Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Visit the Democratic Party
Hillary Clinton for President 2008!
She's our only chance guys! She's got senator experience, she's got the moderate views, most importantly, she's got the last name. If we nominate her in the primaries, we will no doubt bring a democrat back into the White House. So, what do you think?
further reasons WHY she'll win can be found at:
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Hillary can do more good where she is, she can't win.
Liberals need to be team players with one goal,get Republicans out of office and not try to run the party. The Democratic party has to run someone that can win, not another Liberal that will surely loose. The last two elections should show us that a different mesenger with the same message will loose. By all rights Bush shouldn't have gotten 20% of the vote but he did because of that "L" word and nothing else. We have to smarten up and admit the reasons for failure or the U.S. will be a one party country from now on.It's that simple.
I am sorry we NEED to RUN a L
I am sorry we NEED to RUN a Liberal no more of this moderate crap.
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies"
The Atheist Bible(My website)
Ding Ding Ding
We hava Winnah!!!
Hillary Rodham Clinton
She would not simply be the first woman elected President of the United States of America, she would be the first woman who was elected because of who she is, what she believes in, and what she stands for, and not for her gender; although that in and of itself would be long overdue.
It's not just women that would support her, it's people. People will take her seriously. Serious enough to get more involved in being more instrumental in contribution to the politics of our government, and the campaigns and elections thereof.
She has been making a very big difference since 1992, she has the incredible opportunity to make some very good decisions and policies to lead the United States as the next president.
She’s a symbol of great strength, courage, and conviction. That's the kind of American who should be leading our country: the kind of American who people will listen to, respect, and follow.
Tug, OR we can stop being
Tug,
OR we can stop being weaklings and simply fight.
Kerry was not liberal, Bush
Kerry was not liberal, Bush made the label and it stuck because people were stupid enough to buy it. It doesn't matter if you think Hillary is moderate. The Republicans will stick the "L" label on her anyway, and people will be stupid enough to buy into it again. We might as well run a real progressive with real ideas instead of the Republican lite that you recommend.
Psst. Hey bro, who are you
Psst. Hey bro, who are you talking to? That comment was posted in November. I think the one you are looking for is:
http://www.democrats.com/node/1565#comment-28057
Hey bro,
this is where YOUR link (http://www.democrats.com/node/1565#comment-28057)
took me.
Go to the bottom of this
Go to the bottom of this page, click "last page" and it's the last comment on it. For some reason, navigation to comments on multipage topics doesn't work. Don't ask...
get one
We as a party need to get a backbone. Democrats are always on the offensive. When the GOP starts screaming liberal, as the dems start running and bluburing. There's nothing wrong with being a liberal, there's more of us than conservatives. In fact liberals like FDR, and Al Smith are made are party great. The fact is that Kerry-who I actually liked- was "someone who could win." And he didn't. Instead of acting like cowards we should support and empower our partymates. After all if Hillary is so doomed and can't win why is the GOP trying to "stop" her and raising money nearly four years in advance?
WE WILL LOSE
I'll say it again...we just lost the elction and now we are setting ourselves up to lose again. there is no way a woman is going to be voted president(not yet). We need to find a canidate THAT HAS A CHANCE to win. Sorry but we have not come that far in this country (yet)
WTF People!!!
The real reason a woman hasn’t won is because neither of the Major Parties has selected one in the primaries. If/when the Democrats stop being sexists and elect a Woman in the primaries she will have a 50/50 chance of wining ... my friends that much better than the unbelievably slim chance of a third party win. Its not the country that is the problem it is the two Major Parties ... we (our party leadership) have been the sexist pigs ... most Americans are not.
Furthermore I think a female president in America would signal a new era in this country ... one that’s long overdue. No matter how scared some of you are about a “Liberal Woman” it will not stop the rest of us who do care about equality and are not bound by “YOUR” fears.
We lost the election because of scams and the new apparently severely damaging trend of the Democratic party playing to the supposed middle of the road crap. We are Liberals people. The more you alienate that (our core) the more divided we will become.
I am all for that
I'd strongly support ANY female candidate, regardless if she's a Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian - providing she wasn't Hillary Clinton.
