Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Edwards on Reagan

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
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:19 PM
Original message
John Edwards on Reagan
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:25 PM by ProSense
"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

RESTORING AMERICA'S REPUTATION

A Return to Moral Leadership

John Edwards

<…>

This century's first test of our leadership arrived with terrible force on September 11, 2001. When the United States was attacked, the entire world stood with us. We could have pursued a broad policy of reengagement with the world, yet instead we squandered this broad support through a series of policies that drove away our friends and allies. A recent Pew survey showed the United States' approval ratings plummeting throughout the world between 2000 and 2006. This decline was especially worrisome in Muslim countries of strategic importance to the United States, such as Indonesia, where approval dropped from 75 percent to 30 percent, and Turkey, where it fell from 52 percent to 12 percent. Perceptions of America's efforts to promote democracy have suffered as well. In 33 of the 47 countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center, majorities or pluralities expressed dislike for American ideas of democracy.

We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States' moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, "No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all." For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world's respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well.

And so as we contemplate a national security policy for a new century, we must ask ourselves far-reaching questions: Are we truly denying our enemies what they seek? Are we doing all we can to win the war not only of weapons but also of ideas? Are we battling the fear our enemies sow by planting seeds of hope instead?

This is about much more than convincing people to like us. There was a time when a president did not speak just to Americans -- he spoke to the world. People thousands of miles away would gather to listen to someone they called, without irony, "the leader of the free world." Men and women in Nazi-occupied Europe would huddle around shortwave radios to listen to President Franklin Roosevelt. Millions cheered in Berlin when President John F. Kennedy stood with them and said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person -- and a nation -- they could trust. Today, under the current administration, this is no longer the case. At the dawn of a new century, it is vital that we win the war of ideas in the world. We need to reach out to ordinary men and women from Egypt to Indonesia and convince them, once again, that the United States is a force to be admired.

We also need to renew our commitment to engagement and diplomacy in order to solve problems before they occur, rather than scrambling to deal with crises after they have erupted. With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders.

more




Fixed link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Here's a rather lively thread already on the GP on the topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change...
... anymore...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Labors of Hercules Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. Show me in the OP where he used Reagan as an example for change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. He holds Reagan up as an ideal that we've slipped from and need to get back to
Comparing the current administration unfavorably to what came before.

Why talk admiringly of the past in a discussion of the future if it's not a thing you want to return to, namely what he sees as our stature in the past with other nations.

That's how I'm reading it, anyway. Does he literally say "I'm holding up Ronald Reagan as an example of change"? But I do think that's what he's implying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaLittle Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
52. Edwards NEVER USED Reagan as an Example For Change... Phony as Reagan was "Acting" the Role of POTU
S, He played the role on the world stage well as long as he could stay awake. Do not try and construe a mention together w/ other Presidents from a historical perspective as Edwards using Reagan as an agent for positive change... LIKE OBAMA DID! Pitiful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldg0 Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. But Obama did....................
.........what in the Hell are you talking about!!!

Get Edwards in there, he never compares himself to anybody...........HE'S HIMSELF AND WALKING THE TALK. JOHN EDWARDS DOES NOT STEAL OTHER PEOPLES LINES BUT OBAMA DOES !!!

Go John Edwards 08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. But Obama didn't promise not to
John Edwards said he wouldn't use Reagan as an example of change when he just did a few months ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. On second thought, it's JE playing politics...
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:33 PM by polichick
I feel like screaming every time someone touts Reagan for anything ~ including that hypocritical JUST SAY NO bullshit. To say he was an agent of change is too much ~ at least, when you think of change as GOOD CHANGE.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Did you read Edwards (only slightly) earlier words in the excerpt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Just figured that out and edited my response...
He's parsing words I guess ~ not touting Reagan about CHANGE. Personally I wouldn't tout him for anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
49. But that's the key.....in contrast, Obama never did say "Good".....
Edited on Sat Jan-19-08 12:46 AM by FrenchieCat
and although Reagan did bring change....he ushered in the beginning of 27 years of Conservative rule.

