Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wisconsin: 1968-2008

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
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 03:40 PM
Original message
Wisconsin: 1968-2008
{1} "I felt that I was being chased on all sides by a giant stampede. I was being forced over the edge by rioting blacks, demonstrating students, marching welfare mothers, squawking professors, and hysterical reporters. And then the final straw: The thing I feared from the first day of my Presidency was actually coming true. Robert Kennedy had openly announced his intention to reclaim the throne in the memory of his brother. And the American people, swayed by the magic of the name, were dancing in the streets."
--Lyndon B. Johnson to Doris Kearns Goodwin

Last night, after the news media was predicting that Senator Barack Obama had won the Wisconsin democratic primary, I posted a couple of questions on the political discussion forum "Democratic Underground." The first question was a request for other old-timers to contribute some of their memories from the 1968 Wisconsin primary, as it was an important event in the events of that year.

Within moments, one person first accused me of comparing apples and oranges, and shortly after said that I was looking for something "romantic" and a "myth in (my) mind" that is of no value. I actually think there are some important lessons from the Wisconsin primary, and I think the level of hostility in the two related responses was actually the proof in the pudding.

The value of the 1968 Wisconsin primary is the same if either Clinton or Obama are the democratic nominee. In fact, the lessons really have far less to do with the candidates, their top advisors, or the media. It has to do with the grass roots. And it is neither romantic nor a myth. Let’s take a look:

A brief history: there are four characters we will focus one – President Lyndon Johnson, VP Humphrey, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and Senator Robert Kennedy. In many ways, although the four had different backgrounds, they were all, by ’68, good solid liberals on domestic policy, with some serious differences on the foreign policy in Vietnam.

At the 1960 democratic convention, Hubert Humphrey had come to dislike the Kennedy brothers with a grudge he never let go of; McCarthy would nominate Adlai Stevenson, even though he wanted LBJ to be the party’s candidate, and expected to be his choice for VP; LBJ hoped for the nomination, but settled for the VP spot; and RFK was upset that his brother picked LBJ, and tried to talk Johnson out of accepting the spot.

At the 1964 democratic convention, the dynamics had changed. President Johnson had tried to get along with Robert after Dallas, but it was not to be. By the convention, he had let RFK know he was not in the running for VP. But LBJ worried the Kennedy family would attempt to force RFK onto the ticket. In the week before the convention, LBJ had narrowed down his choices; among them were Humphrey and McCarthy. Because of some personality traits, Johnson picked Humphrey.

In the years 1964-66, LBJ enjoyed a "working" congress, with circumstances that allowed him to pass significant legislation. After ’66, that window of opportunity had closed. More, LBJ was increasing the US commitment in Vietnam. The war drained the resources needed for Johnson’s domestic "Great Society" programs. This and a combination of other influences made for many of the protests that haunted Johnson’s dreams.

In 1967, some members of the Senate began to question if LBJ should be challenged in the 1968 election by a member of his own party. In March, Senator McCarthy told James Wechsler that he would support Robert Kennedy if he entered the democratic primaries. Months later, when Nicholas Katzenbach informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the concept of a US President needing the Congress to declare war was "outmoded," Senator Eugene McCarthy stood up and walked out. He told reporters that, "There is only one thing to do – take it to the country."

By the fall of ’67, a growing and diverse group of democrats and progressives were pressuring RFK to enter the primaries, in opposition to the President. The group including members of the John F. Kennedy "Irish Mafia"; journalist friends; and members of the "New Left." Among them was Allard Lowenstein, who was known as a student of Eleanor Roosevelt.

When RFK was reluctant to run, Lowenstein and others looked for other candidates. On October 17, 1967, George McGovern (who had been asked), told Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., that Eugene McCarthy was going to challenge Johnson. He would enter four primaries: New Hampshire, Wisconsin, California, and Massachusetts.

In January, 1968, the national polls showed Johnson leading McCarthy by 71 to 18%. The same polls showed LBJ over RFK, 52 to 40%. But then came the Tet Offensive.

In February, McCarthy made a bold move: instead of trying to campaign in four states, he invested almost all of his resources in New Hampshire. Young volunteers were convinced to participate in "Clean Gene" neighborhood-based campaigning.

The New Hampshire primary rocked the Johnson administration. On March 12, LBJ won 49% of the democratic vote, to 42.2% for McCarthy. Today, people sometimes say that these numbers show that it is a "myth" that McCarthy won New Hampshire. Actually, it is not a myth.

Of the democrats voting, LBJ got 27,243 to McCarthy’s 23,380. However, when the write-in votes or republicans and independents were totaled, LBJ had an additional 1778 to McCarthy’s 5511. Thus, the election totals were within 1%. But more important was the way the delegates went: because of the system in place in 1968, Eugene McCarthy won 20 of the 24 delegates available.

