Obama out! Edwards out! Richardson out! (and Biden and Kucinich)

Great minds (0.00 / 0)

  I was finishing my diary on it, at http://michiganliber... , as I saw yours go up!
  To reiterate from mine: there should be a Feb. 9 caucus or something similar; and the Dingells, Brewer, and any Dem party leaders who agreed to the early, rulebreaking primary, don't look good now. . .

---

by: David Boyle @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:56:08 PM CDT

Hillary should withdraw (0.00 / 0)

  As I could have noted in my own diary: Hillary should withdraw her name too now, or risk looking like

1) a person comfortable with rulebreaking and defying the DNC, and

2) somebody dumb enough to be trapped in a Michigan "show primary" with jokey opposition like Kucinich and Gravel. Ouch!

---

by: David Boyle @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:59:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who needs them? (0.00 / 0)

We have Clinton, we have Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel, who needs the rest?  I find it so upsetting that anyone wpould support those who don't even want to be on our ballot?  Have you not one ounce of concern for Michigan?

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:54:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I care a lot about Michigan (4.00 / 2)

In fact, I care so much about the state I love that I'm willing to forgive Obama or Edwards or anyone else and find a way to show my support, because I want the president who will help this state the most.

Michigan isn't in bad shape right now because a few politicians aren't going to be on the ballot. It's in bad shape because of trade policies (enacted under a Clinton) and economic policies (enacted under Republicans) that are sucking the life out of the state.

I love Michigan, but I'm willing to accept that sometimes, our collective political ego needs to take a back seat to what really matters-- electing leaders who will help this state and this country.

In the general election, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, period. Anyone who wouldn't do that if it were Obama and Edwards just because of this really needs to refocus his priorities.

---

by: Fitzy @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:05:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Priorities? (4.00 / 3)

I cannot vote for them if they don't have their name on the ballot.  We have enough for a slate and it was totally unnecessary for any candidate to pull their name off the ballot.  Chris Dodd was most gracious in his response.

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:34:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kucinich/Gravel: super (0.00 / 0)

  If you're concerned for Michigan, demand the MDP follow the rules and schedule a 2/5 or 2/9/07 caucus...

---

by: David Boyle @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:40:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rules? New Hampshire (4.00 / 1)

I guess it is okay for New Hampshire to break the rules without having any punishment!  Just Michigan Dems!  They were not coming to Michigan anyway, why not let us vote?

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:46:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmph... (4.00 / 5)

First of all, the DNC can bite me. If they don't want my vote, they're not getting my money. I will be spending all of my money and all of my volunteer hours elsewhere.

Second of all, if Hillary stays in she's automatically won my vote, even though she's third on my list.

---

by: PerfectStormer @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 13:25:19 PM CDT

If Hillary stays in, (0.00 / 0)

I'm voting for Kucinich, otherwise I'm just not voting.

But lets be serious, there's going to be a primary/caucus in Michigan and everybody is going to be here.  It's just a matter of when...

---

by: Jon K @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 13:30:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Nation of Sheep (4.00 / 5)

Do you want a small number of people in Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, to select the Democratic Party's candidate for president?  Do you believe manufacturing states such as Michigan should have a voice in the process?  Or do you accept the status quo?

The DNC clearly does not believe in democracy, or it would advocate a more inclusive process, not fight Florida and Michigan for wanting a say in the future of our country.  Stick to your guns, Michigan and Florida --our votes won't count this year (but they wouldn't anyway), but we will force the DNC to change its process next time around, (assuming the Republicans still allow the Democrats to hold primaries in 4-5 more years).

And please don't send money to political candidates who shun Michigan -- that's sending the wrong message.

---

by: Bloggingbetsy @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 13:40:56 PM CDT

So, you don't want my vote? (4.00 / 3)

I agree with you 1000% Betsy. If Edwards and Obama are so busy "respecting" the states of Iowa and New Hampshire, by a process of elimination, they are obviously disrespecting the state of Michigan.

I will not vote nor send money to any political candidate that does not respect - and campaign for - MY VOTE!!!

I was sitting on the fence until today. But I am so insulted, upset and outraged that there is no way that I will vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton.

A candidate strong enough to stand on principle and not kowtow to Dean and the democratic power-brokers is the kind of Leader I would trust in the White House.

