Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jennifer Granholm's ideology

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 06:24 PM
Original message
Poll question: Jennifer Granholm's ideology
Seeking opinions from MI folks who would know.

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gov. Granholm Was a Clintonista
She has always been cleaning up after the GOP's John Engler, the bastard former governor who destroyed Michigan's tax base, and W, who destroyed Michigan's economy after it had revived from the earlier Reagan massacre during Bill Clinton's administration.

She hasn't the luxury of ideology. She'd like to be a lot more for change than she can be, given the regressive legislature, esp. the State Senate.

Your question hasn't an answer, I'm afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yup. She's clearly a DLC centrist.
That's not to say I (a liberal) don't respect her diligence and integrity, however. The challenges of governing a state (i.e. economic disaster area) like Michigan after Engler, Abraham, and Smirk/Shrub transcend the nuances of ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. There Are A Lot of Good Political Reasons To Put Her on the Court
She's term-limited, and Levin refuses to die or retire.

Still, I have to think that the negatives would swamp her, especially those form Grand Rapids and Amway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-18-09 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'd gladly let her take Stabenow's position.
Granholm's centrism is possibly pragmatic. If not pure centrism, she'd could be moderately liberal -- whatever liberal means today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
aejlaw Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-17-09 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. She is definitely liberal in ideology but constrained
by economic circumstances which she inherited from John Engler the most regressive governor Michigan ever had, and by Bush's disastrous economic policies, and a Republican controlled legislature. A beautful politician dealt a bad hand but playing it to the hilt. Unfortunately some Democrats blame her for the cuts she has been forced by law to make. Very smart and articulate. She would be the greatests of Supreme Court Justices. She supported Hillary Clinton in the "primary" but campaigned well for Obama in the general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. Well...
"some Democrats blame her for the cuts she has been forced by law to make."

I have been so surprised by the number of Dems turning on Granholm. I've seen numerous comments on liberal websites of people being quite negative and buying into the GOP talking points about her. It's sad because she does done a good job with a horrible situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
7. She hasn't made much of an impression on me, frankly.
She is a boring speaker, she had
John Cherry going around during
the primary and LYING his ass off
about "Obama not caring about Michigan".


It was DISGUSTING.

She was handed a steaming pile by
John Engler, and that is unfortunate
but she hasn't been
a stand-out, in Lansing OR on the
larger political stage.

She was brought in to help counsel
Joe Biden during the during the
election (because she was a WOMAN?).

:crazy:

I really don't see why she would
be such a great Supreme pick, unless
Obama owes another favor to the DLC/
Clinton wing of the party.

Her taxation policies have been screwy
for small business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. How can you say she's a boring speaker?
I think she's phenomenal and really knows how to fire up a crowd.

The reason she was brought in for the VP debate rehearsal is that she was standing in for Palin -- a woman with children, as well as a governor. Nancy Skinner actually prepped her to be able to answer the questions as Palin herself would answer them -- she did tons of research and knew everything about Palin so she could prep Jen appropriately.

I think she'd make an amazing justice, but right now I'd rather she kept her word and finished her term. There will be other picks down the road for Obama.

In her defense, there are a lot of things she's wanted to do that were stonewalled by the Republicans -- in both houses in her first term and in the Senate this term. There's so much more she could have accomplished if we had had the majority for the last six years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I've HEARD her speak! LOL
Edited on Tue May-19-09 10:11 PM by PassingFair
:hi:

Palin had been Gov. for, what, 18 months.

You or I could have "prepped" him for the
debate...we're women with children, and
there is no "Wasilla" in Granholm! We knew
"tons" about Palin, too!

I know she's been "stonewalled", but
where the HELL is the FIRE? She has
none.

She was instrumental in screwing up
our primary ...

The many times I have heard her speak
have done nothing for me, including
her 5-minute repeat repeat repeat
speeches at the State Conventions,
not even bothering to to tailor them
to whichever caucus she was speaking to.

Sorry, I can't agree on the greatness of
Granholm...she hasn't shown me ANYTHING.

(Cool Cities????)

If she ever "fired up" a crowd, it's because
they were already smoking when she showed up.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SharonRB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this
I know you're not a fan of hers. I am, and I think she has a lot of fire.

I do, however, agree with you about the primary.

We think we knew a lot about Palin, but it was just the tip of the iceberg. I saw the two binders Nancy had full of stuff about her -- they were loaded and each about 4" thick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yet the only thing Joe really had to do was keep his cool and not look...
like he was picking on the "little woman".

