Town Square

Post a New Topic

Hillary Clinton's female avengers to hit Barack Obama

Original post made by sally, Ohlone School, on May 16, 2008



The backlash from women to Hillary Clinton's almost certain defeat for the Democratic Party's nomination has started in earnest.
While many supporters accept Senator Clinton made strategic mistakes in her campaign, they are pointing to "intense sexism" in the race, where, among other things, the former first lady has been likened to the Glenn Close character in the movie Fatal Attraction -
a psychopathic jilted female who haunts a suburban family, and in the end, keeps refusing to die.

Hillary Clinton — like her husband — is a creature who follows her nature. Scorpions must sting. Ants must save food for winter.
Clintons must fight.

Comments (32)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Papa Doodle
a resident of Greater Miranda
on May 16, 2008 at 11:32 am

Seriously who cares what women think. Young women don't vote and don't follow politics. The older set follow what is happening in their children's schools more than national politics. The married ones follow what hubby says most of the time. So that leaves the single thick chick or lezbo crowd - the perfect Hillary demographic.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by sam
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

GYNEPHOBIA

Does Democratic Sen. Barack Obama have female troubles?


If a guy writes a paean to a father who abandoned him as an infant instead of the mother and grandmother who raised him, I notice. I grew up under similar circumstances. I'm pretty sure my book would have been called, "Dreams From My Mother."

If a guy faced with the public revelation that his pastor and mentor is a race-baiting hater of the nation then says his grandmother was worse, I notice.

If a guy dismisses with a sarcastic "sweetie" a question from a middle-aged female reporter. I notice.

Pattern. = "gynephobia."

Of more import, women notice. Democratic women. Many of the female voters of Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton likely feel marginalized because they are not bouncy Obama Girls fainting at his feet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mike w b
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 16, 2008 at 12:09 pm

By no stretch of the imagination could Hillary Clinton ever amuse the rest of us the way these other presidents have.
She's like one of those short, stubby running backs no one can tackle because you can't get your arms around them.
Using her as a comic launching pad is like waiting to get a hoot out of Greenland or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Even her most outrageous comments are plausibly, prosaically outrageous. She is annoying without being preposterous, absurd without being flat-out nuts.

Even when she lies – as she did when describing that sniper fire in Bosnia – she ruins everything by carping and quibbling, instead of clamming up and letting the rest of us have a nice therapeutic guffaw. When Nixon lied, he'd lie up a storm, and everyone could get a big laugh out of it. When Bill Clinton lied – I never inhaled, I did not have sex with "that woman" – you could hear the entire country go into convulsions.
Hillary, by contrast, takes all the joy out of deceit. Everybody likes a good liar. But nobody likes a tergiversator.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Palo Parent
a resident of Greenmeadow
on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Tergiversator:

To change repeatedly one's attitude or opinions with respect to a cause, subject, etc.

Whew!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 16, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Interesting. So many opinions about what women don't think. A very bad book called "The Political Brain" was written by a man who didn't even bother to interview women. It was recommended to me by a very brilliant woman, a strong feminist, who hadn't even noticed that. (The author also doesn't interview any of those voters who haven't been registered and mailed to for years. They're not significant, either.)

The Clinton debacle was unexpected. She split the Democratic base so badly, between the race baiting and the blatant claims to own the Latino vote that neither she nor Obama could expect a united party. If she'd kept to her claims to be better as a President, she might have had a chance, if Obama lost. Now I think she's toast, maybe even in New York. Not just with African-Americans. A lot of us think this country needs to stop the Identity politics. Pundits are joking that she'll call for segregation when she gets to Kentucky. Not funny.

It's fortunate for Obama that he's built his own following through registering so many new voters.

If McCain wins, perhaps we can expect the legislative branch to regain some power, because McCain is a follower, not a leader. He has no legislative record to speak of. He's the Republican the Democrats went to when they wanted to look bipartisan, as in McCain-Feingold.