It is high time America had a woman in the White House, good post!!!
You're joking -right?
Please tell me that you are joking about voting for someone no matter what the party based on the candidate being a woman.
Margaret Thatcher
I appreciate what you are saying with regards to the potential of a woman being voted President of the United States.
I would, however, mention that the United Kingdom, like the United States holds alot on tradition. This said, in 1979, our country elected Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister. Her policies and her party were and are still very right wing and I hope that no one like her ever becomes Prime Minister in the future. My point is that if the snobbery of the British upper classes and the House of Lords did not deter a woman from attaining the Office of Prime Minister, then I see no reason why Hillary Clinton would not have a reasonable chance of being elected President.
Jeez, are all you guys gonna set up the next...
election before we have the votes counted/lawsuits acted upon from this one?
I sometimes wonder just exactly where you all were for the past 4 years.
God forbid.
If we run Hillary, we're setting ourselves up for a repeat of the Mondale/Ferraro. Hillary is a good Senator - not great, but good - and that's entirely fine with me. But President? Not only is she hated by the right wing, but frankly, I don't see that she has the executive experience, or track record, or much else besides name recognition that would qualify her for the post.
We have plenty of good, electable candidates - John Kerry comes to mind - so please, let's not do this. I happen to like winning elections.
Well if.
Well if they are going to contest the election and get anything done about it, they better get it done before inauguration.
Politics have no relation to moral- Niccolo Machiavelli
Howard Dean
what else can i say?
"If Liberty means anything at all it is simply the freedom to tell people what they do not want to hear"
George Orwell
Hillary - Gag me with a spoon
I am a loyal Democrat, but even I would look at the Republican alternative if she were to run. I cannot stand her and I think she has no core beliefs (other than I think her belief is she would do whatever it took to win). Somehow, I think that I am not the only Democrat that feels that way about Hillary. If she ran, the Dems would get blown-out in '08.
Unless the Republicans actual
Unless the Republicans actually announce their 2008 ticket tomorrow, I think we are all jumping the gun by arguing this point. There's much more work to do, and plenty of time for the Repugs to implode. The perfect today candidate today will not be that good 2 years from now much less 4.
So there you are!
I was wondering where the person who really, honestly liked Hillary was. This life-long yellow dog thinks a Hillary run is a deeply disturbing idea. Not just in '08, but ever. And I'm a 44-yr-old female. I oughta love her! Alas, I don't and I can't seem to find more than a handful who do.
SHe's poison.
No Wonder We Can't Win an Election
I've been reading lately about how there needs to be a new moral agenda for the left. I've got it: how about unity. Instead of vilifying Hillary Clinton, I wish Democrats would stand up, with one voice, and say, unequivocally, I support Hillary. So often, I've heard comments like, "Hillary is great, but she's just too divisive, too many people hate her."
Well, guess what? I'm damned excited about the prospect of Hillary running for President. And, guess what? I'm damned tired of hearing right-wing and left-wing commentators alike discussing how Hillary is too divisive, too liberal, too hated by too many people. If she's so hated, then why is she the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic party's nomination? If I were a Republican and I were scared of a Democrat that might actually win a Presidential election, despite the conservative cultural climate, then I'd be howling and screaming and gnashing my teeth in any way that I could in an attempt to scare Democrats away from that person. The conservatives are constantly saying that if liberals are barking about something, you can bet that means the liberals are scared. Well, you know what, that logic works both ways. I'm glad that Republicans are in such an uproar about the prospect of Hillary's running because it means that something must be right, something must be scaring them.
Hillary is a large and startling figure, one that would EASILY win the Democratic primary, as long as conservatives don't convince the Democrats that Hillary could never win the actual election, which is why we must not allow the political rhetoric to cloud our vision. I've already been hearing from liberals that Hillary is too divisive. Well, as Hillary pointed out recently, we are now under a pretty divisive president, and one that is quite successful, at least politically. Moreover, she would provide the clear-cut boundaries that so many undecided moderates yearn for. She's also not nearly as liberal as people make her out to be. She's economically conservative--as was her husband, remember--and she's always been pro-death penalty, which reminds me, where was that issue in the last election?