Shortly before the New Hampshire vote, Abigail McCarthy had told Kenny O’Donnell that, "if Bobby’s only run, we’d get out tomorrow morning." But after the surprisingly good showing, the McCarthy campaign resented it when Robert Kennedy began to talk about entering the race. It wasn’t just the candidate and his family, or even their top-tier campaign staff, which had divided loyalty. But most of all, it was the grass roots volunteers who had made the New Hampshire primary a success who were offended.

McCarthy and Kennedy were not close, but had discussed the possibilities of challenging Johnson in late 1967. McCarthy did not ask for any advice, and made it clear he was not planning to serve as a "stalking horse." But he understood why RFK was entering the race after New Hampshire.

On March 14, RFK and Ted Sorenson met with Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. They said that if LBJ would admit that his policy in Vietnam was failing, and would appoint a commission to come up with solutions, RFK would not enter the race. LBJ rejected the offer.

On March 15, the Kennedy people met with the McCarthys. They proposed having McCarthy run in some primaries, and RFK in others. Senator McCarthy and Abigail rejected this proposition.

On March 16, as he prepared to announce his candidacy, RFK told friends, "Let’s put something in about healing the wounds of the country by splitting the Democratic party into three pieces."

A Gallup poll the following week showed RFK over LBJ by 47 to 41%, while LBJ was ahead of McCarthy 59 to 29%. President Johnson had assumed that his Wisconsin campaign was strong, until he was told it was poorly organized and out of money. He sent Lawrence O’Brien, JFK’s 1960 campaign manager, to Wisconsin for two days; he reported back that Johnson would lose the Wisconsin primary.

On March 31, LBJ surprised the nation by announcing he would not run for re-election. That night, after watching the speech, Richard Nixon had his son-in-law call his grandfather Dwight Eisenhower, to ask him to endorse Nixon. Ike refused to.

On Tuesday, April 2, McCarthy won the Wisconsin primary. The following day, President Johnson met with Kennedy, then McCarthy, them VP Humphrey. He told each of the three that he "wasn’t a king-maker," and would not endorse anyone in the primary. He told Humphrey that he would, however, give him high marks as vice president.

When Humphrey told Johnson about his detailed campaign plans, LBJ felt betrayed. He also told aides that RFK was a "grand-standing little runt." After he retired, of course, he would tell Doris Kearns Goodwin about RFK haunting his dreams.

Most of the top aides of the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns were on good terms. Most had, at some time or another, worked with those in the other camp. Many would work together again in the future.

Politics is that way. It’s interesting to note that at the Wisconsin primary, Ronald Reagan was trying to indirectly promote himself as an unannounced candidate. His people had made a film ("Ronald Reagan: Citizen Governor") which was shown to build support for the Gipper. Some of the top guns in the Reagan camp were democrats. People in politics look for the job that pays best.

It was the democrats at the grass roots level that had a sense of loyalty to their individual candidate, who had difficulty transferring that support to other candidates. Of course, there were tragic events in the spring of 1968 that disrupted the course of events that seemed possible after Wisconsin. But there were hurt feelings and hard feelings that kept people from recognizing that they had more in common than not.

In the 2008 primary, there have been a number of highly qualified candidates looking for the democratic nomination. This year, the dynamics surrounding the Wisconsin primary are different in many ways. What is similar is that we will soon be faced with an opportunity to come together to support one candidate, or we can be divided, and allow a republican to be elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. that almost feels like TMI
too much information. Here I am with the sorta idealized notion of Johnson as a good Democratic President, promoting and signing the civil rights legislation and doing more for the poor and working class than Clinton.

Yet in these details he looks so arrogant ("squawking professors") and mean-spirited ("grand-standing little runt") as well as having advisors arguing for a unitary executive, and determined to "stay the course" in Vietnam.

It reminds me a little bit about the history of the socialist-left from 1880-1910, with a bunch of squabbling factions vying for power. Thus after an "all the way with LBJ" trouncing of Goldwater in 1964 do we end up with two terms of Nixon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think he was both.
Johnson is a good example for showing that human beings have both good and bad sides. There is something curious about a figure with so much good and so much bad, and the internal and external struggles that result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
4. Awesome post!
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 05:21 PM by Hart2008
Everyone remembers RFK because of the tragic end to that campaign.

Eugene McCarthy gets forgotten.

Senator McCarthy was a formidable intellect who truelly had the courage of his convictions.

Eugene McCarthy was amoung the first to stand up to Joe McCarthy in the Congress.

McCarthy's wit was sharp as a razor. When Mitt Romneys father, the Governor of Michigan. fsmously stated that he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam, it created a sensation. In response, McCarthy remarked, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient."