We are still living it.

Change such as the right becoming the center, and the center becoming the left. The Clintons were really centrists, but after years of Reagan, they appeared left.

The Clintons are free traders who gave us that gift known as NAFTA.

Edwards was also a centrist...when he could have done otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. So let me get this straight; JE was 'for' Reagan before he was
'against' him? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. Yes, but he knows now that it was a mistake and has apologized for it.
When is Obama going to apologize?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Edwards has changed on so many positions, why not one more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks, fixed! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Did you see the Feingold remarks?
That's exactly why Feingold said he can't support Edwards. You can't operate in the Senate one way, and then turn around and run for President on a completely different platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:30 PM
Original message
Didn't see those, I would love if you could give a link.
Thanks!

(but I am not surprised - Feingold's a stand up guy)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
24. J17 posted it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZinZen Donating Member (599 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
48. That is why I have always had a problems with Edwards
I sense he is an opportunist and will say anything to become president. He is likeable and I can see why people flock to him, but I doubt his sincerity on lots of issues. The fact that he has had to apologize and change his policies since 04 says alot. I wish he did not attack Obama like that because as he is not lily white innocent when it comes to some Reagan praise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. What a load of BULLSHIT. He didn't change positions.
The OP is Edwards talking about Reagan's foreign policy actions, and how it built strong alliances and made us respected in the world.

What he said now, in 2008, is Reagan and change don't belong in the same breath. And he explained why.

He didn't contradict, he didn't flip-flop. He told the truth.

How is that changing positions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. "What a load of BULLSHIT. He didn't change positions." Here see for yourself
Video

And then calm down!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. I'm talking about Reagan....Thanks for your RW styled attack video....
And it's great seeing a fellow Kerrycrat who went through "I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it" bullshit along with me and others use the same flip-flopper line on another Democrat.

Kudos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Here is what you responded to: "Edwards has changed on so many positions, why not one more?"
That was a comment about Edwards not Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. And my response was bullshit, how did he contradict and change positions? Answer, he didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
50. You liked Reagan's foreign policy actions? You like Iran-Contra?
You liked SOA gone wild? You liked Reagan bankrupting this country in order to bring Russia down? Bloated military budget? You liked that? :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. But MH, this was from September 2007 - just 4 months ago
That's a fast shift.

Let me thing of the Reagan alliances that made the world respect us:

He had an alliance with the Contras in Central Americs, but they weren't the government - they wanted to overthrow it.

He did have a tight alliance with Noriega of Panama, who the CIA protected as he ran drugs.

He did have a very strong alliance with Iraq, giving them poison gas to help them fight the Iranians ... who we covertly armed to get hostages in Lebanon released and to get money for the Contras.

Then there were the mujahadeem in Afghanistan who he saw as the George Washingtons if their country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, Reagan's name is dropped in their without any real thought to make the case that all prior Presidents did this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Obama comment was part of a serious discussion of movements. He was not saying the change that Reagan led was good, just that it happened.

It was in that time period when the gap between Edwards' two Americas rapidly expanded. The 1980s were great in one America, not so good in the other. Though things became a little better for the second America under Clinton, the gap widened at a greater rate. Also, the welfare reform passed at the height of the economic cycle made it harder when we hit the bottom of the cycle. The safety net was not what it had been.

In both cases, this is an idiotic gotha came. I'm sure there were some alliances that Edwards' speech writer was alluding to, but that was not Reagan's strength.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is another $400 haircut.
And this is also taken out of context. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. What an idiotic OP. No ones denying Reagan didn't do SOME good, but he's no example of change.
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:30 PM by Kerry2008
What John Edwards said in 2007 about Reagan and strong alliances is true, and our respect around the world...true...

