http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/n...?storyid=108266

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../30/963364.aspx

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/n...,0,381974.story

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/polit...s_at_dnc_h.html

Oy.

You know who else has an issue? The citizens of Washington D.C. They are Americans and must pay Federal Income Tax, etc. and yet they have no Senators, no members of Congress, and don't get to vote in Presidential elections. Ever. :!:

Yeah, that is totally wack. I grew up in Bethesda, MD (home of NIH, Bethesda Naval Hospital, etc.), a suburb of DC. As a kid or teenager or whenever it was, I asked my mom, who knows everything, why DC had no representation and she actually explained it to me in a way that SORT OF made sense, as it is a neutral seat of power or SOMETHING (who can remember right now, I've eaten WAY too much junk food today and my brain is thus fried, considering I'm usually a health food "nut") but still...bottom line is, while what my mom said made some sense, the people who LIVE in DC really deserve representation. btw, they do get to vote in presidential elections. But you are right, they have no representation in Congress. Wack. Undemocratic. Unfair. Wrong. Should be changed.

That was a shorty. Care to elaborate?

:Y:

P.S. To Wayne: Here is some info on the DC voting rights situation. Interesting stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_C...a_voting_rights

Actually DC gets 3 electoral votes.

http://712educators.about.com/cs/poliscire...ce/f/washdc.htm

HC - I read some of your posts on that first article. How can you say it is just about the voters? It most certainly is about the candidates as well. It is about the election being fair all the way around. You say that the votes should count as they were cast in January. Well, it has been said that Obama fares better in a state after he has campaigned there and people get to know him. So how are the results in Florida fair if he did not campaign there?? All the candidates signed a pledge and agreed not to campaign in FL. Hillary is the only one that went against that pledge and not because she CARES about the FL voters, but because it is to her ADVANTAGE to do so. I agree that both Hillary and Obama have done things to their political advantage, but you seem to give Hillary a free pass (as James likes to say).

I have tried to hold my tongue and be respectful, but your continuous rants and smears (that's the way they come across - such as you calling him an idiot) of Obama are too much.

I don't deny that I'm no big fan of Hillary. But I think I can be fairly objective. What I don't understand is WHY the states chose to move their dates up, knowing the consequences. What was the big deal anyway? And of course, all states that violated this rule should have been treated equally. I don't disagree with that. I also agree that if anything, FL & MI should have only been stripped of half their delegates. But I disagree that they should counts the votes as originally cast in FL and MI. They should have done a revote and the states should have foot the bill.

Sure, I don't like some of our laws, but I don't go out breaking them to suit me.

Earthmother used a good analogy recently. I thought of another one. Say you have two sons and you favor one over the other one. Well you give them both the same guidelines/rules to follow. The favorite son breaks the rule and the other one abides by the rule. So do you NOT punish the favorite son and make the other son see your favoritism.? Or do you stand firm and send a clear message?

Most of the candidates tried to honor the DNC and they took their names off the MI ballot - all but Hillary - and I agree that it seems like she was thumbing her nose at the DNC.

Protesters should direct their wrath to their state legislatures - not the DNC. The rules, as dumb as they may seem, were laid out in the beginning and the state legislature was fully aware of them. So now protesters want to wreak havoc at the convention?? They may as well all go vote for McCain - that'll teach the DNC to make up "stoo pit" rules. :!: Shoot all us Democrats in the feet while you're at it!! NOT!!

Actually Hillary did not campaign in Florida and upheld the pledge. If anyone could be accused of breaking the pledge it was Obama who ran national TV ads that ran in Florida the week before the primary.

No time to elaborate, and that's why it was a short one. If you noticed, I haven't been posting much lately. I'm overwhelmed by a bunch of stuff that's going on right now, and I just check in here each day to stay current, delete spambots, and make dumb comments like "oy" when the spirit moves me.

What I meant by the comment was just that this whole election season has been fubar and this is just more in the continuing saga. It wasn't meant as a dig at you or Floridians, who I sincerely hope will be represented somehow in Denver.

On a more upbeat note, my cable company called today with some special promotion thing that will enable me to have HBO for the next six months for just a few dollars a month. I'll be able to watch "Recount" after all. :clap:

James, it was my understanding that Hillary attended two fundraising events in Florida shortly after the South Carolina primary. And she also had a rally in Miami after the polls closed the night of the primary.

