Hahn for lieutenant governor. Nava and Colfax for judge. No, no, no on 16 and 17 ... Complete endorsements for the June 8 primary


Our endorsements  for the upcoming election were originally published on April 27. We're republishing them here for the benefit of absentee voters. Our clip-out guide to take to the polls will appear in our June 2 issue and online.

On the eve of the June 8 election, we'll be publishing our handy clip-out guide for you to take to the polls. Before then, however, take a minute to read about our decisions -- and why they're important for the future of the country, the state, and San Francisco.







Pictured above: 


We've already endorsed candidates for the Democratic County Central Committee (see "Our endorsements for DCCC," 3/30). We're listing them again here for easy reference — in the order they will appear on the ballot. (Since it's unfair to present candidates in a crowded field in alphabetical order, the state every year does a random alphabetical drawing to set the order in these races.)

The election is crucial — DCCC controls the local Democratic Party endorsements, which can make a huge difference in district supervisorial contests.



Debra Walker

Aaron Peskin

Eric Quezada

Joe Julian

Alix Rosenthal

Michael Goldstein

David Campos

David Chiu

Rafael Mandelman

Kim-Shree Maufas

Carole Migden

Robert Haaland



Chris Gembinski

Connie O'Connor

Michael Bornstein

John Avalos

Hene Kelly

Melanie Nutter

Sandra Lee Fewer

Eric Mar

Milton Marks

Jane Morrison

Jake McGoldrick

Larry Yee



It's incredible you would endorse failed, shit-canned, serial politician, Carole Migden - who takes the cake as one of CA's most corrupt politicians of the past decade, it's really unbelievable. Does The Guardian have no shame?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:16 pm

Midgen's history of; district shopping, identity politics, comical driving exploits, Chris Daly like tantrums, fund raising in her office, tormenting her underlings, her huge campaign finance fines and attacks on campaign finance reform, etc... She is the perfect candidate for the Guardian, a total lack of standards.

add com at ^^^


Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 11:40 pm

David Chiu should be listed under AD13

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 9:35 am

We should have long ago become inured to the Guardian's whining about corruption on the right when that same corruption (aka: Carole Migden) is absolutely OK with them when it comes from the left.

Poor failed, shit-canned, corrupt, serial politician Carole (does she even live in San Francisco anymore?) DCCC is a long fall from the big house in Sacramento but she's got to start somewhere. After all - it's not as if she can get a job in the private sector.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 12:53 pm

The random alphabet for June 2008 is as follows:
Y, B, N, F, T, S, W, L, P, Z, V, X, Q, A, I, O, J, R, G, D, C, U, M, K, H, E,

Larry Yee is the 1st candidate in AD 12!

My name, Hene Kelly, comes near the bottom right after Jake McGoldrick on the AD 12 list.

Thanks for endorsing me and the 23 other people you endorsed for SFDCCC.

Posted by Guest Hene Kelly on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

After years of purporting to be "For the People" and "Defender of the Neighborhoods", I find it odd to see three solid proxy votes of Willy (Mr. PG&E - Downtown) Brown in the SFBG-AD12 slate and another four proxy votes in the SFBG-AD13 Slate. I am a Candidate for DCCC in AD13. To me, the questionnaire process or what ever process the SFBG used to select their endorsements should have had the extra effort I have come to expect from Alternative Print Media. I am running for the DCCC in AD13 because I am sick and tired of the Democratic Party Pitching Democratic Programs and Delivering Republican Solutions.

This June 8th election, I suggest that all of San Francisco's Voters start to think for themselves regarding the DCCC Race. To me the DCCC race is about the integrity of the Local and State Democratic Party. The Machine(s) are ramping up big money contributions for a race where there are no campaign limits, and those of us who are elected receive no pay. The campaign funding limits that apply to the Supervisor Races do not apply to the DCCC contest. The DCCC Members we elect this June 8th will be critical in defending San Francisco District Elections for our Supervisors. Will the Burton/Brown proxy DCCC Candidates, which the SFBG endorsed protect our District Election of County Supervisors? Does San Francisco really want their DCCC Members to become a second Board of Supervisors?

Every DCCC in each of California's 58 Counties has three critical roles. First and foremost is to hold fast to Democratic Values. Based on that commitment, the DCCC is supposed to identify and recruit the best possible Democrats for all appointed and elected positions in Local Government in their respective Counties. The third mission of every Democratic Party County Central Committee is Party Building. These three roles are not Governance. These three roles are not Legislation of Public Policy. These three roles are for the good of the whole Local and State California Democratic Party, not this or that faction.

