuke controlled Congress?

I dont care who the hell Dem you get nominated...until the Congress changes, you can carp all day about the next president not getting anything done.

If you want to work by that logic, then maybe voting for Bush would be your best option.

[gully]

85. You complain about a Repuke controlled congress..

and at the same time are saying that Dems are no different. Make up your mind already.

If you dont want Repukes in congress, vote 'against' them...

[JVS]

2. You must be joking? That could never happen.

Flame me if you must, but I'm just keeping it real. I back Kucinich.

[Terwilliger]

4. did you vote on his chances?

your take

[JVS]

6. 0-10%

[roughsatori]

10. I'm a Kucinich supporter but he will never win the nomination

Look at all the attacks here, lately, against "lunatic leftist" Democrats, and the desire to woo those who voted for Reagan and Nixon, coupled with posts designed to insult left-wing Democrats.

The influx of new members and their moderate ideology has made me question if this site can honestly label itself: Underground. Maybe the Democratic Moderate-Ground would be more reflective of what many of the members of the last few months seem to want.

[Padraig18]

28. Oh, great!

Just what we need--- ANOTHER schism, only this time it's the "I've been here since dinosaurs trod the earth's cooling crust" DU'ers vs. anyone who hasn't! :eyes:

[Terwilliger]

46. hey Padraig!

You have an opinion. So do I. Why don't you go find a Clark bashing thread to defend?

[Padraig18]

51. No, thanks!

I'll just follow you around with a fire extinguisher! :P

[roughsatori]

52. Since you are in that category

I did not expect anything more than an hysterical moderate response from you. I'm surprised not to see the ever popular Clark supporter witticism "yawn." (Be very clever and reply to this with a "yawn," or your fellow Clarkies can do it for you.)

[Padraig18]

56. I'm not a "Clarkie"

Put your glasses on. I am, however, not a politically-suicidal ideologue.

[Terwilliger]

60. my glasses say that Howard Dean is a DLC plant

who's trying to recapture more left-leaning sentiments all the while "appealing" to the centrists and southern Democrats

[JVS]

63. I'm going to have to take issue with you on this one

Clark is better than Dean. Dean at least puts up a facade of real liberalism. Clark is a calculated move to shove in our faces how worthless the party really thinks we are.

[Terwilliger]

70. ummm

huh?

[JVS]

73. Just saying that I think Dean is better than Clark

Of course neither is even close to as good as Kucinich

[Terwilliger]

80. reread your post

:)

[JVS]

82. Oops I fucked up.

I confused Clark with Dean in the first sentence. I should have said Dean is better than Clark. You know how hard it can be to differentiate these centrists. :dunce:

[roughsatori]

64. I know you are a Dean supporter, as per your avatar

but your words are very similar to Clarkie speak. Maybe Terwilliger has a point in his/her response to you. I was referring to the common use of language.

But for all I know you could be one of the influx of posters who seem to pretend to support a candidate for a week or two and then say: "Now I've switched to Clark."

[Padraig18]

66. Actually...

... I'm a Dean supporter who will remain a DEMOCRAT post-convention, preferring that to some lemming-like, political suicide and another term for the Emperor of Crawford.

I don't know what the 'rule of thumb' is for Dems wherever it is you are, but here in Illinois it's "Take your best shot in the primary, but if you lose, you support WHOEVER wins--period."

It's also called 'unity'.

[JohnKleeb]

48. rough

We are in fact "underground", I remember when we that is we the people were in the deepest hell that is Bush. Yes the attacks against the progressive wing are annoying, I dont see em much but I was indirectly called a looney toon.

[gully]

89. Or the digressive underground, depending...

on wether or not Democrats winning elections is of importance to anyone here.

[noiretextatique]

5. 0%

they'd have a better chance with another party...perhaps the independent party :7

[Terwilliger]

8. "perhaps the independent party"

then they'd all be labeled as "Bush enablers" by petty "liberals" who can't look at their own internal contradictions dispassionately

[noiretextatique]

24. well...that's the rub, isn't it?

work within the party, but forget about leading it...ever. perhaps this is why the green party was started :shrug:

[Cocoa]

17. instead of talking about how bad their chances are

how about working for them?