Don't let the rhetoric blind people this go around, as it did with Howard Dean in 2000. Liberals turned on Dean as quickly as conservatives wanted and encouraged them to. Force people to look at the most controversial issue, which, in the next election, will be people's perception of the ability of a woman to run this country. It's time that we bust through the glass ceiling. HILLARY '08!!!
Missing the point
Kristoph, I think you're missing the point as to why many people do not support a run by Hillary in 2008. It's not because we've bought into the repug propaganda, because we're lacking the proper spirit of unity, or anything like that. It's because - and I assume I speak for more people than just myself - we believe that Hillary is too hated. If she runs, we will face the entire bevy of Clinton-haters.
Now, this alone should not dissuade Democrats, because we'll be dealing with the right wing even if we nominate Jesus of Nazareth. The problem with Hillary, in my opinion, is not just one of perception, but one of substance. She doesn't have a record to point to, and that is a problem.
I'm very engaged in NYC politics, and I can assure you that I'm not the only one with that sentiment. I very much like winning elections, and frankly, I think we have a better shot with someone else - full disclosure: I'm a strong Kerry supporter - than with Hillary.
I do, however, think she would make an amazing secretary of state.
No, you're missing the point.
Bouldin, I'm very aware of the reasoning behind why people do not support Hillary--at least the line of reasoning that posits that Hillary is too hated. Frankly, though, I think that you're missing my point. What I want you to ask is where you got the idea that Clinton is "too-hated" in the first place; moreover, isn't the sitting president hated with an equal fervor, and isn't he quite successful politically?
I know that you think you'll face the entire bevy of Clinton-haters, and what I'm suggesting is that that's FINE. What, exactly, are you so afraid of? Kerry was hated, hated, hated, but that's not the reason that he didn't win. The reason that he didn't win is because he wasn't different enough from Bush; as Nader said, Americans look for clear, bright lines in politics. Honestly, Kerry looked like a taller, less-trustable Bush. Also, the problem with Democrats is that they have bought into the Republican ideology--even though you say that you have not--that centrist is better and that doing anything too radical will not result in a successful election; they've also bought into the Republican idea that Hillary is too hated, when, in fact, Hillary did quite well with Republicans in her Senate bid four years ago.
If you have a problem with "substance," then that's quite a different argument than the "bevy of Clinton-haters" argument--and an argument, I might add, with which many, many people would disagree. In that case--you simply don't think Clinton has substance--I'd leave you alone. I simply do not want the supposition that Democrats shouldn't try to elect Hillary because she's too hated to go unquestioned. As I mentioned in my last post, the Republican propoganda machine is the source of the insidious "divisive" argument, and Democrats have simply accepted it as a given truth. Clearly, however, the Republicans have absolutely no stake in a Democrat winning any presidential election.
It's Very Real; Smear Clinton Campaign.
There really is a very clear, intentional, agressive and massive propaganda (what the military might call pys-ops) campaign being run by the Republican leadership (and those behind the scenes) intent upon destroying the image of Bill Clinton in the public mind. They are systematically dismantling every remaining remnant (every law, policy, position, program, etc) of the Clinton years in our government. At the same time, and in support of their actions, they take every opportunity to insult and reject Clinton. Just listen to interviews, at seemingly random points, they'll break off into a rant against Clinton, Clinton's policies, Clinton's attitudes etc.
This is all to be expected; Clinton showed the most glaring weaknesses of the Republican party. In other words, he and his way of thinking represent a very real threat to Republican hegemony. They're just trying to make themselves look good and simultaneously make the moderate democratic position seem wrong or bad. While Clinton's Sex Scandals have nothing to do with bad government or unwise policy positions; somehow they're able to conflate the two--convincing many that his governance was bad because he suffered a relatively minor fall from grace (who among us has not sinned?). Anyone who honestly looks at the issue, knows that there really was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and it was out to get Bill Clinton even when he was in office!
The sad fact is, they are masters of manipulating our thoughts! They control the media. It's simply hard to resist giving weight to arguments if you hear them repeated over and over and over again. It's actually hard to remember how things were back when Clinton was president; and it's only been several years! It's just so easy to replace our memories and opinions with a new version. The truths that Bill Clinton made a substantial improvement in our economy, brought world respect for America, kept our military strong while reducing it's size--as everyone wanted since we didn't have a cold war to wage, balanced the budget, ensured Social Security, and just made America a better place to be,... these truths are easy to forget.