Our DCCC will also face a huge task to build a New California Democratic Party after the train-wreck coming our way in November of 2010. The San Francisco DCCC has a leadership responsibility to work with all the other 57 County DCCC's to build a New Democratic Party. Why? Because the Democratic Party sold Democratic Programs in 2008 and delivered Republican Solutions. Regardless of the Spin, The Obamacare Health Insurance Company Bail Out is the 1994 Mitt Romney Health Care Plan. That is a Republican Solution and NOT the Single Payer Solution that respects Health Care as a basic Right. Let's talk about the Elephant in the room. Willy Brown's Prop-16 Corporate Constitutional Bail Out for PG&E is a Republican Solution. Community Run Green Power competition to corporate monopoly is a Democratic Solution. The Bank Bail Outs (version one and now version two with the current Senator Dodd SB-3217) helped Wall Street on a temporary basis and now are proposed to replace the Democratic Solutions FDR put in place in 1933 and 1934. What Obama and Dodd propose (SB-3217) are permanent Bail Out's for Wall Street by establishment of the TARP and TALF as Statutory US Treasury Programs backed by American Taxpayers. This was the George Bush - Republican Solution. The Bush Wars escalate, not end. This is a Republican Solution. Countless Schools across California close and face closure next year, and those which remain open suffer huge degradation of quality due to lack of funding. This is a Republican Solution. There is a reason 50% of our Young Democrats (that 50% of our Party who are under 35) plan to sit out 2010. We lied to our kids. Imagine November 15th, 2010. We have to elect New Democrats to the two year terms on our County DCCC who are focused on the three functions of any Democratic Party County Central Committee, because the greater likelihood we face as a "Leadership County" will be the critical mission of building a New California Democratic Party. We need to elect Democrats who will not negotiate Democratic Solutions, rather will deliver Democratic Solutions.

We all have shortly over six weeks to re-focus. I suggest the DCCC race is probably the most important contest on our June 8th Ballot other than Prop 16. At the CDP in Los Angeles, John Burton called the vote of the Delegates for the endorsement of Insurance Commissioner before Hector de la Torre had arrived, and Dave Jones won by 17 votes. Marcy Winograd was told to sit down and be quiet, and then the floor fight was decided by the Chair not counting whole Assembly district and County Delegations. Our CDP endorsed the "Best Republican in the Democratic Party" to quote Jane "More War" Harmon, our Democratic Candidate for Congress in the CA 36th CD. The behavior of the Old Guard CDP Leadership from San Francisco was deplorable. This was what the New Democrats witnessed. Our Party is deeply divided. These same schisms appear in our Local DCCC Contest. There are five Candidates in both AD12 and AD13 that could easily make room for those of us who will bring vital depth as well as new vision into our DCCC.

In AD12 I suggest Borenstein, Kelly, Nutter, Marks, and Morrison be replaced with Jaynry Mak, Arlo Smith, Angelique Mahan, Tualatai Mamoe, and Mary Jung.

In AD13 I suggest Julian, Rosenthal, Maufas, and Migden be replaced with Hope Johnson, Tom Taylor, Stu Smith, and Paul Currier. I also note that the Editor missed David Chiu, who is in the Photo, but not on the list.

We all need to ask our selves two questions. What is the best we can do for San Francisco, and do we want and will we work to build a New Democratic Party? As far as I can effect, I am in this to support New Democrats. The Old Guard has had their day.

Posted by Paul Currier, Candidate for DCCC AD13 on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 12:35 am

The Guardian missed a chance to really take a stand on the issues for which it criticizes Jerry Brown by omitting an endorsement in the Green Party primary. Laura Wells is running for the Green nomination with heavy emphasis on the need to rework Proposition 13 of 1978 to restore majority-rule democracy in the legislature (instead of requiring a 2/3 vote to pass revenue measures, which leaves the budget hostage to a small group of extremists bent on benefiting mega-corporations and billionaires), and to undo the massive breaks for big corporate landowners, while preserving tax limitations on individual homeowners. Brown faces no viable opposition in the Democratic primary; voters who want to send the message the Guardian suggests should register Green by May 24 so they can vote for Laura Wells in the June 8 primary.