I hear more complaining about the establishment dems, and not nearly enough pointing out how extraordinary it is to have people like Kucinich and Sharpton up there being taken seriously. I think I'd put Braun in with the establishment.

Kucinich, especially, has been a serious candidate. Are you sure you're not guilty of writing him off as unelectable yourself?

[Terwilliger]

22. whatever cocoa

you have absolutely no say...you bitch and moan about party unity all day until someone on the left is given a chance at party power...then you're a Lieberman wannabe

[Cocoa]

27. I could end up voting for Kucinich

he's been sounding better and better lately.

[Padraig18]

31. Ummm

Who on 'the left' has a chance at power, exactly?

[Cheswick2.0]

26. One of two people talking about single payer healthcare

and you put here with the "establishment"? What is this 1971? Simply being part of the establishment doesn't make one "less than left". There is always going to be an establisment, people will join it to make change happen.

[gottaB]

91. Time for a new thread maybe

Several posters today have impugned Carol's position as a liberal. I'm sure they have their reasons, but calling her "establishment" just cracks me up. As if Terry and the boys at the DLC are just falling all over themselves to line up behind her candidacy. Huh?

Before I voted for Carol in the moveon primary, I looked at all the statements by the candidates. I ruled out Sharpton because in effect he said he was running as an activist, not as somebody with real ideas for leading the nation. For him it's like a long protest march. Well, I agree with many of the positions he takes, and support his activism, but that's not the same thing in my view as being president.

To be honest, although Kucinich didn't say as much, I got the same vibe from his statements. A wonderful congressional activist, I thought. Again, on many of the issues he's right on. But that's not the same as providing an alternative vision for leading the country.

Carol has a vision, and the practical skills needed to implement real change. On the issues she's definitely a liberal. By supporting her, I don't feel like I'm compromising myself at all.

That's not to say that in the past she hasn't taken positions or cast votes I disagree with. NAFTA for instance. However she is on record as saying that vote was wrong. I for one am totally at ease with her current positions on trade issues. She is realistic, compassionate, progressive and practical at once.

Kucinich supporters here have claimed that their candidate is the only one who supports repealing PATRIOT, and have dismissed Braun's oppposition because she hasn't said she would repeal it. (She's running for President, remember, not leader of the House progressive caucus.) True enough that Kucinich voted against it, and has recently introduced legislation to that effect. But Braun has always been critical of PATRIOT and other infringements on our civil liberties. It was Braun who, during the first debate, put the question of repeal to Edwards--totally appropriate, as he is currently a Senator. And to this day Braun makes it a central issue of her campaign.

On other civil rights issues, Carol again is clealy a liberal. Her support for the first amendment right to burn the flag shows that when faced with the choice of doing what's popular and doing what's in the best interests of preserving our liberties, she sides with liberty. Her position on gay marriage shows true acumen, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ranks her as the best candidate on gay rights. Of course she knows that favoring gay marriage is not a popular stance, but she sides with liberty. Why? Because she has an overarching vision of this country as a nation governed by laws in which the freedoms and integrity of each individual are vital to the functioning of the whole.

You may ask, given her strong support of the Bill of Rights, why didn't the ACLU give her a perfect score during her tenure in the Senate? For one thing because she supported campaign finance reform. But her position was consistent with her longheld views on voting rights and the crucial importance of free and fair elections. In that instance, one could argue that the ACLU is being politically naive, and putting the cart before the horse. Well, I'm not 100% sure myself what the proper balance is, but I wouldn't say Braun was some kind of "establishment" liberal based on that. In the current climate, she is shoulder to shoulder with the CBC on voting rights, including restoring voting rights to felons who have served their sentences. What kind of establishment are we talking about here?

Are people objecting to her current position on making a "noble" exit from Iraq, that she says "Americans don't cut and run"? If so, that's just not clear headed. Carol's opposition to this war has been unflagging. But I beleive at the present moment she's right. We can't just leave that country all blown up. It would not be in our strategic national interests, and it would not be the right thing to do--and that could damage our long term prospects for tackling the problems that face us globally, such as AIDS, global warming, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As long as there's some hope of working together with our allies to stabilize the situation in Iraq, that's the course we should pursue.