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:28:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I concur (4.00 / 2)

I sent Edwards a check earlier this week . . . the last one until he changes his decision to shit on MI.  The math is simple: a Democratic nominee can lose NH and IA, but MI is a MUST WIN.  We have more electoral votes than IA and NH combined -- which one would you rather dis?

---

by: smithj86 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:43:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why bother? (4.00 / 1)

That's it - I quit. The party, the election, the candidates, the whole shebang - I'm out. This is ridiculous. If our own party is willing to play politics in order to keep a select few in power and to keep our voices from being heard, then why bother?  No more money to candidates, no more time and energy to campaigns and parties - if they are going to play games with something as sacred as my right to make my voice heard, then they deserve no support from me. Democrats obviously don't care about me (or my children or my business or my neighbors) any more than the selfish, greedy Republicans do.

---

by: mitten @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 14:16:20 PM CDT

we still have our congressional and state legislative races (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 14:24:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

support one of the candidates who stayed in the Primary! (4.00 / 1)

We have Dodd, Clinton, Kucinich and Gravel.  Pick one and show the rest we in Michigan are not to be taken for granted.
Unsubscribe from all the emails from the candidates who tokk their names off, send a message!

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:21:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I could vote for Dodd. I would rather eat dirt (0.00 / 0)

than vote for another NAFTA/CAFTA Clinton.  Most of all, I want the Democratic Party brought down.  I want every Lieberman (Clinton, Edwards,Obama) dumped on their ass.  I'm not voting for any of them. 

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 16:32:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was just coming over to post this (4.00 / 2)

I just heard the news.  Are they trying to just hand the state to Hillary?  Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we will not go ahead with this ridiculous primary plan. It's backfired big time.

---

by: SharonRB @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 14:35:51 PM CDT

Send a message! Unsubscribe from all Presidential email alerts (4.00 / 1)

With all the problems Michigan is coping with, the Presidential candidates are wrong to take their names off our ballot.
I am reminded of the old Kenny Roger's song, "You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille".  As the Republican's will be "Dancing in the Streets" (Martha and the Vandella's) we will feel the pain of not having a meaningful caucus or primary.  I am sorry but I hope Howard Dean (who I poured all my energy into his Primary race) will hear plenty of complaints when he comes to Oakland County.
We have a lot of work to do here in Michigan, I won't pay the Presidential candidates a bit of attention and hopefully everyone unsubscribe from their email lists.
That should alert them that they may be making a big mistake.  To have thousands of people unsubscribe within a few days may get their attenetion.

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:11:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow (4.00 / 1)

Not unexpected, I guess, but this changes all sorts of things.

Obama, Edwards, and Richardson are at least honoring their pledge not to campaign/compete in Michigan. There's going to have to be some sort of deal for a later caucus date or something. I can't see the MDP walking away from any role whatsoever in the national convention over this. There'll be a deal of some sort.

This is probably a pretty unpredictable situation, but I can think of a couple of ways this will mix things up.

First, if Hillary Clinton stays in, there's a serious embarrassment risk. She'll win, obviously, but if it's a 60-40 type of win over someone like Kucinich, that could easily be spun against her, even if she wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Remember, LBJ still won the NH primary in 1968, but it was by a small enough margin that he looked weak.

Second, if there are any really motivated and really talented Obama or Edwards (or even Richardson) supporters, NOW is the time to start organizing in Michigan.

Let me explain, using Barack Obama as an example.

Obama isn't competing in Michigan, but he's still got a certain base of supporters who will be looking for ways to help him. So you organize an independent write-in campaign.

Turnout will probably be depressed, as voters will know that the result is a foregone conclusion-- Hillary Clinton wins. If you targeted all those motivated Obama supporters who have donated money and volunteered, etc., you tell them that they can still help Obama by going to the polls and writing in his name.

It would have to be an independent, grassroots effort, because otherwise it would break his pledge to the four early states.

Suppose Obama finishes well (or even wins) in a state where he isn't even on the ballot. That will either build momentum from an Iowa win or show national viability and appeal separate of those crazy Iowans. Either way, it boosts his campaign, without the official Obama campaign spending a dime in the state.

Sound a little crazy? Well, maybe it is. But my inspiration for this crazy scheme comes from New Hampshire, 1964.