Does that not constitute as campaigning, at least to some degree?

And she even made the statements that she would try to persuade her superdelegates into having the FL and MI delegates seated, after signing the pledge. It is true that the voters are the victims here. But however this dilemma is resolved, it should be fair to both sides or voters from either side are going to feel disenfranchised.

Obama did not campaign IN Florida and was that ad intended to run in Florida? It wasn't targeted to the Florida market, was it? I'd like to do some reading up on that.

No. Fundraising is not campaigning. And the two fundraisers that you are refering to took place in private homes in 2007 long before Florida moved up it's primary. As far as the rally in Miami as you stated it was after the polls were closed.

But it is odd that the Obama campaign ran national TV ads that would air in Florida the week before the Florida primary. And they never ran National ads before or since.

Neither side is pure on this.

James, the two fundraising events happened after the South Carolina primary, from what I've read. I'll go back and look up the info. on this. The events were closed to the public, of course. And even though the rally occurred after the polls closed, the delegates were supposedly not going to be seated, so what was the purpose of the rally?

Okay, maybe the Obama ads running a week before the Florida primary were suspect. I agree. Neither one is exactly pure in this situation.

I am not opposed to the votes being counted. They very well should be. But it's got to be done in a fair way. Comments have been made on this board that Obama has been "sneering and dismissive" toward the FL votes, but he specifically said in an interview that the delegates should be seated but it should be done fairly.

Thanks for the information. I forgot about (or maybe never learned) the amendment giving DC three electoral votes.

This is one of those cases in which it is unfair, but arguably a necessary compromise in order to achieve another important purpose. The US Senate isn't "fair", in that California has two Senators and Wyoming also has two Senators despite the enormous difference in population. Iowa and New Hampshire going first in the presidential primaries isn't "fair", but, there it is. It's difficult for me to know if there is a way to fix one part without making something else worse. :?:

I'm thinking that giving the District of Columbia representation in Congress, but not in the Senate, would be reasonable. Especially since the House has the 'power of the purse' and it would be a move away from 'taxation without representation'. ;)

Please do for when I googled it I could only come up with the 2 the took place in 2007. But even if they occured after the SC primary, if they were closed to the public; I don't see how they violated the pledge.

The purpose of the rally was clearly PR, but did not break the pledge. And as Howard Dean said last night on the Daily Show it was always assumed that the eventual nominee would allow both the Michigan and Florida delegations to be seated.

Quotes by Texan for Gore appear in blue:

"HC - I read some of your posts on that first article. How can you say it is just about the voters? It most certainly is about the candidates as well. It is about the election being fair all the way around. You say that the votes should count as they were cast in January. Well, it has been said that Obama fares better in a state after he has campaigned there and people get to know him. So how are the results in Florida fair if he did not campaign there??"

It was the CHOICE (not adhering to any rule, but a CHOICE) of each candidate to sign the pledge not to campaign. They all chose to sign it, and they all stuck to it and didn't campaign here (although apparently an Obama ad did run on cable, though he says he didn't mean it to run here in Florida). Therefore, the playing field was level. We didn't have advertisements here, and we didn't have the candidates coming in person. But we had the same mega-TV coverage of the primary season, on broadcast and cable, the same internet, newspapers, etc. We were very well informed about the candidates before casting our votes. And there was a record turnout to the polls. So, the election itself was totally fair to all the candidates on the ballot.

As for it "being said" that Obama fares better in states where he campaigns, that is his campaign saying that, number one. Number two: then he should have grown a pair, refused to sign the stooo-pit pledge, and CAMPAIGNED HERE. But, he didn't. So, if that affected the results (which I do not think it necessarily did), then that was the candidate's CHOICE, just as it was his choice to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan.

Oh well.

"I agree that both Hillary and Obama have done things to their political advantage, but you seem to give Hillary a free pass (as James likes to say)."

Why do you say that? I have said that, for example, the sniper thing was very disturbing. I have also repeatedly pointed out that Hillary was not my first (obviously), second, third, or even fourth choice, even if you don't count Gore and only count the candidates who were in the original field. I have also repeatedly stated some of my concerns about Hillary and gone out of my way to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when possible, like in my post of a few days ago called something like "Gotta give props to Obama".

"What I don't understand is WHY the states chose to move their dates up, knowing the consequences."