Which he did very well!

No "gotcha" moments from Joe,
and that was the right way to
play it.


We can disagree about this, we
agree about so much...

I just don't get why people state
that Granholm is a "brilliant" choice
for the Supreme Court.
I can't think of anything she has
done to merit it.

She is WAY too
conservative and corporate friendly
to be a balance to
Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
AND she's never been a judge!

We need another Ginsberg, STAT!!

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. "She is WAY too conservative "
She's not the least bit conservative. Granholm is as liberal as Obama (and they are both the same as Hillary) which is why he is considering her for the Supreme Court. Being a judge isn't a qualification for being a justice on the Supreme Court. Having people with different life experiences will add a different perspective to the court. Granholm would be a fantastic choice and I hope she is selected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. What has Granholm DONE?
Cool Cities?

We don't need a "compromiser" on the
Supreme Court bench.

We need someone to balance the bench.

Plus, the Catholic church will tear her
apart during the vetting process.
It will be a circus.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Cool cities was a good idea
We do need to invest in our cities to attract people. She has brought in the film industry which has pumped millions into our economy and created hundreds of jobs. There will be even more jobs to come once the numerous film studios get up and going. Her focus on green energy is also paying off, with billions having been invested during her 6 years as governor. In fact, last week Dow announced that they would open a new $665 million advanced battery facility bringing 885 new jobs to the state. I believe she has set MI on the road to a better economic future.

If you don't like a "compromiser" then you must hate Obama, huh? Granholm won't compromise on issues important to progressives and would be a great justice.

Who cares about the catholic church? One good thing about selecting Granholm would be that she's already been publicly vetted. There's nothing Republicans could throw at her that the MI GOP hasn't already tried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ScreamingMeemie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-25-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
34. I've heard her speak at my son's school (when we were there) and
I didn't find her to be very inspiring in the speech department. Maybe we've caught her on bad days and/or you've caught her on good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. She's sure no Soapy Williams.
Yes... I'm a bit biased since I knew Soapy and my uncle was in his administration from before the beginning to the end.

While I like Granholm, I also agree with you. She has assets -- intelligence, knowledge, appearance -- but just doesn't seem to capitalize on them in ways a professional politician should. She seems to fall a bit short even considering the implacable, regressive opposition she must face in the legislature.

She'd be a "kiss my sister" SCOTUS pick ... ho-hum. There are several exciting candidates that I'd more strongly prefer.

That said, I'd support her if she ran against Stabenow ... or, if Carl decides to retire, ran for his seat. In a choice between Levin and Granholm, I'd pick Levin. In a choice between Stabenow and Granholm, I'd pick Granholm - in a heartbeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I would too, if only to twit Stabenow about her bullshit voting record!
But I don't suppose DLC'er Granholm would do any better.

It would be WORTH it, though, to send the message
of accountability to the "new dems"....

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. You have proof she instructed Cherry to lie?
Many people, including me, were very angry that Obama pulled out of Michigan. It was clearly a coordinated plan with the other campaigns to go after the frontrunner. It's one thing to not campaign in the state but to remove names from the ballot was unnecessary. Also, with Obama's preferential treatment of Wall Street financial institutions, I do wonder if he cares about Michigan. MI has been ignored in Washington for years, if not decades, and it doesn't seem like that's going to change anytime soon.


"Obama owes another favor to the DLC/Clinton wing of the party."

Obama is apart of the Clinton wing of the party. His refusal to stand up to Wall Street is proof. Hillary and Obama were basically the same candidate which is why it's so interesting that people were so divided between them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. People were hoping he WASN'T and THAT caused the divide.....
Michigan WAS ignored in Washington for years...

and nothing was DONE about it.

The "coordinated plan" was all about
taking advantage of Levin's obssession
about going first in the primary while
cynically
front-loading the race for Clinton.

They had ALL signed the pledge NOT
to "participate" in primaries that
did not follow the start date rule.

When it became clear that someone
other than the "chosen one" had a
shot at the candidacy, we refused to
hold an OPEN caucus vote to make
amends.

P.S.: Cool Cities was a PR JOKE.

The efficacy of giving MASSIVE tax
breaks to the movie industry has
yet to be proven as it has
not "swelled" our employment ranks
thus far.

We have the highest unemployment in
the nation. And it is only getting WORSE.