Everyone knew that the Republican nominee would be Nelson Rockefeller. It was just going to happen. The only other Republican on the ballot was that nut from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. No one took him seriously.

But a few people didn't like Rockefeller, and so they started a Draft Henry Cabot Lodge campaign (Lodge was the 1960 VP nominee). Spending just a few thousand dollars on an early (and well-implemented) direct mail campaign, write-in Lodge won the primary. It hurt Rockefeller, and Lodge entered the race. The downside, of course, was that it split the moderate vote in other states and Goldwater became the nominee.

Now, obviously it'd be different in Michigan, 2008. But what's the harm in pushing an independent write-in campaign for Obama or Edwards? At worst, you lose and it doesn't do anything to reflect poorly on your candidate of choice. At best, it gives them an enormous momentum boost. Grassroots politics at its finest.

Anyone know how Michigan election laws might apply to something like this?

Anyone interested in doing this?

---

by: Fitzy @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:11:04 PM CDT

Pettiness or People? (4.00 / 2)

>But what's the harm in pushing an independent write-in campaign for Obama or Edwards?

The harm is in supporting candidates who put petty party politics ahead of people. They could have left their names on the ballot but not campaigned here; this move shows that they are more interested in toeing the party line than making sure all citizens' voices are heard.

---

by: mitten @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:24:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If they (4.00 / 1)

don't think MI is important enough to appear on the ballot, then they apparently don't think my vote is very important.  Hell, if I do a write in, it'll be for Gore.

---

by: smithj86 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:45:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You got it! (4.00 / 1)

I think we're going to continue with our Draft Gore petition drive and see what happens in the next couple of weeks.

I have a feeling we're going to wind up with the caucus rather than the primary.

---

by: SharonRB @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:32:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

gore is obviously not running (0.00 / 0)

Believe me, I would be 100% behind Gore if he were running.  However, given the scope of the primary season, he would have to have been starting to build an organization by Labor Day.  He is obviously not doing that.

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:14:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama and Edwards are obviously (0.00 / 0)

not running - in Michigan - either.  No, all three candidates can take a hike.  Let Iowa vote for them in the general, too.

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 16:35:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bold Move (0.00 / 0)

Or maybe not so bold? It's probably wiser for them to stay on the good side of the DNC because they'll need the DNC's help, whereas, Hillary is probably able to run a more independent campaign. Regardless, if things stay like this then I will vote for Kucinich...he is more in line with me anyway.

---

by: petrolcide @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:19:32 PM CDT

PA 52 of 2007 - the drama continues (4.00 / 2)

The text of the bill creates several more hurdles:

"Sec. 613a. . .

(2) Not later than 4 p.m. on November 14, 2007, the chairperson of each participating political party shall notify the secretary of state if his or her political party will be using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary to select delegates to his or her respective national convention to nominate a candidate for president of the United States in 2008. At 4 p.m. on November 15, 2007, the secretary of state shall determine, based upon the information provided by the participating political parties under this subsection, whether the participating political parties in this state will be using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary to select delegates to their respective national conventions to nominate a candidate for president of the United States in 2008. If the secretary of state determines that all participating political parties are using a method other than the results of the January 15, 2008 presidential primary, the secretary of state shall cancel the presidential primary that would otherwise be held on January 15, 2008, . . . "

In other words, Mark Brewer can pull out of the primary, but it will still be held, unless Anuzis pulls out too.  From the text here, I suppose if the election takes place, the remaining Democratic names (Clinton, Gravel & Kuchinich) would still appear on the ballot, even though they won't count for the purpose of allocating delegates.  Does the Democratic Party still get a copy of the secret list of who voted in which primary?  That is, would the Democratic Party still be "a participating political party" in the primary, even if they refuse to use the results to allocate delegates?

Inquiring minds want to know. . .

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:36:13 PM CDT

Just answered my own question. (4.00 / 1)

"Participating political party" is defined as a party that meets the voting threshold from a previous election.  The fact the Dems may not "participate" if Brewer pulls the plug on November 14, doesn't matter.

In other words, even if the Michigan Democratic Party refuses to go along with the primary, they still get a copy of the secret list of voters, to rent to candidates, or to prospect for money.  It's hard to understand how that can be proper, but what do I know?