The two states should NOT have moved the primary dates up, period. It was a violation of the rules of both parties. And Dean did have to take action, which should have been to remove half of the delegates from each state, AS THE RULES RECOMMEND. That would have effectively discouraged other states from moving their dates up, chastised FL & MI for doing so, yet left the voters with a voice.

I also agree that if anything, FL & MI should have only been stripped of half their delegates. But I disagree that they should counts the votes as originally cast in FL and MI. They should have done a revote and the states should have foot the bill.

That opinion is fair enough. A recount has been looked into and deemed to be a logistical, practical and process-integrity nightmare at this time in Florida (we don't even have voting apparatus at this time because it is all being changed, let alone poll workers trained on the new system). As far as Michigan goes, a recount makes more sense there because Barack wasn't on the ballot (his choice, I hasten to emphasize again), so to bend over backwards to accomodate him, a recount would be nice. But I see no fairness imperative for it. An election was held in the state of Michigan. He chose not to participate in it due to the date violation, even though he knew the delegate issue was still very much up in the air and that the vast majority of "experts" thought that, eventually, the delegates would be seated from FL & MI. So, too bad. That's generally what happens if you remove your name from a ballot: you don't win. But that doesn't mean a new election should be held because you lost.

"Most of the candidates tried to honor the DNC and they took their names off the MI ballot - all but Hillary - and I agree that it seems like she was thumbing her nose at the DNC."

Again: there was NO DNC RULE saying anything about removing candidate names from a ballot in a case such as this. That was all the idea of Dean and the early states, and they deserved to be stood up to about it, standing up to them about it was the right thing to do. Half of FL & MI's delegates should have been removed and that should have been the END OF IT. I hate to ever say this, but: the Republicans had it right. They took away half of each states delegates, and that's that! No stupid pledge not to campaign, no removing names from ballots, certainly no withdrawal of all delegates from two huge swing states. Face it: our DNC is behaving insanely. And standing up to insane behavior is the kind of thing I like to see in a presidential candidate, so I say, more power to Hillary for leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan, even though no one else did. A leader doesn't always do what is popular or what they are being pressured to do. A leader does what is right.

"Protesters should direct their wrath to their state legislatures - not the DNC. The rules, as dumb as they may seem, were laid out in the beginning and the state legislature was fully aware of them. So now protesters want to wreak havoc at the convention?? They may as well all go vote for McCain - that'll teach the DNC to make up "stoo pit" rules. :!: Shoot all us Democrats in the feet while you're at it!! NOT!!"

It is 100% the DNC's fault what is happening right now. 100%. And I will sooooooooo be in Denver protesting with my fellow Floridians and, hopefully, Michiganders, too. Sorry if you don't agree with that. Should the states have violated the rule date? Definitely not. But it is the unfair and insane way that Dean's DNC has CHOSEN to respond to that rule violation that has caused the mess we are in now. And this Democrat is NOT going to stand for it, not while I have any ability to protest left in me.

Exactly. But don't confuse Obama supporters with facts or you risk being accused of "smearing" him, as I just was in this thread.

I had always thought Democrats, and particularly the Gore community, were/was respectful of dissenting opinions. Anyone not supporting Obama these days in the liberal Democratic community is definitely sporting a dissenting opinion. I'm sad to realize over these past few months of participating in this beloved community that I've been a member of for years, that any expression of anti-Obama sentiment is considering "smearing".

Yet the relentless, vicious attacks on Hillary go on unabated.

Interesting, and very sad, to note. There is definitely a double standard around here. Never thought I'd see the day here on this board. The anti-Hillary brigade is allowed to viciously attack. But any substantive anti-Obama commentary is mislabeled as "smearing" him.

I'm getting to the point of not being able to stand Obama supporters as a general entity, although there are certainly admirable exceptions to that rule. But the hypocrisy and double standards just are too much.

Quotes by earthmother in green:

"No time to elaborate, and that's why it was a short one. If you noticed, I haven't been posting much lately. I'm overwhelmed by a bunch of stuff that's going on right now, and I just check in here each day to stay current, delete spambots, and make dumb comments like "oy" when the spirit moves me."

:laugh:
Your "oy" was not dumb, it was cute! It just left me wanting a little more elaboration, if possible, dat's all!

"What I meant by the comment was just that this whole election season has been fubar and this is just more in the continuing saga. It wasn't meant as a dig at you or Floridians, who I sincerely hope will be represented somehow in Denver."

