Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wow. BG writer thinks Kerry befriending McCain "restored" Kerry's honor. Just disgusting!!!

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 » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:03 AM
Original message
Wow. BG writer thinks Kerry befriending McCain "restored" Kerry's honor. Just disgusting!!!
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 10:05 AM by beachmom
Did anyone read this crap? I tell you, our country is completely f***ed up, if this is how people view those who dared to dissent against the Vietnam War (or ANY government action for that matter):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/08/war_honor_and_john_mccain/

A man of honor, McCain became the source of honor. Antiwar activists who came to regret the extremity of their protests sought him out to apologize, and he forgave them. In befriending John F. Kerry, as many saw it, McCain restored the honor that had been besmirched by Kerry's antiwar actions.

When Kerry and he led the Clinton-era effort to lift the embargo against Vietnam, which required debunking the myth that the Vietnamese were still holding Americans in jungle cages, it was seen as McCain returning honor to the enemy that had abused him. Such actions endeared McCain to the liberal press corps, many of whom, having never been at ease with their avoidance of military service, felt their own honor restored by his attentions.


What an utter load of CRAP!! Kerry did not need his honor "restored"! If this is the conventional thinking people have, I tell you I do not even recognize my country anymore. So everyone has bought John O'Neill's smearing of Kerry on his anti-war protesting? And now since McCain is somehow getting full credit for the POW/MIA issue, it is pretty obvious now that he repeatedly lost his cool, while Kerry was trying to keep everyone calm:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/51660.html

I just can't believe what I am reading. The whole country is getting snowed by someone who is erratic and reckless. And clearly, we know who ran an honorable campaign and who IS NOT.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now,
but James Carroll is a good guy (and someone who definitely would appreciate and applaud Kerry's opposition to Vietnam war) . My first thought is that the context might matter here. (Will have to read column in full to know. .need to get back to work, will try to take a peek this afternoon or tonight)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The context is that McCain is a man of honor. And anti-war protesters
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 10:23 AM by beachmom
like Kerry aren't. That is the only Kerry mention in the article. The rest of the article praises McCain. That's the context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The context of this article is that McCain abuses his POW status because he does not have any
other qualification for being President.

While I would have preferred he used an other example, I think the point he is making is not that Kerry lacked honor, but that, somehow, he has used this friendship with McCain as a counterargument for his anti-war actions (which is obviously debatable, but not the core of the article). The core of the article is that there was a lot of credibility that was given to McCain for his POW status and the fact he became friendly with people he disagreed with during the war (contrarily to Webb, for example), and that, since 9/11, he has been losing this credibility because it is clear he has not learned the right lessons from VietNam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. It's a political criticism. I do not like that paragraph at all.
Sure I agree with the writer's conclusion that McCain is dangerously militant. But again, why did he put that sentence in there? Now that I see that he wrote the 1996 New Yorker article, it is even more puzzling. It says "some will say". Ugh, the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. ACtually this is much more complicated than that.
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 11:47 AM by TayTay
James Carroll is the author of a http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1996/10/21/1996_10_21_130_TNY_CARDS_000377420">great article that ran in the New Yorker Magazine in October of 1996 that detailed the friendship of Sens Kerry and McCain. There was nothing fake or pandering about how these two men came to understand each other and to deal with the stance each had on a war that had ended 2 decades before.

Sen. Kerry talked about Candidate McCain versus the honorable Senator McCain. Read this and see what was lost. It is truly sad.

This notion of honor plays more on McCain than it does on Kerry. But read this excerpt from 1996 and then reread the one from today:

A Friendship That Ended the War
by James Carroll October 21, 1996

1—GUESTS AT THE HANOI HILTON

On Memorial Day in 1993, two United States senators were escorted through a prison in downtown Hanoi. It was a massive building, enclosed in a compound and occupying most of a block in the middle of the crowded city. The windows had bars, and some had louvred shutters. The Vietnamese name for the prison was Hoa Lo. The name given it by Americans was the Hanoi Hilton. During the war, the prison held captured fliers, whom the Vietnamese called "air pirates," and on this day one of them had returned, for the first time since his release: John McCain, now a Republican senator from Arizona. As a Navy bomber pilot, he had been held prisoner for nearly six years, from October of 1967, when he was shot down, until March of 1973. Most of that time he had spent at Hoa Lo, more than two years of it in solitary confinement. This past summer, a large television audience heard McCain refer to the experience when he placed Bob Dole's name in nomination at the Republican National Convention. "A long time ago, in another walk of life, I was deprived of my liberty," he said, with the understatement of a man who knows that his imprisonment is what distinguishes him.