(The Republicans of course went to Joe Lieberman. How fitting that they are campaigning together.) McCain never could muster support for anything even in his own party. He got in a fist fight with Republican Charles Grassley on the Senate floor. I think he's a scary old creep, lost in dreams of his own personal glory. No wonder he started his campaign in the family home in old Mississippi.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pam
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 16, 2008 at 5:28 pm

misogyny has been rampant in this campaign, largely undercover of the press' claims of invented racism. hillary clinton is the only person who can beat mccain; that will become more apparent, soon, assuming obama even gets the nod. this race is almost even, except for electability, a quality that obama already shows he lacks in an election against a social moderate. he can't even beat a social moderate from his own party, in key swing states. do you really think that the superdelegates who won't commit until august haven't noticed that?
we should note that "papa" is a very insecure person, who is normally shunned by women anyway, so who cares what he thinks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pam
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 16, 2008 at 5:39 pm

hillary is closing in oregon = Web Link - - - :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Girlyman
a resident of Meadow Park
on May 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I have to admit, I'm a man and I was really rooting for Obama, just because I didn't want a chick president. Now I'm kind of sorry because Obama is an ultra ultra lib, though he does seem very smart and nice. I think Hill-dawg would have been much more of a centrist. I think Obama's presidency is inevitable. I'm voting for McCain, though. Obama's plan to raise the cap on Social Security is going to seriously hurt my family. Funny how politicians are always fighting for the working poor, but don't seem to care about the working families that dare to earn over 200k, and dare to live in the Bay Area where a tiny 1950's era house costs over a million dollars, which puts your property taxes over 15 grand, then on top of that you get subject to the AMT, so you can't deduct a lot of that stuff. But, as Obama told Wolf Blitzer, "we're doing pretty well."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 16, 2008 at 7:49 pm

The House Majority Whip, James Clyburn, first told Bill Clinton to cool it after South Carolina. Neither Clinton listened. Clyburn recently appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to say that "colleagues" were approaching him on the floor of the House to say that the Clintons were in danger of creating an irreparable breach with the African-American community. This from a party stalwart, an undeclared superdelegate, a very powerful insider. Be realistic, even if you're a Democrat.

Hillary Clinton may very well have thrown the election to John McCain. And he may very well throw it back, as he fumbles and stumbles in his hitherto romantic relationship with the press. If he wins, he'll be putty in the hands of the Congress. Really stupid to start your campaign by bragging about how many vetoes you're going to throw your first year. Junior High School.

But kidding yourself about the genuine, and genuinely poisonous racist stuff the Clintons have thrown into the campaign is akin to pretending that Clinton didn't seal her own fate when she backed Bush so heavily on all his war moves. She thought the Iraq war would be won, and would make her President. Instead, it, and the language about destroying Iran, have made her radioactive.

Because of Clinton, it may be a question of who will lose this election (besides the voters), not who will win.

There's no way to nullify the damage she's done - she'd be worse on the ticket that off. She will be 68 in eight years. Too old. Reagan's Alzheimer's changed the age equation.

Her only hope to put the Clintons back in the White House is to see Barack Obama lose.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm

We are fully in the YouTube age, the blog age. First campaign where all of a candidate's worst moments are looped. Many people are no longer dependent on press clips and newspaper editorials.

Hillary Clinton's " hard-working people, white people" -I've heard that recording at least six times.

I've seen Reverend Wright's clips almost as often. And John McCain's Reverend Hagee - an intolerant nut calling the Catholic Church "the great whore" and declaring Hurricane Katrina God's punishment for homosexuals. All this stuff is beyond the control of political campaign pros.

I can see the Democratic ad now, listing all the earmarks John McCain has denounced, after he'd voted for them. Matching earmarks to his campaign contributors. It's in the public record; they have the resources to find it.

Cindy McCain might have to fund her husband's campaign, if his own contributors begin to worry that he'll take himself seriously. His Republican colleagues have more to worry about - they got more of the earmarks and they really need them now.

Arizona would dry up and blow away if the government didn't water the place. Amazing to hear people utterly dependent upon the government ranting against government spending.

This is going to be a very different election.

I expect that huge amounts of money will be spent on suppressing the vote and gaming the equipment.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on May 16, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Note that Mike W B plagiarized his entire post from this article by Joe Queenan in the May 16, 2008 Wall Street Journal:

Web Link

Funny stuff Mike W B, but you really should have attributed the source of the material...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 1984
a resident of Midtown
on May 17, 2008 at 6:49 am

Carol: You tell us all about your newspeak 1984 world view when you claim a 'very intelligent woman" who had supposedly read a book hadn't noticed that not one woman was interviewed for the book. Ok..

And Clinton race-baited ( from your out of context quotes)

AND McCain has done nothing in his 30 years in politics ( yet Barack in his whole two years, with the largest absentee record, has)

AND Hagee, yes a nutcase, but who McCain never listened to, nor gave money to, nor got married by, nor baptised his children by, is equivalent to Wright ( another nutcase filled with racist hate) and Obama ( who gave presence and money for 20 years)

C'mon Carol. Barack has no chance at all against McCain, unfortunately. His latest idiocy, along with the rest of the Dem "leaders" and Clinton, came from going on the high defensive about Bush's appeasement remarks...where he was talking about an IDEA going around now, not a person, and a long dead Senator ( Republican, I might add) from 1939.