This campaign to destroy Clinton's legacy is but part and parcel of teh Republican approach to politics. If they can't win on substance, they attack and destroy the reputations of their opponents. They are so good at this, that they scarcely even need any real evidence of past wrongdoing to accomplish their goals. They can make the most insignificant thing sound like it's both horrendous and reasonably so. By these means they've made the word "Liberal" into such a negative term that, even we, doubt ourselves. We begin to talk of moving more to the Right. We seem embarrassed to be labelled "Liberal". We're falling for their tricks; and they are mounting such a powerful attack that it's hard not to.
Be Aware, and Resist.
Kristoph, I think we're argui
Kristoph, I think we're arguing in circles here. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that we should all get behind Hillary for 2008, and that those of us who disagree have in some measure been hoodwinked by the right-wing arguments made against her.
My first answer would be that the fact that we're even having this discussion is prima facie evidence of Senator Clinton's being a divisive figure within the party itself. I'm a very strong Democrat, but I do not see that she is the best candidate we could field. That's not a conclusion I arrive at because of over-exposure to the various blowhards of the right, but simply because of political calculation.
I also doubt that we can, by an effort of the will as it were, make irrelevant the pre-existing animus against the Senator that is without question already out there. I'll be the first to admit that Hillary has gotten, and is getting, a bum rap from the noise machine - but that does not change the essential fact that hatred of her is a fact. We shouldn't try to ignore or will away facts - that's the province of the other side.
I very much want to win the upcoming elections, and would prefer to win them with candidates broadly acceptable to the American public. We need to unite the country behind our standard-bearer in 2008, and having Senator Clinton be that person is, in my opinion, a handicap that can be avoided. I'm all for pragmatism in politics, and that dictates taking into account the opinions of the electorate and of the party itself. To give an example, Kerry would be preparing his cabinet now if he had gotten the same share of Democrats that Al Gore did - but he didn't.
To clarify, I do not buy into the position that Hillary is "too left-wing" to be elected. If anything, she is too moderate for my taste. We can and will win the 2006 and 2008 elections, I believe, but only be emphasizing economic populism instead of the wishy-washy centrism that the party has embraced.
At the same time, I posit that this discussion is somewhat premature. It's entirely possible that Hillary will work very hard to raise and tailor her profile in the next four years to make herself less "divisive". We shall see.
As sexist as it sounds, a wom
As sexist as it sounds, a woman from either party can not win the presidency at this point in the evolution of the American political landscape. I'm not even sure that a woman VP would be a viable candidate.
Unfortunately, the USA is not as enlightened as other parts of the world where women can, and do, win high political offices and become national leaders. For the most part, the Christian religious right still believes that a woman is subservient to a man. The inequality in corporate pay for women further supports the view that women and their thinking are somehow "less valuable" than a man in the same position.
Sadly, Hillary is a good person but not a viable candidate. America is still too backward to jump this hurdle, and that is only one of the many issues that we as Democrats need to change. And, this would NOT be considered a "moderate" view on our part.
What you're saying isn't sexi
What you're saying isn't sexist at all, but what I'm suggesting is that how can we begin to change ideas if we don't even take some risks. I guess that's part of the larger problem. The Democrat party has become scared of its own shadow, so much so that we have forgotten our ideological goals: to break down barriers that shouldn't be in place to begin with. Everything that you said is right, and even if Hillary does lose, wouldn't that be a step in the right direction? Plus, if women voters were to come out in support of a fellow female candidate--remember, in the last election, they most certainly did not come out in strong support of Kerry--then the Democrats would win.
What you suggest is certainly
What you suggest is certainly the idealistic stand, but my concern is twelve (or more) consecutive years of Republican rule. I believe that we need to determine what is achieveable, and then use the "bully pulpit" to introduce change.
Personally I would like to see Hillary run and be elected. To have her run, and be defeated by the sexist and bigoted right however, would be even more demoralizing to our party I believe.