Posted by Steve Freedkin--Campaign Manager on May. 02, 2010 @ 3:49 pm

I always hope there are enough candidates on the ballot to take SFBG list, pick everybody NOT on it, and vote for them. Would hate to waste my vote on a single name SFBG recommends.

Thanks for publishing your slate - the best way to judge who NOT to vote for.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

we get it. aren't you supposed to make a joke about using the paper for your birdcage now? You should really see someone about that nasty case of same-joke-itis you have. Or watch less Leno.

Posted by marke on May. 03, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

I always counted on the Guardian to provide smart progressive analysis, enough that if I was ever undecided on some issue by election time, I could usually count on reading the Guardian and finding a comprehensive analysis that would sway me in one direction or another.

Lately though, I don't know if you guys are getting lazy or just more willing to accommodate cops and firefighters when they come seeking goodies from the taxpayers, but some of that thorough analysis has been lacking on certain issues.

Take prop B for example. It's really unfortunate that the debate has been framed as earthquake safety vs. Chris Daly's concern about prisoners. And it's doubly unfortunate that the Guardian didn't move beyond that simplistic analysis.

When Sup. Chiu came to our San Francisco for Democracy meetup last month, I asked him two very simple questions. #1 -Why does earthquake safety cost $430 million for the cops, and only $7 million for the schools (Prop A)? He said that the city needed to redo all the water systems underground, etc., etc., and that costs a lot of money. OK, that seemed plausible enough. We don't want 100-year old pipes. So I asked him simple question #2 -how much is going to redo the pipes, and how much is going for that brand spanking new police command center that the cops want?

Well, turns out that only $50 million of the $430 million is going for the pipes, and "around $200 million" for the command center!

Thanks but no thanks. Come back and put $50 million for redoing the pipes, and I'll gladly vote for it. Till then, the sugar-to-shit ratio of this boondoggle is too far shifted toward the fecal direction.

These are the kinds of questions that I thought the Guardian would have asked.

Posted by Greg on May. 04, 2010 @ 12:24 pm

Particularly the DCCC part - I simply picked candidates whom The Guardian DIDN'T endorse and voted for them. That's the first time I've ever voted on DCCC positions and I have The Guardian to thank for it. Thanks guys!!!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 18, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

I thought you were so much cleverer than that.

Posted by marke on May. 18, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

I was under no such delusions as to your cleverness. You're as pedantic as they come. And what I wrote was true. It wasn't until I read The Guardian's stories on the importance of the DCCC that I realized it was because people like me had neglected to vote for these positions that the DCCC had been taken over by failed, corrupt politicians and assorted radicals whose mission is to continue to push San Francisco down the road to insolvency and decrepitude. So for that - I owe The Guardian and its staff a sincere thank you.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 18, 2010 @ 8:51 pm

Lucretia - I am with you entirely. SFBG alerted me to DCCC, and now I actually spread the word to all my clueless friends why voting for this against its slate is so important. I found this list of anti-SFBG endorsements that I am going with:

Andrew Clark
Ron Dudum
Dan Dunnigan
Bill Fazio
Tom Hsieh
Mary Jung http://www.maryjung.com/
Meagan Levitan
John Shanley
Arlo Smith
Mike Sullivan http://www.mikesullivanfordccc.com/
Matt Tuchow
Alex Volberding http://www.alexvolberding.com/

Keith Baraka http://www.KeithBaraka.com
Chuck Hornbrook http://www.chuckhornbrook.com/
Leslie Katz http://www.evoter.com/lesliekatz
Calvin Louie
Owen O'Donnell
Linda Richardson http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20085421390
Stuart Smith http://stusmith4dccc.grouply.com/home
Catherine Stefani http://catherinestefani2010.com/
Joe Alioto Veronese http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joe-Alioto-Veronese/209187926490?v=app_104...
Scott Wiener http://www.scott2010.com/

Posted by Sashok on May. 19, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

Regardless of what I think about these endorsements, is it really that important for you corporate D and R party paid trolls to tell The Guardian that you're voting for the opposite of what they endorsed? What purpose does that serve? It's more of that dumbing-down of society. Do you expect them to change their endorsements because of your whining, moaning and complaining about them? What pathetic people some of you are.