I won't cry if Granholm gets the seat,
but really don't see WHY she should
have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Levin wasn't obsessed with going first
He was obsessed with ending the unfair and undemocratic say that Iowa and New Hampshire had in the primary process. Yes, we ALL pledged to follow the predetermine primary schedule. Apparently Dean decided he had the right to violate that agreement, giving Iowa and New Hampshire permission to move their dates but punishing Florida and MI.

BTW, it was about breaking Iowa and New Hampshire's strangle hold on the primary process, NOT helping Hillary. There was no reason for Hillary supporters to risk losing all of MI delegates, particularly since Hillary would've won MI anyway.

Have you been hanging out with Nancy Cassis? The film incentives have been one of the only bright spots in Michigan. It takes time for industry to grow and we will see more job growth in the years to come. Film production brought in 100 million dollars in revenue last year and only cost $48 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. We view the situation differently.
But the fact is that Dean merely enforced the rules.

The Clinton camp didn't think he would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Dean violated the rules
This was the schedule:

Iowa: Jan. 14
Nevada: Jan. 19th
New Hampshire: Jan. 22
South Carolina: Jan. 26


He gave his blessing for Iowa and New Hampshire to violate the schedule. Unless he punished ALL states that didn't stick to this schedule, he violated the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Bull.
Only AFTER Michigan and Florida moved their
primaries up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Bull
The purpose of punishing MI and Florida was to render their primaries void. There was NO reason for Iowa and New Hampshire to move. They weren't competing for the candidates' attention or money since they didn't campaign in MI/FL.

The primary issue was corrected by punishing MI and Florida. How can anyone punish some states for moving their dates but then turn around and tell other states it's ok to move? Letting NH and IA move served no purpose and Dean is a hypocrite for allowing it to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Iowa and New Hampshire run very controlled and different types of Democratic primaries.
They tend to BALANCE each other and serve to
prevent just the situation that Clinton, as
the party insider, wanted to pull off.

Every state wanted to go "first".

If every state voted on the same day,
early in the season (obviously), then
the "branded" candidate of the party
would win every time.

It is only through debates and primary
challenges that the people are able to
observe and get to know the candidates.

A compromise was struck which allowed
2 states, Nevada and South Carolina
into the first mix.

As far as I know, the 2 other states
will ROTATE, meaning it could be Michigan
in the next election.

Every candidate AGREED to not participate
in any primary that broke the rules.

Clinton broke her pact in both states.
I DON'T want to parse what the word
"participate" means, as I had ENOUGH
of that DURING the primaries.

Michigan and Florida broke the rules knowing
FULL WELL what the consequences would be.

I know, because Mark Brewer TOLD us about
it. At the time, he SMUGLY said "Don't worry,
they'll NEVER take the delegates away..."

They played chicken with our primary and LOST.

Plain and simple.

Iowa and New Hampshire were allowed to move
ONLY because of Michigan and Florida's violation
of the rules.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yes, I know what went down
You completely ignored my point. The was NO reason for Iowa and New Hampshire to move. To punish some states for not sticking to the schedule while letting others move unpunished was wrong and in violation of the rules. Dean lost the moral high ground by letting Iowa and New Hampshire move their dates up.



"A compromise was struck which allowed 2 states, Nevada and South Carolina into the first mix."

The purpose of this was to add diversity, both geographically and racially. That's why we had a SPECIFIC schedule that placed a second caucus BEFORE New Hampshire's primary. The order in which they went was important. The fact that Dean allowed NH to move up ruined one of the goals of the primary schedule since, once again, it was IA and NH going first and second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Who is "we"?
Edited on Wed May-20-09 07:25 PM by PassingFair
The party was well aware of New Hampshire's special status
and their semi-closed primary.

From Wiki:

Scheduling and process

New Hampshire hosts the first primary in the entire nation. A state law that was passed in 1975 required that the date be set at least one week before any other similar contest. The Iowa caucuses are the only delegate-choosing event before the New Hampshire primary, but since Iowa hosts caucuses, not primaries, that is not seen as violating the law.<1>

Any registered voter may participate in New Hampshire's primary. Voters must declare a party affiliation so that they could participate in only one primary every year, not both the Democratic and Republican primaries. The voters will elect delegates to the district-level events; a candidate will only receive delegates to the national convention if he or she receives at least 15% of the district voters' votes. 30 delegates will be proportionally sent to the national convention.<1>


More:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primari... /


Snip:

Thursday, January 3
After other states advanced the dates of their nominating contests, Iowa Democrats joined Republicans in making their caucus the first in the nation and the earliest ever.