When McCain returned to Hoa Lo in 1993, he was accompanied by John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts. Kerry, another Navy war veteran, was the chairman of the by then disbanded Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./M.I.A. Affairs, while McCain was its leading Republican; committee business had brought them back to Vietnam. Recently, Kerry told me about the visit to the prison, describing the walk down a corridor toward McCain's old cell—"at the back end of the right-hand side as we walked in, around the corner. It was just this very small, dark, dank cell, with a little bed area, hardly fit for anybody."

In a recent interview with McCain, I asked him to describe the cell. "Nine or ten feet by seven feet," he said, "a little teeny window up at the top that was barred; a metal door that had what we used to call a peep door in it, where the guard can open it and look in at you."

McCain had communicated with the man in the next cell by tapping on the wall and listening to taps that came back. News passed along by this tap code included reports of antiwar activity at home. Peace activists like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda showed up at the Hanoi Hilton during McCain's imprisonment. He always refused to meet with them; the prisoners hated the peaceniks. But then, more than three years into McCain's incarceration, in April of 1971, news came of an even more disturbing antiwar demonstration. Around a thousand American soldiers recently returned from Vietnam had gathered on the Mall in Washington to denounce the war. Led by a former Navy officer, they threw the medals and ribbons they had earned over a barricade at the Capitol.

The former Navy officer who led that veterans' protest and who "turned back" ribbons he'd won with one Silver Star, one Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts was John Kerry. Kerry told me what it was like to stand on the threshold of the prison cell with McCain: "I remember a kind of silence, and I remember distinctly that we were alone. . . . We had other people around us, but they melted into the background at that moment, and we were just standing in this place. I remember being in awe, feeling a sense of awe for what I could feel this guy must have gone through in that place." Kerry himself was part of what McCain had gone through.

Standing with McCain at Hoa Lo brought Kerry face to face with the contradiction that had given shape to his life as surely as the prison had given shape to McCain's. Unlike the admirably direct McCain, Kerry is a man of many complications; the difference is reflected in their very different war histories. But now McCain's history was to the point. "It was a time for me to listen," Kerry told me. "I asked a few questions . . . and he talked a little about it. And he talked about the friend next door that he'd communicated with, and how they'd tap. . . . He told me that they knew that some veteran had stood up and said the war was wrong. They knew what was going on." They knew, that is, that a former Navy officer had betrayed them.

In 1984, thirteen years after that protest at the Capitol, John McCain, by then a United States representative from Arizona, went to Massachusetts to campaign against Kerry, a first-time Senate candidate. At a rally in the North End of Boston, McCain spoke in support of the Republican candidate, a businessman named Ray Shamie. "I hadn't met John Kerry," McCain told me. In Boston, conservative opponents had tagged Kerry as Ho Chi Minh's candidate. McCain, in his appearance for Shamie, talked about the events of April, 1971. "I said he shouldn't have thrown his medals on the steps, and that I heard about it while I was in prison."

John McCain has never changed his mind about Kerry's participation in that antiwar demonstration, but he has changed his mind about the man. Much sets the two apart. Kerry is tall and lean, with carefully coiffed dark hair, a sharp nose and chin, and a mouth that seems small for his face, which perhaps explains why his expression falls into a smile only with reluctance. He could be cast in any movie as the patrician senator. McCain looks more like a senator's friendly appliance repairman. He is stocky, with washed-out white hair and the slightly pasty skin of a man who has been through something. But a smile comes into McCain's face like a boat into its slip. McCain is the son and grandson of admirals, while Kerry's mother was a Boston Brahmin and his father a Foreign Service officer. Kerry, a liberal Democrat, is at ease in the role of Senator Edward Kennedy's junior partner; McCain is proud to hold Barry Goldwater's Senate seat. Kerry came out of Vietnam as a leading critic of the war, McCain as one of its few true heroes.


McCain's current cynicism and willingness to do or say anything to win is sad. Moreover we have also lost something precious in the dialog of this country. I am sorry for that loss. But I do understand what was meant by the talk of "honor" won and lost. I think it was something that weighed on Sen. McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Thanks for posting this article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. thanks from me, too, for this article and your perspective. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I know, I have read that article more than once. I am still upset
Edited on Mon Sep-08-08 12:35 PM by beachmom
by what Carroll wrote; that somehow Kerry needed to have his honor "restored" by his friendship with McCain. I think Kerry and McCain brought important things to the table with the MIA/POW committee, and it worked. I think Kerry did more to further that cause than McCain. There, I said it. We now know that it was Kerry and his staffers who on a roof top in Vietnam, came up with an entire plan to bring about the normalization of relations with Vietnam. I saw Kerry working tirelessly in Vietnam to do the work necessary to get it done. I saw Kerry and McCain come off a plane LIVE on c-span in the early '90s back from Vietnam. I saw McCain speak wearily of how he did not enjoy going back there, and Kerry standing silently behind him. I saw Kerry defending McCain endlessly when attacks were made on him, while praising him with wonder at what McCain endured in that prison. Yet, McCain has been pretty consistent in his disdain for Kerry protesting the war. It's more that he "got past that" to see the man John Kerry and be friends with him. I never hear Kerry talk about "how wrong" McCain was for supporting the Vietnam War. He lets it go out of respect for his colleague. Meanwhile, McCain did not manage his temper well during this time period, while Kerry kept it together in what inwardly was I'm sure just as trying a time for him (it was no picnic for him to have to go back to Vietnam either).