Prez campeign
we need to start campeigning now, if we watn to break down barriers. Hillary was really influential in the Clinton administration, it's like she was the real acting president. Maybe we need to buy a radio station and keep blaring out propaganda like the right-wing idiots. If the FCC tells us to stop, keep doing it. If Bush tells us to stop we tell him to f*** off, then accuse him of undermining our first amendment rights, which it is.
WE NEED TO BRING THE REPUGS INTO A TRAP AND BEAT THEM WHEN THEY FALL FOR IT.
Beat them at their own game.
The fact is that no woman can be elected President .
The Republicans would love for Hillary to run because they would have no problem beating her. I like her but Democrats must face reality, something they have not done the last two elections. No liberal out of the current pack can beat a republican for president.The demographics nationwide have shown that. Regionally, it's a different story in some cases. This election came down to the same states as the last one did and that won't change for the next election unless a moderate runs on the Democratic ticket. With the results of the last two presidential elections, this should be perfectly clear. The Liberal wing of the party needs to back off and be team players and help us get a candidate that can win otherwise we get nothing. Liberals screamed when Nader ran again and said he should be a team player and he would get some of his ideas under a Democratic President. Well the same thing holds true for Liberals, they need to be team players for the sake of the party and they will get something under a Democratic President.
I'm confused. You use the ter
I'm confused. You use the term "Liberal" as if it were a bad thing. The Democratic party and its platform ARE liberal -- as opposed to "conservative." If you are speaking of the far-left, then they are not liberal at all -- they are socialists. If you are advocating that we Liberals swing to the right and give in to the religious right demands for relinquishing one iota of our Constitutional rights and freedoms, then you are indeed "Republican Lite."
If you have bought in to the Republican definition of a "Liberal" then you have been brainwashed.
Hard or Soft?
No, No. Get your mind out of the gutter.
What I'm refering to, of course, is Peter Beinart's article in today's The New Republic titled "A Fighting Faith". It discusses the issue of "hard" liberals willing to use force to impose liberal democracies around the globe, versus "soft" liberals who shrink from such direct involvement. JFK and LBJ were of the hard variety, Howard Dean would be of the soft. It's actually quite an interesting article, and addresses our current predicament wherein a majority of Americans regard the threat of Islamic terrorism to be the #1 issue of the day, and don't think Democrats are up to the task of meeting that challenge. And so they voted Republican.
So I'm just wondering what the denizens of Democrats.com think about the issue. But please go read the article first.
Sorry ....
I meant to post that as a new thread, but I guess I don't know how. Oh well.
Too extreme
Hillary is very unpopular throughout the country unfortunately, she has no chance of winning, sorry to break the news, I think Al Sharpton has a better chance of winning than Hillary, she is very well despised, I like her, but we can't run her.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Digging a hole
There is a saying "When your digging yourself a whole, stop digging"
We have dug too deap.
Although we can consider the credibility of the last too elections too.
In 2006 we MUST take back the Congress, and in 2008 we MUST take back the White House. We said this time, it was the most important election of our lifetime, well this election in 2006, and 2008 are even more important now, we have to take this country from King George. I do not even want to think about what this country is going to be like in 2008, it will be a disaster, we have no choice to win in 2008.
I think running Hillary Clinton is a moot point, we know, if we take this seriously she has no chance of winning, this country will not vote for her right or wrong.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Michael Moore for President!
Michael Moore would have a better turn out than Hillary. He is down to Earth, doesn't hold back on the issues,and obviously right down your alley if you think Hillary has a chance in hell of getting elected.
what!!
I never said that, I am just stating the facts of who has a fighting chance to win, we have to win.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
Sorry KarlMarx, that was directed at this whole thread,
Not you in particular.
;)
its ok
That is ok, We have to win, and we need to focus on people that are "electable" I hate that phrase but its true
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
I wish everyone would stop th
I wish everyone would stop this talk of Hillary in '08. I believe it was the republicans desire to unseat Bill that really ratcheted up the divisiness and hatred in this country and you think they would welcome a return of the Clinton's? Maybe in our dreams or if Bush makes such an unholy mess they are willing to sacrifice anything for a return to real values and responsible governance. No, what we need is someone who appeals to a broad spectrum of the people and not just democrats. Someone with political courage and willing to stand up for democratic values - which are just as good and more honest than conservative values.