Iowa Caucus 57 delegates
Tuesday, January 8
New Hampshire's secretary of state moved its primary ahead of Michigan's. State law says New Hampshire must vote at least a week before any other primary.

New Hampshire Primary 30 delegates
Tuesday, January 15
Michigan's jump to mid-January TRIGGERED SHIFTS by Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic National Committee penalized Michigan for moving ahead of Feb. 5 without permission by awarding its delegates half a vote each at the national convention.

Michigan Primary 78.5 delegates
Saturday, January 19
The Democratic National Committee allowed Nevada and South Carolina to move their contests to January to provide regional and ethnic balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Seriously? We as in Democrats.
You are still ignoring my argument...probably because you have no valid rebuttal. There was a primary schedule which all states agreed to. Michigan and Florida were punished...the problem was solved. Iowa and New Hampshire moving SERVED NO PURPOSE and VIOLATED THE RULES. If the party decided to let Iowa and New Hampshire move after the fact, why not let MI and FL change too. Why not let all the states move? If we (sorry....Democrats) don't ALL abide by the rules, there will be chaos.


"New Hampshire hosts the first primary in the entire nation."

NH was suppose to be the first primary. Nevada, according to the rules, was suppose to have their caucus before NH had their primary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-21-09 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. I'm not ignoring your argument.
Your "argument" is specious.

New Hampshire and Iowa only
moved up because of the rule
violations of Michigan and
Florida.

The resulting situation
where Clinton demanded
that all the "votes" be
counted from the compromised
"primaries" of both Michigan
and Florida was ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-21-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. WHY DID IA AND NH NEED TO MOVE?
There's nothing "specious" about my argument. You just can't think of anything to refute it. You are still unable to say what was gained by IA and NH moving up. That's why you just keep say they moved because MI and FL moved first. Two wrongs make a right, huh?

Judging by your avatar, you are simply blinded by your worship of Dean. At least I know that your opinion of Granholm is based on NOTHING other than a primary grudge because she dared not to agree with your "chosen one" (Dean).

So, go ahead and continue to pretend like there wasn't a double standard for MI/FL and IA/NH. I guess some people can easily ignore facts that are inconvenient to their opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-22-09 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I have a tepid opinion of Granholm that was not changed by
...her primary alliance.

The deadline wasn't set for IA and NH.
It was set for the 46 states that were
to come after the first 4.

Sorry you have such a hard time
with the democratic party's guidelines
and rules for running a level-fielded
primary.

Everybody wants to go first, but
everybody has to form an orderly
line.

And I wasn't "blinded" by Dean...
my eyes were OPENED when the primary
scheme was outlined to us at party
functions and NO ONE wanted to
force the Party's hand and risk
losing delegates just to go "first".

Not here in Macomb County, anyway.

We were aware of what the rules were
and the MDP decided for all of us that
they just didn't care.

Thank GOODNESS we DID have Howard Dean
at the helm to enforce the Party's rules.

A more politically cynical Chairman
would have CAVED.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-22-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Still ignoring the question, huh?
I guess I'll just move on since you don't seem to have an answer as to what was the purpose of IA and NH moving.


"Sorry you have such a hard time with the democratic party's guidelines and rules for running a level-fielded primary."

Actually I don't. I wanted the rules to be applied to ALL states.


"Thank GOODNESS we DID have Howard Dean at the helm to enforce the Party's rules. A more politically cynical Chairman would have CAVED."

Dean violated the rules and because you're a fan of his, you're willing to turn a blind eye to it. Unfortunately Dean caved into political pressure from IA and NH which has allowed them to hold onto the UNDEMOCRATIC advantage they have received in the primary process for years. The odd thing is there was no reason to allow IA and NH to move so Dean made himself a hypocrite for nothing. Hopefully Kaine has the political will to help develop a fair primary system that will hold all states to the same standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-22-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I answered your "question" over and over again...
you refuse to see the reasons.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blue_onyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-22-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. No you haven't
You ignored the question repeatedly and just keep saying that IA and NH aren't required to follow the rules because the schedule only applied to the other 46 states.

I would find it hard to defend Dean's hypocrisy too so I'll just let this conversation be
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Thu Aug 28th 2014, 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Michigan 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