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:55:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still a little bitter? (0.00 / 0)

Do I detect a little bitterness? No one uses the Voter file for money!  No one rents the list it is free for all Dems to use.
I do think someone charges for their secret list though, hmm?  I wonder who that could be.

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:00:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

irrelevant (4.00 / 1)

if my understanding is correct, public money will be used to collect information that the state parties (and only the state  parties) will own.  that is wrong on so many levels.

the information ought to be in the public domain.

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:06:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not "bitterness", but "concern". (4.00 / 2)

The list certainly won't be available "free for all Dems to use".  In fact, the way the law is set up, I'd guess there will be bitter fights over exactly who gets access in contested primaries.  How likely is the State Central Committee to authorize its use on an even-handed basis?  How likely is use going to be "free" to candidates in primary contests?  My guess is both the Democrats and the Republicans intend to milk their ownership of the data for several million dollars, to help finance their operations, and reduce their dependence on other sources.

As far as I can tell, this is the first time anybody anywhere has tried to convert the records of a public election into the private property of the political parties. 

There are a number of private vendors of voter lists in Michigan.  None of us will be eligible under state law to own a copy of the voter list from the January 15 primary.  I'm certainly concerned the law creates a legal duopoly threatens my business.  I think everybody else should be concerned that the law doesn't establish any rules or review for the Party's use of the list to support its friends, and oppose its enemies, even in fights between Democrats.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 23:42:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will the secret list be worth anything? (0.00 / 0)

If the Michigan primary is held against the wishes of both the DNC & MDP and most of the major candidates do not participate, probably most Dem voters won't participate either.  And if the primary doesn't count towards the nomination will even supporters of the listed candidates show up? 

Thus a list of Democratic voters that doesn't include any Biden, Edwards, Obama, and Richardson supporters and/or supporters of Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, or Kucinich will be pretty nonrepresentative.

So what Dem campaign would want to use a list of Dem voters that only includes those voters who drag themselves out on a cold day in January to vote for a 1/2-donkey* straw poll?

* (or half-assed if you will).

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:43:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

even knowing that is useful information (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:13:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Will the list be worth anything?" Yes, several million dollars. (4.00 / 2)

If everything went perfectly, and both parties held hotly contested elections that drew 1 million voters on each side, the list would be worth maybe $10,000,000.  If everything falls apart, and it's only a beauty contest on the Democratic side, it would still be worth at least half that much.

And - as it happens - it will cost the State of Michigan roughly $10,000,000 to conduct the election.  Pretty sweet deal for the Democratic and Republican Parties - the government pays for the election, and they collect the fruits.

---

by: Grebner @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 23:47:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Everybody Out of the Pool (4.00 / 1)

Well, I just cancelled my regular monthly contributions to Edwards.  And I don't care if Hillary stays in or out...I'm sick and tired of hearing how it's "inevitable" from all the pundits and poobahs that she is the Democratic nominee.  I have yet to talk to ANYONE who supports her candidacy as a first choice.  As for a write-in, if that's allowed then I will write in Al Gore.

---

by: GLDNRULE @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:36:58 PM CDT

Here I am. (0.00 / 0)

I support Hillary -- as my first choice.

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 18:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary is my First Choice. (4.00 / 1)

Hillary is my first choice and has been all along.  She's got the experience and organization to get it done.  Richardson would be another great choice and I'd love to see Kucinich in the cabinet or some other high position.  Edwards seems very fake to me.

Obama is inspiring but he's not Presidential material yet.  I want to see him win and lose a few battles on the national stage or as a Governor before he'll get my vote for President.

I work in government.  About half the Democrats I know support Hillary as their first choice.  The Republicans in my workplace are all over the board with their choices.

---

by: northernlib @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:06:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Choice (0.00 / 0)

As of right now Hillary is my first choice, and I have talked to many who feel that way. I will not support anyone who dis's Michigan.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

by: michmark @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 06:14:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nov 2008: In related news, (4.00 / 2)

The Republican presidential nominee carried the state of Michigan for the first time in 20 years . . .

---

by: smithj86 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:40:01 PM CDT

I'll abstain (4.00 / 1)

From voting for them in the general if any of them are the nominee, since they seem intent on showing Michigan just how unimportant we really are.  I'll vote for Senate, House, etc. and just leave president blank.