Thanks, e-mother. You are always someone who can be counted upon to have a fair mind and heart. I didn't think your "oy" was a dig, I thought it was just a commentary about the absurdity of this primary season *lol*!

Fundraising was expressly ALLOWED by the pledge that the candidates signed! They all engaged in fundraising here. Isn't that special that the DNC said it was perfectly fine to come here mining for dollars, but don't dare interact with rank and file voters? Yet another indication of the insanity that has taken over the helm of our party. It must be excised!

As for Hillary coming here AFTER the polls closed, the pledge not to campaign here was obviously null and void once the polls closed!
:!:

As for Obama's ad that ran here on cable, even though you accused me earlier in this thread of of "smearing" the man on this board, I have repeatedly said that I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that ad, as he stated it was not his intention for it to run in Florida. I have always left it at that. But NOW that you accused me of smearing him? I might just have to throw in that, intentional or not, it was his dang ad and it ran here in violation of the pledge. Draw your own conclusions.

OMG! Are you for real today, Texan for Gore?! You have always struck me as a very fair-minded, respectful, just plain NICE human being before, but all of a sudden you are accusing me of "smearing" Obama (no, I just can't stand the man and I consider all opinions allowed here in Gore Central) and you are saying things like Obama's idea of "fairly seating the delegates" is something other than TOTALLY UNFAIR and UNDEMOCRATIC!

Hear this: I would MUCH rather have NO DELEGATES seated than to have the 50/50 arbitrary split that Obama's campaign is actually undemocratic enough and audacious enough (talk about the audacity of hope, he has it in spades!) to suggest! Why? Because no delegates is "merely" a lack of representation of the voters. An arbitrary split awarding half to Obama and half to Clinton is a MISrepresentation of the voters! Obama didn't get 50% of the vote! Clinton won here in a landslide! How is it fair to give him half the delegates?

And why does Dean say that any solution must be "acceptable to both candidates"? Since when do the results of an election have to be acceptable to both candidates? Last time I checked, there is usually a winner and a loser. That's how it goes. The RESULTS of the Florida election are not in question. Everyone was on the ballot, we had a record turnout, Clinton won. The only thing in question here should be: should Dean reverse his previous ruling about the delegates that was made because of a rule violation? There is no question, or should be none, anyway, about how the delegates are ALLOCATED! No! The election was held and we have the results!

This is all back-room dealing by Dean's DNC, and Dean is an OBAMA SUPPORTER!

Am I the only one who sees how crazy and what a conflict of interest this all is, and how the DNC has been taken away from rank and file Democrats, from standing for our interests, and given to HOWARD DEAN and his interests?

I need to not post for a while because I find I am very enraged with Obama supporters suddenly. The twisted logic and hypocrisy is what kills me. His campaign stands for everything that is the total opposite of his campaign slogans!!!!!

:unsure:

HC, I haven't had a chance to respond to your first post but talk about a double standard here.

You can post 10 negative Obama posts to my 1 negative Hillary post any day of the week. Sure, there may be more Obama supporters here but our criticism of Hillary is not near as scathing as yours of Obama. You have even put down people who support Obama, like you did in this post (such as don't "CONFUSE" Obama supporters with the facts. Well excuse me, but didn't the DNC make it CLEAR NOT to move of the primary date? Now you don't like the consequences.

I could go back and look at many posts where you have been less than disrespectful to members here - and don't even talk about vicious, relentless attacks on Hillary. You don't call calling Obama an idiot a "smear"? How about calling him "unsubstantive and just fluff"? How can any of the issues be front and center when the candidates are down in the mud all the time?

And believe me, I have been accused of many things on this board, just for expressing my opinion. There are many times I could have responded to your negative attacks on Obama that I CHOOSE not to.

I DON'T put down people who support Hillary, even if I don't agree with their views.

And you're getting to the point where you can't stand Obama supporters? Why? Because they disagree with you? I chose to support Obama after Gore did not get in the race. I did so because he spoke out against the war, he wants to do something about NAFTA, he has a lot of grassroots support, hasn't taken as much money from special interest groups. I want someone whom I feel will represent the people.

Quotes are by Texan for Gore

"HC, I haven't had a chance to respond to your first post but talk about a double standard here.

You can post 10 negative Obama posts to my 1 negative Hillary post any day of the week. Sure, there may be more Obama supporters here but our criticism of Hillary is not near as scathing as yours of Obama."