The party truly lost something when he left to Senate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy

:patriot:

(Edit to add Wikipedia link)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. "...a light rinse ..."
That remains one of the classic lines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Beautifully understated-a classic! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. That Leads Me To Think Apple & Tree
about his son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drunken Irishman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. Eugene McCarthy endorsed Reagan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-21-08 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. By 1980 McCarthy had become a cynic. He hoped to move the party back to the left on economic issues
Edited on Thu Feb-21-08 03:51 AM by Hart2008
Also the party bosses were very leery of making Eugene McCarthy the party nominee. They were convinced that he would lose, that he was too radical, too far to the left, and that he was too uncommon a politician to ever really get to the White House.
...
He came to the idea that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Parties were all that reliable. And he talked about the possibility of an independent movement. And maybe that's why he was still involved in presidential politics: To give people a kind of alternative, the way Ralph Nader did in the last two presidential campaigns.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/july-dec05/mccarthy_12-12.html

His strategy might have worked, had the party nominated Gary Hart in '84 when the polls showed he could beat Reagan. Hart and McCarthy have some similarities. Hart has the deep intellect like McCarthy, and also tried to reform the party, without success due to some powerful party insiders.

McCarthy, I think, understood that Carter chose Mondale in '76 hoping to thwart McCarthy's independent campaign. Without Mondale, Carter might not have carried Minnesota in a close election, since it was McCarthy's home state. (Mondale had been the junior senator to McCarthy.) I don't think McCarthy liked that move. So his endorsement of Reagan might have been a payback.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Powerful Statement
Both yours and LBJ's. Wonder what Jung would say about Bobby haunting his dreams?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
6. 1968 "romantic"? Maybe for a sadist.
Thanks for clarifying the reality. I was particularly moved by RFK's quote as he prepared to announce his candidacy. No doubt this man had no romantic illusions about what he was doing and the risks he was undertaking on so many levels. I was not alive at the time, so it's hard for me to say how I would have voted if I had been. I think I would have been torn between McCarthy and Kennedy. Then, as now, the important thing is to end the carnage and bring our troops home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I guess that
some people are as upset by their candidate's not winning, as people were in 1968. I can understand that. But we can either repeat the mistakes of the past, or we can learn from them, and move forward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. As long as nobody nominates a pig outside of the convention...
Did you see this thread? Not romantic or mythical, but quite a riot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4569050

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The YIPPIES
ended up bringing two pigs, one male and one female.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. I didn't know that.
I only read about Pigasus.

There doesn't seem to be a 21st century equivalent of the Yippies, for better or worse. Once we settle on a nominee, we'll come together. The vast majority, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. Brings back memories -- Allard Lowenstein
Allard Lowenstein was another of those UNC rabble rousers of the civil rights and anti-war era. Met him a time or two while in college here in Chapel Hill. He was teaching at NC State during part of that time.

I was one of Gene's supporters (and not old enough to vote - before the change from 21 to 18), then was torn by the entrance of RFK into the race. I seem to remember Sorensen pissing off a bunch of people during that spring with his air of entitlement. They had spent a year spurning those who called for Bobby to run; then when the anti-war movement went with Gene and showed in NH what was possible, suddenly Kennedy jumps in. Most of us stayed with McCarthy, with Kennedy our second choice.

I was posting earlier that we almost need to have "Forty Years Ago" series of postings. I see so much of that time reflected in today. I was also reminded of the music of 1968. The top of the charts from mid-Feb through March 1968 was "Love is Blue"; looking back that seems really strange for the times, but maybe it was an antidote to the horrors of Tet, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Good point:
A lot of the acrimony was a result of the first few tiers of campaign staff. Some people had mixed loyalties, and others were pushing their own agenda. They were likely to create more wide-spread hard feelings than the candidates. Both Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy were very good men, with some curious qualities. But their staffs were not quite the same. I think that we are witnessing some of the same dynamics today, with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. This should be required reading here for everyone to learn not to repeat those past mistakes.
1968 was a turning point like no other.

Except maybe for 2008.

Outstanding post, as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I am hoping that
this post/thread might provide some "common ground" upon which supporters of both Clinton and Obama might find things to discuss in a serious but good-natured way. It might have been beneficial if people talked more after the '68 Wisconsin primary. Nothing we can do to change the past, but we are certainly responsible for what we do now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMatt Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Great post
It is a good reminder of what happens with a house divided. I for one, think that we will all come together after Ohio and Texas or at the latest PA. The divisions today are more to do with personal affinity divided between two outstanding candidates who have very small policy differences. Soon enough, we'll all gather behind our own once the Right Wing Machine really begins to attacks Obama, progressives and everything we stand for. At that point we will forget our petty differences and realize once again who the real enemy is.