I could only scratch my head and say "huh? A little defensive, aren't we Dems??"

And THEN, because he thinks we are all stupid ( as he has stated in various ways over the last 6 months), he claims yesterday that we misunderstood, he didn't think that Bush was talking about him. What?

The American people are not stupid, as much as the media keeps trying to convince you we are.

I am depressed about this election. We have a left, lefter and leftist running, the Dems have turned this into a race/gender presidential race instead of an issue race, McCain won't have the balls to say what needs to be said, the press will continue to cover for Obama be his lapdog, 30% of the Dems will stay home pissed, 30% of the Repubs will stay home in disgust, the middle 40% will determine the fate of the country, and the media will go on pretending to do journalism but really doing propoganda, regardless of who is elected.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 1984
a resident of Midtown
on May 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

The crowning irony is that the most far left of the dems, the ones who are supposedly the most for not disenfranchising voters blah blah blah want to actually CROWN Obama, not elect him.

This is why they keep telling Hilary to get out, even though she has a real chance of actually winning the popular vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Alexandria
a resident of another community
on May 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

How can I add my name to the Hillary Clintons Avengers! They say Hillary is damaging the democratic party. I say obama is the one ruining the party! What will he answer to his daughters when they ask how come we've never had a women president and can I ever be! Shame on you oprah, you are suppose to be this champion for women.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 17, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Obama is an economic conservative, so is Clinton. Look at their records. For that mattter, look at John Edwards. Actually, Obama's rhetoric is too conservative for Edwards.

Look at their votes on credit issues. Look at their backing from hedge funds.

No one knows what Obama will do. I'm opposed to Clinton and McCain because they're incompetent. Clinton's only successes have been in advancing her own interests. Not women's. Not the poor. That's all blather.

In Mexico, the PRI campaigned as revolutionaries.

Apparently, most people in this country are too lazy to look at the records.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 17, 2008 at 1:34 pm

If you're an economic leftist (I'm not) you have no candidate. Edwards forced the rhetoric to the left, but that's not his record

One-half of Obama's funding (the big donors) comes from Wall Street. They want the infrastructure rebuilt (as do I) they want the health crisis solved (as do I) and they want capitalism, not crony capitalism

If it's left-wing to think it's time to put racist appeals in the dustbin, then I'm a racist.

Women are equal. Not better. Equal. Hillary Clinton can't even run a political campaign. She started as invincible. She's fired one top campaign aide after another. We need practicality and competence in the White House. We don't need a silly old man with an ungovernable temper.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Southgate
on May 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Carol Mullen,

Barack Obama supports nuclear power. That makes him competent, on this issue. Do you?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 17, 2008 at 5:24 pm

The French government has been trying to sell us their technology. I doubt that the companies who want it are competent to use it, and they certainly want the government to take all liability for catastrophe. The nuclear industry is asking for huge government subsidies. Lots of graft to be had.

Appalachia and the black ghettoes are my concern. Our politics has depended upon them, and I'd like to see a change. I've no idea what Barack Obama would be able to accomplish, but I know that McCain and Clinton don't want a change. They've had years of fighting and failing. That can't be an accident.

Perhaps Obama doesn't, either, but he has a lot of young people pushing him for change. I think it's time for the next generation to take over.

My family is from Savannah. I grew up hearing people who barely did their own breathing complain about "lazy" colored people and trash. As in "colored people are pushed to the bottom, but trash...just...sinks."

That kind of thinking has harmed this entire country.

Now that you raise the issue of nuclear "power", I expect that Obama's stated intention to concentrate the military on Afghanistan instead of Iraq will provoke something new from Osama bin Laden. Who is living in a nuclear country.

So I'm not enthusiastic about spreading plutonium, either


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 17, 2008 at 6:18 pm

I'd like to have the pleasure of seeing a bit of the future before I die. Really, should all choice have to be pried from "cold, dead hands?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by lmao
a resident of Midtown
on May 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Anyone who can say with a straight face that obama and clinton are "economic conservatives" is a flat out socialist.

Economic conservatives don't propose 1 Trillion dollars in tax hikes...(obama) and almost as much ( clinton).