Are you including reelectGore in that calculation? His posts are nothing but scathing attacks on Hillary and also accusing anyone who doesn't agree with him about Obama of being: 1.) not a true Gore supporter, 2.) a shill for Clinton and/or a rabid Clinton supporter; and, my personal favorite: 3.) a racist.

THAT is attacking behavior. THAT is a smear.

My anti-Obama posts do not attack other posters here. They focus on the substance of why I do not like Barack Obama, and usually in response to being DIRECTLY ASKED WHY I AM NOT FOR OBAMA.

So, yes, I totally see a double standard.

"You have even put down people who support Obama, like you did in this post (such as don't "CONFUSE" Obama supporters with the facts."

That was AFTER you chose to say I "smear" Obama. All bets are off now.

"Well excuse me, but didn't the DNC make it CLEAR NOT to move of the primary date? Now you don't like the consequences."

Yes, they did and yes I don't. The punishment does not fit the crime, is misdirected at the wrong people, and is fatal to the party and our country. "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

"I could go back and look at many posts where you have been less than disrespectful to members here"

That is a slanderous lie. The only member I have said anything against is reelectGore in response to his outrageous, vicious personal attacks on me and others (and even with him, even after he called me "racist" because I am not for Obama, I've tried to reach out and find common ground), and also when Dem4ever accused me of not being a true Democrat (again, apparently all because I don't like Obama...or was it Howard Dean...whichever, if you don't like one of them, you are somehow now not a true Democrat), I defended myself. Defending yourself is allowed. Would you like to be called a "racist" just because you don't like a candidate who happens to be black, white, purple or pink? Wouldn't you defend yourself? How about if someone said you are not a true Gore supporter because you don't like Obama (or Howard Dean, or whoever)? THOSE are attacks. I have NEVER attacked a poster on this board, nor would I. No matter how many times you state otherwise, I'm a respectful person, as I thought you were, until today.

"And you're getting to the point where you can't stand Obama supporters? Why? Because they disagree with you?"

No, because they (in general, NOT all Obama supporters) CONSTANTLY ATTACK people, they distort or outright misstate reality/facts, and they are total hypocrites.

"I chose to support Obama after Gore did not get in the race. I did so because he spoke out against the war, he wants to do something about NAFTA, he has a lot of grassroots support, hasn't taken as much money from special interest groups. I want someone whom I feel will represent the people."

Fine! When you signed up to support Obama, did they also make you sign something saying you would call any comments that disagreed with Obama "smears", and to accuse people of attacking other posters when the REVERSE has been true on this board for months: I have been the object of attacks on here for months and have been offered by a great mod on this board that someone be suspended or banned for that, but you know what? I said NO, that's okay, I don't ask for that. I will defend myself, and let free speech even of those who attack me reign supreme here. And I have. But you twisting things around in typical Obama supporter fashion and claiming that the attackee is the attacker? That is just plain surreal. And here I thought you were such a decent person...but you are identical to reelectGore. An Obamabot! This board has been taken over by pro-Obama attackers who go after anyone who disagrees with them on ANYTHING! I've been a member since 2004 and a member of another Gore board since long before that, but, earthmother, if you are reading this, my dear friend, I am leaving this Gore community now because I am relentlessly attacked now because I can't stand Obama. I've had it. Goodbye. I hope we (earthmother and I) will always remain friends and exchange e-mails sometimes. And I hope Gore will become president someday (maybe even this election!).

And someday, I hope that fair, respectful people (like Wayne, Andrew, Earthmother, James Aquila, etc.) will take back over this board. I know the folks running it are that way. But too many of the folks participating now are just bizarrely nasty attackers on anyone who disagrees with them about anything and I am OUTTA HERE.

Goodbye, from someone who has been a member since 2004 and never had a problem with anyone until the Obamabots took over and started ATTACKING me relentlessly and unfairly, all because I disagree with them. Anything and everything that disagrees with them on anything and everything gets ATTACKED into submission. Well, they have succeeded now in driving me outta here. Saying I'm not a true Gore supporter didn't do it. Saying I'm not a true Democrat didn't do it. Even calling me a racist because I don't support Obama didn't do it. But saying I attack other posters on this board when I never have and never will? And accusing me of "smearing" Obama? Those two items have, cumulatively when taken with all the rest, put it over the top. The straws that broke the camel's back. But I will miss you guys a lot (all the decent people here). But this is not the same Al Gore community as it was before. God help the Democratic party if what is happening here in our little community is a microcosm of what is occuring in the party as a whole. God help us. This is awful. Peace out, fellow Gore supporters.