This is NOT going to drag on until the convention. We simply are not that divided to allow it to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thanks for the history lesson...
I was around but too young to know what was going on. Very interesting parallels between then and now. And somehow it doesn't surprise me that you had some snarky comments on a thread. You have become quite the lightning rod these days... you, you partisan hack you. :)

As always, appreciate your posting. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Thank you.
Between South Carolina and Super Tuesday, I came to agree with Senator Edward Kennedy: He had polls that indicated that Clinton could not win in November; he had concerns the Clinton campaign was causing serious divisions in the party; and he believed that Senator Obama could win in November, and heal some of the damage done to the nation by the Bush administration.

I wrote a couple OPs based upon my views of those three things. I made clear that I was using the information in other areas, with a focus on getting young people involved in the democratic process. A number of people disagreed strongly, and in their disagreeing, were kind enough to provide me with a gold mine of information to use to support my positions in other forums than DU.

I am hoping that Senator Clinton will drop out soon. Of course, others are going to feel differently. That's fine -- I am confident that Senator Obama is in a great position, and is becoming recognized as the nominee in the places that count. I'm looking forward to November.

I hope that we are able to focus our attention on winning the White House and increasing the democratic majority in Congress, soon. I am not suggesting that everyone will get along just fine on DU after the convention. It isn't a tickling coniest. There are people with hurt feelings, etc. Some might hold grudges. But it is more important that people work together on common interests -- the November elections -- even if the candidate they supported was defeated in the primary. There can only be one nominee, after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. Just got back from phone-banking
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 10:36 PM by rosesaylavee
for our local Democrat who is running for Hastert's interim seat here in a few weeks. Spoke with a few disgruntled Dems on the phone who were supportive of the other guy prior to Bill Foster winning the nomination. Some of these supposedly staunch DEMs actually told me they didn't know if they were going to vote the special election to determine who runs our district on an interim basis. Very much surprised me. If the Republican running for this district is in DC for the interim, all will be amazed that our District can actually elect someone even crazier and meaner than Hastert. We haven't had a democrat in this district for 40 years. I would be ashamed to be represented by this (R) running for office. Needless to say, they will be getting many more volunteer hours from me in the next few weeks.

I don't care who wins the DEM nomination. I will vote for them in November. Lives are hanging in the balance here ... my ego is not that important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. Actually Thomas Dodd was also a VP front-runner for LBJ in 1964.
I agree with everything else in your OP. But don't forget Dodd. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. There is a list
Edited on Wed Feb-20-08 07:50 PM by H2O Man
of 12, with two tiers. I had been thinking about listing all of them .... plus all the democrats, republicans, and independents that entered the '68 contest. But my wife often reminds me that the things I find fascinating tend to be painfully boring to other people. Thus, I edit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tashca Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
20. I like your points
I turned eleven in 1968. So I can't really relate to the actual feeling of the time. Although my mother was very emotional during this cycle. I remember that very well. She had an almost hatred for Johnson....and a love for Kennedy or any Kennedy for that matter.. I really can't relate to the McCarthy sentiment. I just have vague memories of the time.

I think your comparison to 2008 is very timely and you presented it well.

I like your references to Nixon and even Reagan...how the things that happened in a tumultuous year laid the ground work for the future. Division in the Democrat party now could have undesirable repercussions for years to come.

Obviously a well thought out post.....Thank you!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. Wisconsin was also big in 1972, as well
McGovern's victory was the nail in the coffin to Hubert Humphrey's campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. It plays
a fascinating role in the primary process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-20-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. Outstanding.
By the fall of ’67, a growing and diverse group of democrats and progressives were pressuring RFK to enter the primaries, in opposition to the President.

Thanks for that historical reminder. McCarthy is such a fascinating individual. There are more than a few parallels between then and now. I don't believe RFK ran for ambitious reasons. I really do think that, even then, people realized that the country was moving in a wrong direction and wanted change with respect to many policies at work during that time. Like RFK, I think Obama was encouraged to run and didn't begin his campaign because of personal ambition. He, like many of his supporters, did not see any fundamental acknowledgment of the secrecy that is at the root of the cancer on our government, nor did he (like many of his prominent backers) view any of the likely candidates for the nomination leading a movement to change the way we do business.

It is, in some ways unfortunate, that we do have two outstanding candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. Because they are so similar in many areas, it forces others to look for and highlight contrasts that could be hair-splitting. But the good thing is, if Obama does NOT deliver on what he has promised, there is someone waiting in the wings to try her hand at solving the problems that plague this nation. This will keep Obama on his toes and relatively honest.
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 01st 2024, 07:41 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