I am sick and tired of the disrespect war protesters get. They were right. Yet we now have to put up with this constant conservative backlash. It's no longer even a 50/50 prospect -- that there were two sides to the story. Now it is pretty much close to 100% that McCain is honorable for enduring what he did as a POW and still supporting the Vietnam War to the end and Kerry is dishonorable for saying the war was wrong. I do not accept that, and will not accept that.

My parents who have voted for Dems and Republicans for President over the years, said Vietnam was a mistake and that the "hippies" were right to call it that. Yet now they are being made out as being traitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Senator Kerry neither needs now wants his honor "restored."
He has not recanted what he did in 1971. He has, as ever, fully embraced it.

"I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country’s ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that’s certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.

By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there."

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=254631">Dissent, April 22, 2006


I don't think the Carroll article was about Sen. Kerry's honor. I think it was about John McCain. John Kerry has never indicated that he wants to disavow anything that he did. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that John McCain might have that as a sort of wishfulfillment -- this is how he thinks others must be -- even if it isn't so.

These articles below seem to be indicative of how Sen. McCain thinks. I see no trace of Sen. Kerry in these views.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/12/mccain/index.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/05/vietnam_ghosts.html

(That part of Dissent that I bolded just amazes me every time I read it. What an incredible statement to make about the government. It is chilling that this could ever be said, horrifying that it was true.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I reread those lines, after seeing your comment
Chilling is the right word. They really damn the people who continued to send the troops - and added strength to his comment that he would not be silent himself when the plan was wrong.

The fact is that Kerry has acted with more honor over his entire life than most people could ever hope to - including McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. The definition of "honor":
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honor

1 a: good name or public esteem : reputation b: a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder>
2: privilege <had the honor of joining the captain for dinner>
3: a person of superior standing —now used especially as a title for a holder of high office <if Your Honor please>
4: one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit <an honor to the profession>
5: the center point of the upper half of an armorial escutcheon
6: an evidence or symbol of distinction: as a: an exalted title or rank b (1): badge, decoration (2): a ceremonial rite or observance <buried with full military honors> c: an award in a contest or field of competition darchaic : a gesture of deference : bow eplural (1): an academic distinction conferred on a superior student (2): a course of study for superior students supplementing or replacing a regular course
7: chastity, purity <fought fiercely for her honor and her life — Barton Black>
8 a: a keen sense of ethical conduct : integrity <wouldn't do it as a matter of honor> b: one's word given as a guarantee of performance <on my honor, I will be there>
9plural : social courtesies or civilities extended by a host <asked her to do the honors>
10 a (1): an ace, king, queen, jack, or ten especially of the trump suit in bridge (2): the scoring value of honors held in bridge —usually used in plural b: the privilege of playing first from the tee in golf.


I agree with you that Kerry does not need his honor "restored". He has it amply, and has had it ever since he fought in Vietnam, and more so, when he came back and spoke out against that war. Which is why I do not understand that sentence. Agreed, the article is about McCain. But unless a new definition of honor has been invented, I do not understand why a writer who was against the Vietnam War would write such a pecuilar sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. I agree with everything that you beautifully say here
Not only was it not dishonorable for Kerry to protest, his Dissent speech was right in saying it was patriotic to do so. The facts are that the people running that war - including MacNamara have said that they knew it was clear there was no victory to be had from 1968 on.

I hate this period of time and hope that it will end soon with a huge shift caused by Obama winning. I respect the courage of Kerry fighting Nixon when he knew it could harm him politically. Then turning around and taking the same risk to fight Reagan's covert wars, then again fighting the money men and everyone else on BCCI. I wish we had a country honest enough to accept that things the government has done were wrong and where the efforts taken to fight against things that were not just not working, but wrong and dangerous would be rewarded, but it would be worse if no one was willing to do them. It is a measure of how good a politician and person Kerry is that in spite of these three fights he nearly became President.