Any economic conservative knows, beyond a doubt..raising taxes leads to lowering the amount of money coming into the coffers ( because of the effect between the time the law goes in and the taxpayers pay the taxes)

LMAO


 +   Like this comment
Posted by lmao
a resident of Midtown
on May 17, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Even McCain isn't an economic conservative..just less socialist than the other two.

Carol, are you union or something? Oh wait..you must work for the government. Whatever..all I know is that you haven't a clue about how our economics work.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by still lmao
a resident of Midtown
on May 17, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Carol: I spent many formative years in the south ( not saying which state, but suffice it to say we were still fighting public integration in the 70s). When I go back, even my 82 year old grandfather says he was wrong about "coloreds", loves Condi Rice and Colin Powell, and says nothing about the interracial marriages and babies walking down the streets.

You can't keep looking back. THAT is what destroys the country, focus on the wounds of the past. Instead, look at NOW, admire the progress, and keep moving forward.

I mean, really, if you really want to get to it..if you are really a woman anywhere over 50, or maybe even 40..you have experienced incredible sexism. Yet, is it healthy to focus on what has happened in the past? If all the kids focused on the errors of their parents, I believe not one kid would call home when he is grown and gone.

Time to let it go, sister.

Acknowledge the progress, and keep moving forward.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm

There hasn't been any progress for women, when one of the most powerful women in the world gets sympathy for her claims that she hasn't been able to accomplish her promises because she didn't have enough power. We have fewer women in government than most industrial countries. Retrograde, like the British. We don't need a token. We need stronger women, not meaner women. We certainly don't need someone whose entire career is based on her husband's political power.

Nor do we need someone who claims her years as a wife as political credits, nor claims to find her own voice only after having been defeated by a smarter candidate. 35 years in politics, and you haven't got your own voice?



It's stomach-churning to watch her whine about being picked on. Some feminist. It's not an entitlement. She's not owed something from women, she owes a great deal to women.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by disagree
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 7:01 am

Carol, for once you and I are in agreement. She certainly is not feminist for all the reasons you stated. However, she is 65 or so (63?) She was raised pre-"feminism". Those coming behind her are a lot smarter. To claim she represents feminism today is spurious. Why do you think so many women turned against her in the 90s, and so many still have? She falls on the old ways of her college youth.

She represents what got twisted about feminism. Cry when you don't get what you want because "it isn't fair" is not feminism. Deride women who choose to stay home with their kids baking cookies is not "feminism". Use absurd slogans like "it takes a woman to clean up the house" in reference to running for President ( or was that Pelosi?? Darn..sorry, forgot which one..they are of the same silly ilk) is not feminism. And support for abortion even in the 3rd trimester, even multiple times, is NOT feminism. Why has NOW lost so many members? This is why.

I do not measure our progress in feminism by the percent of women in our federal government. Since our FEDERAL government represents a country of 300 million people, unlike any other industrialized democracy, that is apples and oranges. Compare more on a local level, where women simply have to go to the STATE capital, not thousands of miles away, and not split their family up so much, and you find that we have MORE women in government than comparative size countries.

I measure our progress by the freedom our younger women have to make career/family choices. I don't measure by the results, since women are more likely to make the choice to "give up" parts or all of their professional advancement in order to raise their kids better.

So, I think your measuring stick needs adjustment, and I completely disagree with you on the progress of the status of women in our country. I think we are doing great. I am done with the "victim" mentality of the feminists of my youth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by disagree
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 7:01 am

Carol, for once you and I are in agreement. She certainly is not feminist for all the reasons you stated. However, she is 65 or so (63?) She was raised pre-"feminism". Those coming behind her are a lot smarter. To claim she represents feminism today is spurious. Why do you think so many women turned against her in the 90s, and so many still have? She falls on the old ways of her college youth.

She represents what got twisted about feminism. Cry when you don't get what you want because "it isn't fair" is not feminism. Deride women who choose to stay home with their kids baking cookies is not "feminism". Use absurd slogans like "it takes a woman to clean up the house" in reference to running for President ( or was that Pelosi?? Darn..sorry, forgot which one..they are of the same silly ilk) is not feminism. And support for abortion even in the 3rd trimester, even multiple times, is NOT feminism. Why has NOW lost so many members? This is why.

I do not measure our progress in feminism by the percent of women in our federal government. Since our FEDERAL government represents a country of 300 million people, unlike any other industrialized democracy, that is apples and oranges. Compare more on a local level, where women simply have to go to the STATE capital, not thousands of miles away, and not split their family up so much, and you find that we have MORE women in government than comparative size countries.