I'm still on the fence on Hillary...one day she'll say something I really like, the next day something I don't.

Of course, if Gore surprises us and jumps in, then he's got my vote.

This whole thing is such a mess...national primary day, anyone?

---

by: Josh M @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:54:18 PM CDT

Let's go with the Primary ! (4.00 / 2)

We have enough for a slate, let the candidates who don't need Michigan stay off our ballot!  Who needs them?

---

by: ebba debba @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 15:56:37 PM CDT

OK, I've made my decision (0.00 / 0)

I've had mixed feelings about all the major Dem candidates, but this clears things up for me.  I now consider myself a Dodd supporter.

"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

---

by: Butch Snider @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 16:51:14 PM CDT

Vote in the Republican Primary (0.00 / 0)

Either help Republicans elect Ron Paul or a candidate you think is weaker so it works to the Dems advantage.

---

by: petrolcide @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:14:03 PM CDT

as i commented at B4M (0.00 / 0)

it might be worth voting for ron paul.  the logic is that if a vote in a dem primary in MI doesn't mean anything, it is for the good of the country to guide the republican party in a more libertarian direction.

i kinda like dodd, though, too.

Check out my mediocre blog.

---

by: nirmal @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:27:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is over (4.00 / 2)

They don't want to come - they don't get my vote. Had interest in Obama, skeptical of Edwards already.

I now throw my support behind Hillary. It is over. And none of these desparate losers are worthy of the VP either.

They have sealed their fate.

---

by: doxie53 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 17:30:32 PM CDT

Reality Check (0.00 / 0)

Obama and Edwards didn't pull out because of the DNC.  They pulled out because Clinton has been consistently and widely out-polling them in Michigan and they don't want to spend limited resources trying to win a state with an expensive media market compared to Iowa and New Hampshire.  They will try to invest themselves in as many small early states as possible to try to hold on and be the last serious candidate standing as an alternative to Clinton.  I'm not wild about Hillary.  I wasn't wild about Bill at first either.  But she is going to be the Dem nominee and she is going to be a far better President than Bush and probably better than her husband.

---

by: northernlib @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 19:58:50 PM CDT

weak spin (4.00 / 1)

they pulled out to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire.  It sucks, but come on, Hillary and her NAFTA aren't actually going to do well here.  But the nominee won't be decided here.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:28:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michigan First Big State (0.00 / 0)

Michigan is the first big state primary.  If Hillary wins Iowa, then Michigan and then New Hampshire, it's over.

Keep in mind that Hillary has consistently been polling double what Obama is among likely Democratic voters in Michigan and four times what Edwards is polling.

---

by: northernlib @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:36:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Edwards and Obama (0.00 / 0)

Obama needs to win Iowa or it's over for him.  Edwards needs to win South Carolina or he's done.  Richardson will stay in to suck votes off of Obama until Clinton cuts a deal with him and asks him to drop out.  Dodd and Biden will drop out early in the primaries, if not before.  Kucinich is in for the long haul.

---

by: northernlib @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:39:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response from Obama (0.00 / 0)

First, I have to give Obama's campaign credit for responding so quickly to my e-mail. Unfortunately, that has to be balanced by the fact that they don't know the difference between Michigan and Florida.

"Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting Obama for America about the Democratic National Committee's decision not to seat Michigan's delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Senator Obama had no role in the DNC's decision.  Along with all of the other candidates, he is abiding by that decision, but he still hopes that this dispute can be settled in a way that allows every voter to be heard in the nominating process.  In the meantime, we will continue building our movement for change across the country." 

Thank you again for contacting us.
Sincerely,
Obama for America

---

by: yvette248 @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:24:53 PM CDT

... except Michigan (0.00 / 0)

where ya can all go f*#k yourselves -- Obama, Edwards and Richardson.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

---

by: philgoblue @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 20:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dean fundraiser (4.00 / 2)

The Oakland County Dems fundraiser with Howard Dean should be interesting, eh?

Success is not final, failure is not fatal. - Winston Churchill  

---

by: TJarrell @ Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 22:20:55 PM CDT

When and were? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: dkmich @ Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 16:39:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]