On the full range of women's issues nobody in this race is more liberal than Carol. Nobody.

You mentioned universal single payer health care, Cheswick. Enough said.

Education? Puhlease. The list just keeps going. Like I said at the top, there's enough to start a new discussion. I'd really like to hear from somebody who thinks Carol is too "establishment" to earn their vote. What is it exactly?

[Cocoa]

93. I didn't mean it as a slam

Please relax, I'm not one of the people who thinks "left" means better, and "establishment" is an insult. I'm leaning toward Gephardt, for chrissakes.

If I'm mistaken about Carol's ideology, it's not out of malice, it's just a simple mistake.

But thanks for your info on her. Despite living in IL, I don't know much about her.

[gottaB]

96. Am I wound up?

Well, I'm certainly longwinded.

I'd like to hear more about what you want in a candidate.

[sujan]

20. HA

NEVER

[Oracle]

34. Why push it our face? Because YOU don't support Kucinich...

this is bullshit! It's a sneaky way around the DU rules of "hey fucker, don't trash MY candidate or I'll push the alert button on you."

I just sent more money to Kucinich and there's already enough people on this forum posting that Kucinich and others (always the most liberal and progressive candidates) should just quit and make room for the fucking moderate candidates...

I feel it's very important that Kucinich's message, idea's and positions should be heard, through out this country. And the republican corporate media is truly ignoring Kucinich and pretending like he's some kind of left-wing radical "wacko"...is just my point.

His positions are for mainsteam America. but they are also very threatening to the rich and the corporations now in power as well as these Bush fascist.

But people like yourself seem to rather instead shut him up (with polls like the above, adding fuel to it all.)

Just listen to and read about Kucinich's ideas and platform and you will see he has very mainstream idea's that are also liberal and progressive.

This to me is the same as these asshole Dean and Clark supportors, saying...hey, moderator, cut him off he just trashed my candidate...well suggesting my candidate or any candidate should just quit to give their candidate more room to breath and more media exposure is the same to me as trashing Kucinich. This is just their sneaky way around the candidate trashing rules around here.

[methinks2]

38. question to you

I've noticed that some unions are supporting Kucinich. Will they be putting their money where their mouths are? The reality is that it takes money and face to win an election nowadays. Kucinich is great and a true american, but he needs to get some face time, or it will be Dean or one of the more moderates getting the nomination.

[Oracle]

42. It will ALWAYS be a moderate getting the nod. Shit Bush campaigned

as a moderate and an environmentalist in 2000.

That's no reason to suggest Kucinich should just quit because he's a liberal progressive, to make more room for the fucking moderates.

He has a great message that's not being heard (and probably won't) but that's no reason for him to quit.

Let the natural process work and eliminate, as is dictated by the process...

MONEY! And no Kucinich doesn't have much of it, and Unions like most everybody else will back the moderate and that makes things even more difficult.

[Terwilliger]

41. I do support Kucinich

and this poll is a question about what people think his chances of being the Dem nominee are

Please take your indignation and shove it, Oracle. You seemed to be supportive of me when I was attacking the Dems for not standing up to Bush, and now you're a Dem apologist.

[Oracle]

49. Hey, Terwilliger...

I know you support Kucinich. And I support you and always will, your one of my top three favorites around DU (and your a local to boot, as it turns out so are the other two.)

Sorry, I was indeed being indignant, trying to make a point with my "rightous" anger about something that's been bothering me for a while and I used you and your thread to do it.

Your also right about your "poll is a question about what people think his chances of being the Dem nominee are."

Again, sorry!

[Terwilliger]

57. sorry

I get tired of the rantings

I'm at the end of my rope. I can't figure out how to explain to some people that their "party" isn't some wonderful panacea of left (or "moderate") virtuousness.

[JohnKleeb]

59. dont worry about it Terwill I share your pain

[deek]

35. These 3 are our only hope

for a country we of which we can be proud.

[Terwilliger]

43. and what did you vote on Kooch's chances?

:shrug:

[shance]

36. You're assuming we have a left Democrat.

Whatever that really is.