I measure our progress by the freedom our younger women have to make career/family choices. I don't measure by the results, since women are more likely to make the choice to "give up" parts or all of their professional advancement in order to raise their kids better.

So, I think your measuring stick needs adjustment, and I completely disagree with you on the progress of the status of women in our country. I think we are doing great. I am done with the "victim" mentality of the feminists of my youth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by disagree
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 7:02 am

sorry for the double post...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 18, 2008 at 10:29 am

Well, disagree, if you're a fact-based, memory-based person, you and I probably could come to agreement on more issues than you think. I'm not looking for a pigeonhole. Never have.

We've had smarter women. Shirley Chisholm, felled by multiple sclerosis.

Hillary Clinton is 60, but her brain has aged faster than usual. In baboon troops, the alpha males die very young. Perhaps we primates can't be sure we'll take the stress of ruling the troop.

If you watched the Republican debates, you'd see that the abortion argument is being preserved as a Republican asset. Like gay marriage. They know better than to deliver on their slogans. How would they get their people to the polls?

It's as cold-blooded and ineffective as the Democrats "War on Poverty." It's merchandise for hucksters. So is the cookie-cutter of difference. What politicians' feet, not their mouths.

I'm an atheist. What's in my body is not my government's. Never was.

The anti-abortionists make me think of Romanian orphanages. And Hitler's press to have children for the Fatherland.

Even the Roman Catholic Church supported abortion until the 11th century.

Mike Huckabee, far and away the most intelligent and best educated of the Republican candidates, didn't think there should be a federal law banning abortion. As I remember, only Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, and that twit from Colorado thought it was a good idea.

McCain has always voted "pro-life" and I'm sure he hopes it will remain an "issue" long enough to take him to the White House.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by c'mon
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 11:31 am

Carol, please don't turn this into an abortion thread, which it will with your "what is in my body" rhetorical simplicity. It simply begs the question "so one hour before the baby is born, can you morally and legally kill it?" If goes beyond "religion" and into basic human principles ie: Morality.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by my hero
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 11:32 am

Condi Rice is another great woman.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 18, 2008 at 11:43 am

c'mon - you're raising the issue, as did the person I responded to. I'm not religious. I don't believe in forced kidney transplants, either. You should follow your religious beliefs, if they give you comfort.

For me, it's pure, cynical politics that's being played. Death's not appealing, but neither is the life after death that most religions offer.

As for feminism, American and British women are behind the women of other countries in many ways, but that's being cynically used by Clinton, as is her war pitch in areas full of retired military - like West Virginia. Women are her targets; not her commitment.

This country is huge. I think it's too large to be efficient at anything but graft. Even that failed under the Bushies. Only his cronies got richer.

The silly folks who think he didn't raise their taxes don't understand that he imposed a wealth tax. He depreciated the dollar. Everything they own is worth less in the market. Everything we all own.

More war will create another wealth tax.

Obama doesn't always make sense, but McCain and Clinton never do. Just cant. So, if you see guaranteed losses, why not put your bet on the unknown


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carol Mullen
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 18, 2008 at 11:46 am

I buy euros and loonies, and invest in South America, so I've watched the currency flow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by holding up a mirror.
a resident of Midtown
on May 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Carol: Your world view is fueled by ignorance and a template of bitterness, hate, and cynicism. I don't want to hijack this thread into pointing out all the facts that defy your beliefs. But, I do want to say that I feel sorry for you, you must be a very miserable person.

I just hope you aren't in a position to pass this drivel on to young impressionable minds. You speak like some of the lectures by the far left wing feminists I have heard in some of our "elite" universities, where somehow facts are irrelevant, it is all about relativity and constructivism ( or deconstruction) and emotion.

The wild accusations you make remind me of the "preacher" Manning and his wild rants against Obama. Now, I think Obama is a terrific threat to our country, but I am not blinded by the kind of spirit sapping hatred that thinks he should be vilified and called names, like Manning. You are dangerously close to Manning.

I am not trying to be insulting, honestly. I say this because for a while I was sliding down the same path of blind and bitter misery, but thankfully saw myself in the mirror of some of the bitter people on the opposite side of my political aisle, and it helped me remember who I am, a classic liberal as defined by those living under dictatorships ( fascist or communist), and what I believe in.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,219 views

Standardized Test Prep: When to Start and Whom to Hire?
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,165 views

Finger Food and a Blood Lite?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 893 views

The Future of our Parks: Public Workshops this Week
By Cathy Kirkman | 0 comments | 615 views

Subverting open, fair and honest debate (Measure D)
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 609 views