As if they care who the hell you vote for or even if you know how to vote at all. Man, you corporate D and R party-paid trolls are pathetic. I've seen comments like many of the above one election cycle after the other and they are usually written by pathetic corporate D and R party paid baiting trolls trying to get a rise and trying to sway elections. Useless garbage.

If I ran this site, I would tell you I don't give a fuk who you vote for or if you vote at all. Got it? In some cases, it's really best that some people not vote at all because they vote out of their willful ignorance. Many people vote solely on name recognition and because so and so that they know is voting for some candidate. A candidate's record and/or voting record means nothing to most of the sheep.

The lack of intelligence of some of the smug-assed trash, uh I mean corporate D and R party paid trolls on here is something else....and you know the ones I'm talking about...they keep changing their screen names which is typical behavior for an Internet troll. Do you think out your choice of candidates carefully and look at their voting record OR do you take the approach that just because The Guardian endorsed someone you will vote for the opposite? DUH.

Damn, some people are stupid. It's no wonder how society is as fuked up as it is.

But then again:

Corporate D and R party paid trolls = stupid.

Posted by Sam on May. 21, 2010 @ 10:00 pm

It's really none of your business who's running for DCCC because you're (as you state here every time you post) not a Democrat. I, on the other hand, AM a Democrat so I'm allowed to vote on which candidates should sit on the DCCC.

And you keep stating people are "paid" to post here. Do you have factual evidence indicating that or is it another of your fevered fantasies? Because if you don't you need to stop making the accusation.

And quit referring to yourself in the third-person - it's a sign of megalomania.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 22, 2010 @ 6:22 am

Here's some troll information for those of you who may be wondering about the paid political trolls who saturate this and other websites with pro-party line garbage (and who are constantly whining about The Guardian yet they constantly come here and read the articles and comment on them). From my experience, whenever I talk about trolls it's only the trolls who get upset about me bringing the topic up. So they really identify themselves by their protest of the topic....while the rest of us just go about our business and don't worry about the topic of trolls being mentioned. So who else would care that someone has mentioned something about trolls... other than trolls? Get it? One of the things that's obvious about trolls is that they change their screen name from, let's say, "apples" to "scrapples." And then next week they may change their screen name to "blabbles" or "Mr blabbles" pretending to be yet another person. Sometimes they will even talk to themselves on message forums because they wrote BOTH comments as 2 different people.

Here's an article about trolls and the next-to-last paragraph talks about them being paid. As election time gets closer, the more paid political trolls there will be showing up on message forums cheerleading for their D or R "team." Oh look, here's "clapples." Or is it "raccles" today? It doesn't matter really....it's just a political troll.

And if one doesn't like the Guardian endorsements, no one is forcing you to vote for the candidates they endorsed.

Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?
Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 05/31/2009 01:27:12 AM PDT

Don't feed the trolls.

You know the ones I'm talking about. They prey on news forums, chat rooms, and other online communities. Their purpose: to disrupt any conversation or thread, and to get an emotional response from some unwary person. Ignoring them and not responding to their posts is your best option.

What kind of people are trolls? They're cowards. Lonely cowards. Their posts seldom show any real imagination and often resort to childish name-calling.

Trolls are often extremely pedantic and rarely answer direct questions. There are some exceptions, but most aren't smart enough to make a reasonable argument. They're not interested in reason. They repeat themselves and say stupid, off-focus things to disrupt conversations.

Some trolls like to brag about their IQ. They try to come across like rocket scientists to lure the unwary and then pounce with a verbal attack. Trolls count the responses they get. [Sam's editorial: That answers my question that I've wondered about.] It must be highly pleasurable for the poor creatures to count coups if they disrupt other people's emotional equilibrium.

Trolls call it “Lulz,” a corruption of “LOL” (laugh out loud). Jason Fortuny is the most famous troll in America (using his real name in an interview). He was interviewed in the New York Times on August 3, 2008. This article is the best read I've found on the subject of trolls.

Fortuny's passion for “pushing people's buttons” made him the most prominent troll on the Internet according to the Times. He managed to thoroughly embarrass a lot of men with his infamous “Craigslist Experiment” as described in the Times article.

Like many trolls, Fortuny claims his pastime is just a big joke, a social experiment. He lives alone, spends countless hours anonymously insulting people, doesn't have a full time job, is 32 years old, and brags (to anyone who will listen) about being a troll.

For all of Fortuny's faults, no one has ever accused him of murder, like the woman in the Megan Meier cyberbullying case.