HC, I see you took off the part where you said "You can eff off, girl."

I am at work so I don't have time to respond the way I want to, but I do not appreciate a lot of your comments. I defended you when you were called a racist. And I have NEVER spoken to you the way you have me.

I will give you one instance of the insults you've thrown - go back and look at the thread where you were mad about the John Kerry "fabricated" quote. Better yet, I'll bring it forward so you can reread it.

This has gotten out of hand, and I don't think any of us wants to see hangingchad leave. She's in a difficult position here, being pretty much the only one who supports Hillary. But she has never treated our members with disrespect, and I hate to see her go. Maybe we can all beg on bended knees for her to stay?

I know hangingchad is good people, as is most everyone here. and I don't want her to leave. To go along with our political passion I say we need a big helping of compassion.

Hangingchad, don't leave on my account. I am sorry if I went overboard. I think we both have strong convictions on the subject and I let my anger get the best of me.

You are obviously a well-respected member of this board and have certainly been here longer than I have. Please stay.

Wow! I go away for a day and all hell breaks loose.

HC please don't leave. We need dissenting voices here to keep us all honest.

Texan for Gore, I really appreciate your post and your PM. I sent you a PM in response (I think...this board software doesn't save a copy of PMs you send in your "sent file", I just found out...and I don't see an option to change that...anyway, I THINK I sent you a PM, but I'm a Florida voter here, so who knows what in the flip I actually did; I probably just cast a vote for Pat Buchanon!).

I also appreciate everyone else's kind words, too. I mean, I REALLY appreciate it a lot. This community is important to me and I don't want to leave!!! I overreacted to Texan for Gore's comments on Friday and I apologize. A combo of factors were in play there, part of which I think was that I've felt exquisitely defensive around here lately, due to being attacked by a few folks, and so I think I was just poised to overreact to the next thing that even seemed like an attack and the fact that it was Texan for Gore whom I really like and respect just really made it hurt all the more...not that anything she said was that bad or deserved the over-the-top reaction I gave it, but thar ya go, the definition of overreaction is that the thing you are reacting to didn't deserve the way you reacted to it. This emotional primary season strikes again!

I think that on a political board like this, passionately discussing, ranting and/or pontificating about issues AND about political figures such as the candidates or the head of the DNC or whomever is fair game. However, attacking each other is not. As earthmom points out, I'm in a bit of a dicey position because I find myself in the minority/dissenting camp on several things in my beloved Gore community here, where I'm usually in lock step with my fellow Goristas. But it seems most of you guys are pro-Obama and I'm not, and most of you guys are pro-Dean and I'm not (I've always been out of step on that latter item, but since the delegate sitch this year, I'm really over HERE on Dean and you guys are over THERE for the most part). I think I should be able to rant and rave and carry on as usual about any issues or political figures I feel like, just as I hope you guys will all do the same, and if anyone disagrees with me about anything, but all means, take me on substantively just as I will take you on. But we just have to remember (including myself in this!) to be respectful of EACH OTHER as people and we'll be fine.

Anyway...I'm baaa-ack. Like the proverbial bad penny. :lol: Thanks for having me!

edited to add: Texan for Gore, a *cyberhug* to you! :wub:

Welcome Back HC!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Hey hangingchad - I got your pm and I replied. Again, I'm sorry for our disagreement and the hurtful things I said. Hey, I overreacted myself and think I have some serious disease called "election fatigue." :!: :laugh:

This is a great community and should be a place where each person can voice his or her opinion and frustrations, regardless of what side of the fence you're on. After all, we are a "support" group. :laugh: I realize you're in a bad predicament there in Florida and I can't blame you. The truth is, if that was happening in Texas right now, I think I'd be pretty upset too. :spikey: So you just keep voicing your opinion and we'll be there to lend our support!!!

Welcome back!!!! ((((hugs))))

Horshack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, Texan for Gore! I sent you another PM today. This whole thing has, in the end, actually reaffirmed my faith in this Gore community. What a fab bunch of humans we are! We're going to make it through this crazy primary season and beyond. Not sure about the country and the planet, but our community is healthy. I'm very grateful for that.