As is what he said about change and Reagan not belonging in the same breath in 2008.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. ding ding ding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Not exactly rocket science, is it. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. No, it's your response that's idiotic. n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. What a great counterpoint. Wow, you showed me.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Let me, elaborate
Change:

With engagement comes far greater knowledge and the potential for progress and even trust. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan talked with Soviet leaders at the height of the Cold War, in both cases turning back major threats to our national security. We need to do the same with Iranian and North Korean leaders.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Ok where's the contradiction with what he said now in 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. OK, this wasn't a contradiction because
Edited on Thu Jan-17-08 03:56 PM by ProSense
he said:

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."


That's future tense. In the present, it was just a blatantly disingenuous attempt to portray himself as someone who would never have linked Reagan to change (see previous comment).




edited typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
12. So talking about Reagan's foreign policy actions
is the same as touting his campaign methods as a good example of a way to bring about transformational change?

Not to me... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I know, right? What an idiotic OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:32 PM
Original message
And there are more...
Perhaps the overreaction is due to an awareness of how bad this really was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
13. St. John should ask St. Ronnie how to win an election.
Edwards hasn't won one in 10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PresidentObama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Ronald is dead, one. And two, Edwards won Vice President in 2004. Kerry-Edwards sure did win.
Unfortunately, Ken Blackwell and the GOP prevented him from serving.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BarackBucks Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. He needs to be more careful what he says
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
35. He named "Presidents"
without kicking any of them in the cajones.

Apples and Oranges :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
36. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Before you pull another insult out of your
lame attempt at logic, read this and this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Lame?
Your intended smear is what's lame. I don't know you from a dust bunny, but I can tell you that MY stance on different things changes from time to time. If your's never has - wow. Further, I'm not so desperate as to go trying to parse words snd dissect past statements in an attempt to gain some gleeful bit of one-upsmanship. Your turn - Fume on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. "Pro-non-sense and MH1 - your twisted logic sounds like something of a Bush/Rove illusion. "
Yes, extremely lame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. House rules:
Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

snip

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
41. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
42. happy now?
The hatred and bitterness and antagonism just grows and grows.

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

In your quote he is not using Reagan as an example for change, he is indicting the Bush administration by pointing out that even Reagan looks good by comparison. That is clearly the intent, and is also the message that every Democrat would get from that statement were it not being used for candidate bashing.

Try these ideas on for size:

"Two wrongs don't make a right," so even if your comparison had any merit, your motives are deplorable.

"Mommy he hit me first" is a pathetic and unacceptable defense for your behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. I was reading through this,
Just kind of smiling at the hate, knowing it comes from very angry, and small minded people. I was just waiting til the end, and the whole time, I was thinking your words.

Indeed, he was pointing out that two Presidents used diplomacy, over the issue of nuclear war. People think other people don't read.

Good work TA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-17-08 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
43. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
46. Kick! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
47. this is the one issue reagan did something on that should be discussed
but he bankrupted the country to do so. it's a valid argument that's presented by the OP in a response to point out something they feel is hypocrisy by JE. It is worthy of discussing. I think JE was smart to take advantage of Obama's screwup, on hindsight I'd bet Obama wouldn't say it again, it has given John a bump and Hillary firepower against him. Especially the part I'm about to talk about -

I suggest you not ignore Obama's bigger mistake of calling the Republican Party the FREAKING party of CHANGE in a positive manner while running for president as a Democrat, just 2 days ago. That really was a poor showing for a Democrat to do, especially after how HORRIBLE the GOP has been to this country's workers and civil rights in the past 15 years! I don't HAVE to point out the hundreds of issues the GOP worked to STOP the Democrats from accomplishing because the GOP had the majority.

Good argument though, I'd have made it if I was for Obama, although I'd know in my heart that he never should have said the other side was the party of ideas - because they're gonna use that in a commercial big time and as a theme if he were to get the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-19-08 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
51. Kick! n/t
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 01:52 PM
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