The suicide of a teenage girl highlights another type of troll. A deadly troll, sometimes called a cyberbully, took on a fake identity and seduced a vulnerable girl in MySpace. When the troll was sure she had fallen in love with the fake identity she (this woman posed as a man) broke up with the girl and said terrible things to her.

It was more than Megan Meier could stand and she killed herself. The warning is clear here. You never really know who you are talking with on the Internet, especially in online communities like FaceBook and MySpace.

For a guide on trolls go to flayme.com, which offers an Intelligence Test for Trolls. For an insight into cyberbullying check out the book “BullyBaby: Portrait of a Cyberbully,” by Andrew Heenan. “Dealing with Internet Trolls,” posted on lockergnome.com on April 17th, 2009, is another good information source.

Legislating cyberspace to go after trolls isn't feasible in my opinion. The web is a new frontier for freedom of speech and I don't want to see that changed by Orwellian laws that make it a crime to hurt someone's feelings.

So what do you do about trolls? Recognize that they are part of the Internet community and will be there as long as there are lonely misfits and people who have trouble communicating in the real world.

They crawl through cyberspace seeking to create chaos. It gives them a sense of power when they feel powerless in the real world. They get to say things they'd never dare say to people directly. At best, they are lonely cowards. Ignore them and don't let them spoil your use of the Internet.

Trolls are not hard to spot. For example, go to an online newspaper community like the Times-Standard's Topix Forum. In no time, you'll begin to recognize some names posted in every topic. Realizing this, trolls will sometimes change their identities, but their repetition and negative comments generally “out them” to an aware community.

There are also paid political trolls. They actually get paid to surf through online communities and disrupt meaningful conversations while touting their party line. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this underhanded practice.

As It Stands, there's really only one practical way to deal with trolls: don't feed them!

Posted by Sam on May. 22, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

for the millionth time will change that. As you claim, you like me are not a democrat, so I can laugh at who them, just as you can, but I can't get screaming self righteous about it all as you do.

If I wanted a say in it all, I would register democrat and vote for the sanest one in the batch, then I could rant and rave for futility's sake.

Posted by Mr Matlock on Jun. 01, 2010 @ 5:42 pm

But again, where is the evidence these "trolls" are being paid by either the Democratic or Republican parties? Where? You say it every time (and seem to feel this information is somehow new, when the term "troll" has been around now for over a decade - did you just buy a computer and start logging on to the Internets?) but I am still waiting to see evidence of this being true. Because you say something doesn't make it true Sam.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 22, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

I talked with someone on the Muni metro today. The guy had a few copies in his hand of some campaign stuff he had picked up about that Scott Weiner guy. Ugh. He tried to hand a copy to me and I said, "no thank you, I have no interest in that corporatist guy." The person said to me, "why?" I said, "well for starters, he's for sit-lie." The person responded by saying, "he is?....I didn't know that." I said, "yep, that's true."

This guy on the metro moments later told me he was a Democrat. I said, "well, that's your problem. You can go into rehab for that. I don't know why anyone would be a Democrat or Republican at this point in time considering the dismal record of the pro-Republican Democratic Party and the dismal record of the Republican Party." He said, "well I have to agree with you there," which I didn't expect him to say. He said, "I'm more about taking the party over from within." I said, "oh here we go with THAT!...well with respect, you're delusional because the corporations who run/own the Democratic Party (same as with the Republican Party) have no interest in being taken over nor do the corporatist politicians who run the thing...so when I hear people talk about "taking the party over from within," it's nothing but delusional, wishful-thinking. Ain't going to happen. Period. Any new members elected to congress, for example, either work for the corporations/military industrial complex et al or you're OUT (meaning minimized, ignored and considered a nut). One recent example of that: Al Franken. He came out swinging to some degree and now he's been completely muffled. Kucinich is another one although now he's pretty much aligned with the corporatists. He has also been given his orders to sit down and shut up. So much for that "taking the party over from within" BS). The guy on the metro responded: I hadn't thought of it like that. Hmmm.

And to think, I've been hearing this drivel about "taking the party over from within" since the Clinton days---if not before---and you can see that the only people who have taken the party over from within have been the corporations who own it and who then send their corporate D and R paid trolls out to talk about how great their party is and to vote for them. But all one has to say is, "no thank you." Just treat it like dog shit that you step in....get it off as quickly as possible. The stink reeks of D and R corporate fascism. I don't want anything to do with either one of them.