My brother once suggested to me that the reason no one impeached Bush 1 or Reagan for the Iran/Contras/Iraq actions was that to do so meant to accept and validate that the US did something wrong in the world. This goes 180 degrees against the belief that the US is always the good guy. Nixon was impeached over Watergate, where he covered up political shenanigans, which reflected on Nixon and the Republican party, not the country. Clinton was impeached, but it reflected just on him. In both cases, there was no need for accepting that the US did wrong in the world and needed to change. That type of acceptance usually comes only when a country is forced to accept it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. someone should send these thoughts to Carroll and/or BG
I can't do it. . work is too intense right now. But, again, remember where Carroll is likely coming from. He may be imperfect,and definitely needs reminding about JK, but he's not a neocon, not a right-winger, and not a jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is sickening
It really is a rewriting of history on the Vietnam War. I don't know what it is in the American psyche that prefers to accept the myth of American invincibility rather than accept that the US can start to go wrong and be pulled back by people willing to speak truth to power. To me, the latter belief of a government that can make mistakes, but with the flexibility to make tough corrections when needed is more reassuring than the idea that everything we do is right, even if it doesn't appear so at the moment. (The extreme version is the we are a country guided by God - so of course we are right. Ignore that the Islamic fundamentalist thinks the same - their god is false.) It is most scary for what it bodes on the Iraq war.

On The POW/MIA, the credit for that has been going to McCain for a long time. One culprit, who knew better, was Bill Clinton. In his book he gave McCain a huge amount of credit and mentioned Kerry only in the middle of the list of all the veterans fighting this. In early 2005, when the Vietnamese leaders came to DC, the papers including the NYT, all spoke of McCain and Bill Clinton having been instrumental on making this possible. Now, as President, Clinton gets credit for what happened, but they even spoke of the effort to re-patriate remains as a Clinton requirement - when that was negotiated by Kerry. Kerry was not even mentioned. In fairness, though McCain did less, he was important as his acceptance of reconciliation spoke to many on the other side who Kerry couldn't reach. Ironically, the current source that gives Kerry the most credit is McCain's book. (Oddly, that book alone may be what guides future historians to the truth.) In his book, for instance, he speaks of Kerry making his typical well thought out case to Clinton that was over an hour long and McCain then said - he agreed with everything Kerry said.

I think that this is article mainly reflects the infatuation that many journalists had with McCain. That infatuation with his merit also extends to the politicians who worked with him - including John Kerry. There likely was something there that led all of them to ignore his abysmal treatment of his first wife, his Keating 5 and other lobbyist issues.

The scary thing is the media clearly is favoring McCain over Obama - the conventions are a near replay of 2004. The coverage of the Democratic one had more of their blabbering about the "problems" the Democrats were having from the PUMAs, to not making the case against McCain (said just as JK did just that), followed by the Republican one where Palen's mean girl speech was praised to the heights and McCain's strange twist that he was the change from Bush was taken at face value. That and the media that spent the last 4 years saying Kerry deserved the SBVT because he had his service as a proud part of his past, saw nothing wrong with everyone and their grandmother speaking in detail on McCain's POW time - hypocrites. Then there was Palen, who after absolutely trashing Obama, is declared "untouchable" by many - even though all people were doing was examining her record.

This may be an overreaction to one poll, but it is scary. Kerry was down that much in some similar time frames and nearly won in more hostile time period, but he was incredible in those debates. (I hope he is the one coaching Obama.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MBS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. The thing is, guys, Carroll is an anti-war activist
and a liberal Democrat , pro-Obama, and not at all one of the usual pack who are "infatuated" with McCain for the usual craven reasons.

Maybe he should be pushed to correct that statement, but if you write him, do so knowing that he's anti-war himself and surely must admire what JK did in 1971
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I think it has to do with how McCain sees things
There is a lot of hubris involved in thinking that John McCain can absolve "sins," especially non-existent ones. I have no problem believing that McCain might say this, he has been edging closer and closer to this sad precipice for a long time.

I think John Kerry sought to reconcile with the man John McCain. There was no absolution sought or given in though for actions Sen. Kerry ever took. (He always states that he owns those actions. He did in 1971 and he does now. His quoting of the "My Country, right or wrong" part of his speech at the DNC in Denver is once again a way of owning his own past.)

I do think that the reason McCain was so popular with the press is because of a sort of absolution that the press wanted. I just don't see that as ever having come from or for Kerry. I don't really see it in the Carroll article, I see McCain thinking that others are asking for it, even if they are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-08-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. This thread is amazing. The entire debate here...
...about honor and Viet Nam and McCain and Kerry is partly why I so wanted John Kerry to run for President again or be the chosen VP.

Our country has not healed from Viet Nam. A heartfelt and honest discussion...if that were possible...between these two men about war, the troops, honor and free speech could lance that wound, once and for all. And it would increase understanding of Iraq and the right, honorable way to go forward. The problem is, it would undoubtedly be a painful discussion.

I remember Kerry's testimony in 1971 and all the protests. As the daughter of a recently retired Navy man...who felt just like McCain did. I remember how it divided by family, and the families of people I knew. There was honor on both sides...and mistakes on both sides. IMHO.

I'd LOVE to see the country recognize that and finally...FINALLY...really learn the lessons from that war.

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 Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group 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