Please remember, we also need good people in the house and senate and some are better suited to serve in those capacities and IMO Hillary is one.
Having said that; I loved to see the Clinton's back in the White House with either one in charge, I just don't think it's gonna happen divided as we are.
What the democrats need is a
What the democrats need is a clear message that most people can agree on, such as healthcare for everyone and more funding to improve schools. Who the hell would say no to THAT? I sure wouldn't. Like I said before, it doesn't matter who the person is. We need a message that appeals to everyone, like cleaner energy or independence from foreign oil. Who DOESN'T want cleaner air and cheap gas? Nobody(maybe Halliburton, but who cares send Cheney a tub of "I can't believe it's not butter" and he'll have a heart attack and die and send Bush a pretzel and he'll choke on it.)lol
And if necessary, we'll resort to personal attacks. Remember, politics is NOT a dignified career. We need a gimmick, and can't be indecisive. We need someone who stands by their word.
Or, we can beat them at their own game and nominate Donald Trump. He has excellent people skills and he's a professed republican. But he hates Bush.(Type in "Trump fires Bush" on yahoo and look for an article from the New York Daily News.) Plus, he doesn't have any negative publicity, except that he ended up in bankrupcy court once. Not a lot of peopl know anyways.
I think Donald Trump has what it takes to be president. He played with the idea too. He's an entrepreneur, he runs a successful real estate company, he doesn't have the label "Liberal" on his face, and most of all, he knows how to sell his ideas. That's what he's been doing all his life.
Focus people
I love a good pointless argument as much as the next guy, but why are we so overly worried about Hillary? Or Dean? Or Richardson? How about 2005 first. If we continue to worry about who in Washington is our best candidate, instead of changing our bashed image locally, it matters not who we nominate.
WELL SAID!
WELL SAID!
Could this be one of those "f
Could this be one of those "forest for the trees" kind of thing? It's like the Taliban army marksmanship training program: ready, fire, aim.
Hillary would be a disaster
HILLARY WOULD BE A DISASTER. If we have Hillary Clinton run for President, We might as well signal the demise of our party for a long time.....atleast until 2012 or 2016. we cannot afford Hillary. Everyone now needs to take a lesson from my words now: Hillary would be a disaster. Yes, she is loved by Democrats and would be an enthusiastic opportunity to put the last two elections straight in retropect. But she is hated by Repuglicans.....and they would turn out in all full force to demonize her in a landslide. I say NO TO HILLARY. Hillary would be a disaster. Write your state and local Democrats - particularily if you are in Iowa, NH, or SC. Make sure they do not listen to the Media......or the Repugs. Make sure that the Dems nominate anyone but hillary in 2008. Gore, Edwards. For god sake go with Lieberman. He has a better chance of winning. ROFL. nominate Kerry again. go with Evan Bayh or Bill Richardson. Go with Vilsack. Go with Blagojevich. Go with Obama. But do not please do not, Mark my words do not go with Hillary.
OK Guys, first and foremost,
OK Guys, first and foremost, she will no longer be viewed as the annoying lefty-first-lady in 2008. She is actually moving towards a centrist position, and by then she will have made her "new" self known. A candidate like this would not only unite democrats and our country as a whole, but it would unite men and women in politics. Listen to these numbers I've just researched...
-We have had 26 women governors in the history of our country.
-We have 59 women representatives (108th congress) (38Dems,21Reps)
-and of course, 14 women senators (108th congress) (9Dems, 5Reps)
including Hillary :-)
having a woman president IS possible in our time. and if you don't think its possible, you should help make a change in history.
If there is EVER going to be a woman president, it will be Hillary Clinton, so if you want to stick together as a strong party, stop complaining because she's all we've got!
A 'centrist,' huh?
Count me out.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
Moot
I thought this was a moot point, most of the country will not vote for her. She would do a great job, but as I said already there is an old saying "If your digging yourself a hole stop digging" we have to win 2006, and 2008. Of course that is not looking at the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections. But it just won't work.
Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles. ~ Abbie Hoffman