Vote for independent true progressives, when they appear on the ballot.

Posted by Sam on May. 22, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

Nancy Pelosi isn't just weak on being opposed to war, now she's pressuring others to continue funding war - I don't know how anyone can continue to call her anti-war. Beyond Gitmo, I have yet to hear her talk about closing our hundreds of foreign military bases and bringing all of our troops home. Add to this her push to reathorize the Patriot Act this year and I think we have our heads in the sand about what she really is - a Corporatist.

John Dennis is talking about ending the wars, closing all of our foreign military bases and ending the Patriot Act. He is also opposed to corporatism and he has my vote.


Posted by Zakery on May. 26, 2010 @ 5:13 am

The Guardian writes about Pelosi:

"And, at a time when the Republicans are trying to derail the Obama presidency, she's become a pretty effective partner for the president. Her fate as speaker (and her future in this seat) probably depends on how the Democrats fare in the midterm Congressional elections this fall. "


Yes, Bush-accomplice Pelosi has become a pretty effective partner for the president (Bush3)...and he's continuing the Cheney/Bush neocon agenda and even adding to it (the Guardian failed to say THAT part).

Non-representative Pelosi also took impeachment of Bush/Cheney "off her table," if one will recall, despite an oath she took to the US Constitution. The woman is pro-war (she has a history of voting for pro-war measures and supporting pro-war candidates), she's pro-corporate, and is a non-representative for the people she is elected to represent. The US Constitution continues to be shred under Obama/Pelosi and the Dems and Repugs. (The D and R rut, in other words...which has gotten us to where we are today).

I just wanted to point out that she's the same non-representative Pelosi that the Guardian refused to endorse two years ago. And NOW they are endorsing her (go figure!) with timid, mealy-mouthed language.

And why would they praise her for giving away $$$$$$$$$$$$ to the mangled health "care" industry? What non-representative Pelosi did was to ram through a corporate giveaway, a welfare program for the wealthy.

Yet when she shows up here in San Francisco, some Dem kool-aid drinkers are fawning all over her. Why? (They would likely answer: "Because she's so close to the president.") Well what different does THAT make when HE (the president/Bush3) is continuing the Cheney/Bush agenda or have these Dem kool-aid drinkers/Obamabots not been paying close attention to what this guy has been doing since he took office to notice that?

Actually, many of them do not have a clue what he's doing because I've talked with them. It's as if they fell for his empty marketing slogans ("Hope" and "Change we can believe in."), voted for him and then they went to sleep until 2012 when they will likely mindlessly vote for him again. He has a D behind his name and that's all that matters to them and because he calls himself a Democrat "everything will be all right", when Obama is really a neocon Republican. Fortunately, some people---even a few devout Obama believers---are coming out of their Denial and waking up and realizing who and what this guy really is and is about. When will this City do the same thing when it comes to non-representative Pelosi? (Answer: Probably never). I think she has her job as long as she wants it.

Posted by Sam on Jun. 02, 2010 @ 1:44 am

This idiot Sam is even too left for the BG and i like the way he talks about "impeachment ", is he writing from cuba, is he an US resident, i don't think so.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 04, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

I was very pleased to see that the Milk Club refused to endorse Republican (charading as a Dem) Pelosi. They also refused to endorse anyone for governor or Lt. governor. Right-on! Too bad the Guardian can't stop consuming the Dem koolaid and do the same as the Milk Club. Why can't they (The Guardian) understand that both of these useless parties are corporate scum and neither give a fuk about the US Constitution or We The People. Their concern is the corporations they work for and the corporation's bottom line. For example, here's a headline for you:

Quote: Obama to reopen waters for shallow water drilling. End Quote

Who in their right mind would do that considering the disaster in the Gulf? Duh. Yeah, that's what you get from your precious Dems. "Gotta get Dems in!" WHY? And every single day there are headlines like this. I get impression that some people at The Guardian don't pay that close of attention to what is happening at the national level.

The Milk Club did endorse Pelosi in the last election (although many of its members wanted to endorse Cindy Sheehan instead). It would seem that more members of the Milk Club have learned and seen what Pelosi (R) is and is about since the last election. Good.

Posted by Sam on Jun. 08, 2010 @ 7:52 pm