I think at some point we need to look at the reality that these labels (liberal, conservative)are very limiting and divisive, and used to do precisely that.

We should support the one that makes the most sense, the person who has proved themselves to Americans, someone has the heart and conviction to lead and will LISTEN to Americans and respects our needs and desires for the nation.

[Padraig18]

39. Excellent!

"...I think at some point we need to look at the reality that these labels (liberal, conservative)are very limiting and divisive, and used to do precisely that...."

I am a civil libertarian and VERY liberal socially, but I know how to count AND balance a checkbook! These labels are divisive, and do more harm than good, since they drive apart people who agree on 90% of the things that matter MOST--- peace, human dignity and prosperity! :)

[Terwilliger]

44. yes, Dennis Kucinich

the rest of them are pandering fools who embrace right-wing talking points while scolding Democrats for "being too Democrat"

[JohnKleeb]

47. He is the best

I tell you what really got me liking him was, and this was when I was undecided, well you may or may not know that I detest the Taft-Hartley bill, well Dennis says I am for repealation of Taft-Hartley I was like a democrat hasnt talked about that since the good old days, this guy is something and he does it on other things too. I love his commitment to peace.

[JVS]

50. I love seeing Kucinich up there but it makes me sad to think that

some of the candidates are even compared to him, let alone compared favorably to him. It is just a reminder of what craven sellouts our party has become.

[gully]

84. What about Sharpton and Braun? Pandering fools?

:shrug:

[rock]

37. Great chance

The further we are from bush*sucks, the better.

[populistmom]

40. That's precisely why I like Dean

He's centrist enough to be elected, but left enough for my own personal comfort. If the party goes for Clark or Kerry, I'll support them, but I'd like to try for something a little closer to where I stand.

[cmd]

55. With great sadness I vote 0-10

But what do I know, I'm just a grey haired old lady who has been observing politics for more than 50 years. My heart wants Kucinich to be the candidate; but my head knows that if we want to win, we have to choose a centrist.

[Loyal]

78. I would say about 5%

And it's not that I don't want them to win, I do, but I just think that the establishment will never let it happen. I also don't think that they could win in a general wlection.

[revcarol]

86. It wouldn't take my vote.

And, no, I didn't vote before.

Your sample is skewed by it not working?

[Blue_Chill]

87. Another Green stirring up trouble

Uses the obvious (the low chance of the three mentioned winning the nomination)to attack the dems.

This is getting old.

Examples from this thread written by the person that started it:

And how will the Palestinians fare under ANY of your Dem choices? Probably give Sharon a blank check for eradication.

who next? the dangerous Iran? North Korea? Venezuela? Let's productively give George Bush authority to wipe out whoever he doesnt like while we mewl about "jobs" and "universal health care"

You have an opinion. So do I. Why don't you go find a Clark bashing thread to defend?

my glasses say that Howard Dean is a DLC plant who's trying to recapture more left-leaning sentiments all the while "appealing" to the centrists and southern Democrats

Please take your indignation and shove it, Oracle. You seemed to be supportive of me when I was attacking the Dems for not standing up to Bush, and now you're a Dem apologist.

the rest of them are pandering fools who embrace right-wing talking points while scolding Democrats for "being too Democrat

I can see the set up now. After the three are sent back to their day jobs with no nomination the argument will be made to leave the democratic party. This would *NOT* be the first time this person would have played this little game.

[noiretextatique]

92. fyi: that "green" is actually a "democrat "

"stirring up trouble" :eyes: you know...you folks should stop automatically "seeing green" every time someone posts something critical of democrats.

[Terwilliger]

94. noiretblu

I try not to expend any energy on this poster

[noiretextatique]

98. terwilliger

you are a wise man :hi:

[Solomon]

95. Hey Terwilliger!

Why you talkin 'bout leavin just when we about to win? You might think you're leaving the democratic party, but you ain't leaving DU! :P

Hee Hee. On the serious take, I'm glad of that. I enjoy your mercurial wit. :smoke:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

97. the time is RIPE....

[Terwilliger]

99. A shout out to the 10 peepz

I honor and love your conviction :hi: