Donkey Tales 08

Talking is not Negotiating is not Appeasing

Surely John McCain and George Bush know that talking to Iran is not negotiating with Iran, and that negotiating is not necessarily appeasement.  They're counting on their American audience not to know the difference. 

I'm disappointed that Obama isn't drawing the distinctions, but maybe he'll do that in debate with McCain.  The American electorate seems sorely in need of some educating and I look forward to Obama's providing leadership that helps the public understand international diplomacy rather than merely salivate at militaristic blather.

Yesterday Chris Matthews caught some fool (I missed his name - Kevin Something?) who was playing attack dog for Bush/McCain by furthering the talking equals appeasing illusion.  Kevin repeated Bush's reference to appeasing Hitler.  Matthews prodded the man to explain exactly what Neville Chamberlain did that appeased Hitler - and Kevin finally had to deflate his cloud of loud words to admit he didn't know.  Chamberlain appeased not by merely talking but by offering a piece of Czechoslovakia if Hitler would stop.  Big difference - talk, Czechoslovakia.

Is it possible that Bush really doesn't know the difference?  Surely McCain does.  In debate, I suspect/hope Obama is going to push McCain to the wall on this matter.  Will the general public notice or care?  Will the Jewish voters and campaign supporters Bush clearly was playing to notice or care?

Linda Walsh Jenkins, an Obama precinct delegate from Fort Worth's eastside

You Know You Are On The Right Track When....

Karen Anderson   Pct 1089

...a sitting President begins to talk about you.

The Republican Party  has to be worried when about their prospects in November when their President begins to attack a presidential nominee in a speech on foreign soil.  Bush criticized Obama’s foreign policy ideas in a speech he gave in

Israel

today.  He compared Obama's idea of talking to Iran to negoitating with Nazi Germany and Hitler.

Obama replied that the policy of fear is not effective. Americans do not buy that argument anymore.

The one thing this continual battle for democratic nominee does is limit taking the fight to the Republicans.  McCain and Bush seem to have come together on their attack on Obama’s foreign policy.  McCain sent his verabl agreement to Bush's statement through the media.  Sen. Joseph Biden (D) answered the attack on Hardball with Chris Matthews.  Biden accused Bush of negotiating with terrorists in

North Korea

.  He said Bush was saying one thing and doing something else.

I appreciate Obama taking the fight to McCain.  Obama understands that his battle for the White House is with McCain.  It would be ashamed to win the nominee and lose the race to McCain

This is one of the most amazing presidential races I have ever experienced.  One TV report I saw said, if elected Obama would be the first African American,

Clinton

would be the first woman, and McCain would be the oldest person.  What has happened to the population of this country?  I believe we are beginning to see a shift in power in the federal and local governments.  I believe it will be played out in the votes that are cast in the general election. 

I am tired of this battle for the democratic nominee.  I don’t think

Clinton

is going to do down without a fight. Why not?  It is the fight for something she believes in.  I am glad that Barack Obama believes in it too.  The longer this contest is drawn out, the more respect I have for Sen. Obama.  I like the way he makes decisions. 

I applaud that he chose not to dwell on

West Virginia

and went on to campaign in other states.  He didn’t spend a lot of time there, he acknowledged that the primary was going on, but didn’t dwell on it.

CNN commentators said that Obama had trouble getting support from working class Anglo Americans on Tuesday evening.  This might be true but he had an answer for it.

I don’t know if Obama is smart or lucky, but it was smart to have Edwards endorse Obama in the wake of the defeat in

West Virginia

. 

Sen. Obama keep on doing what you doing, when President Bush begins to take shots at you.  They are scared.

On Clinton as VP

With her nuanced victory speech in West Virginia Tuesday night Hillary Clinton seemed to signal that while she will fight on (to please her supporters and bring in more voters, and because she still thinks she's the best candidate), she also sees she's likely to lose the nomination and will support whomever the party chooses.  She appears to be setting the stage for the next act:  Transition into Second Place.  (Unless this is a diversionary tactic and she still has a thing or two up her sleeve to try to convince the superdelegates to choose her.  With John Edwards and NARAL pledging allegiance to Obama today, that is unlikely.)

Obama gave her a gracious boost by not campaigning hard in West Virginia and is helping her further by not trying to best her in Kentucky.  That gives her two strong wins to help replenish her heavily indebted treasury ($21 million and rising), keep her supporters psyched, bring in more active participants, and let her finally bow out as a tough opponent who lost by a decision and not a knock out as the primaries at last melt away. 

Pat Buchanan chewed Obama out for not bulldogging her in WVA; but Buchanan misses the point that the race is over.  Obama can and will get down and press flesh in WVA as he combats McCain, with Billary at his side in one capacity or another.

That raises the question, What role does Hillary want to play in the act following Transition - Battle for the White House?  She isn't saying so publicly, but Carl Bernstein among others gossips that people close to her affirm she does want the VP. 

My guess is she wants to be wooed.  She is making the case that her supporters (blue collar white folks who won't vote for a black man, rural folks without much education, and "older" women) won't vote for Obama unless she tells them to.  She doesn't acknowledge that she and her husband have played a huge role in turning these people against Obama - oh no, they're just racist to begin with.  And while some of us find it odious that the Democratic Party can't win without racists, Hillary brings them to the party like her dowry. 

If Obama wants her to be the VP, he should make her feel needed, appreciated, important.  No begging, of course, but a good old fashioned bent knee with a rose and kind words wouldn't hurt.  It is almost medieval, as if Hillary is the Warrior Queen offering to unify a Holy Democratic Empire if chosen or given the proper imperial settlement if not.  Obama must observe chivalric codes, give the lady her dignity and pay off her debt, to prevent defeat. 

And so far it appears he is being very gentlemanly.  Whether he wants Hillary as VP or not, he must make her and her fans feel like she's highly regarded.  If he doesn't want her - he'll find a way to create the illusion that it was her decision, not his.

Many say it wouldn't be good to have the two on the same ticket, after all the rancor and the racist mud-slinging, after her followers' belief she has been the victim of sexism.  Some say Michelle can't stand Hillary.  Some say Bill can't stand Obama.  Others suggest the VP should be someone with foreign policy and military experience to trump McCain (like Wes Clark).  Or, what about Bill Richardson and the Hispanic vote?  John Edwards and his white blut-collar populist base?  Furthermore, if Obama really is about a "new Washington," how can he choose someone as "old Washington" as the Clintons?

On the other hand, the VP is about party unity and winning the White House.  The VP participates in policy discussions, reps the Prez here and there around the world, and of course steps in if the Prez is downed.  Well, an Obama/Hillary ticket probably would bring in record Democratic voters (if she can convince her fiefdom it's okay now to vote for the black man) and help wallop the Republicans down ticket.  She's such a chameleon that if she wants to be VP she would fight fight fight to win.  Though she and Bill could be pesky in close quarters with Obama, he appears to have the leadership abilities to manage them and take advantage of their positive contributions.

Obama won't choose her just to win votes.  If he does select her, he sees her as a real asset in the VP spot.

Watch Hillary carefully.  She has to calm down her followers while continuing to lay claim to her queendom, raise more money to pay her vendors, bring in more voters, but turn the focus on McCain while preparing to recognize Obama as her liege.  It won't be long now.

Linda Walsh Jenkins, an Obama supporter from Fort Worth's eastside, will attend the state convention as a volunteer and hopes to attend the national, to cheer Obama's nomination.

Hillary for VP?

McClatchydc.com moved the following stories on Sunday.

What do the latest developments mean for what we can expect to see at the upcoming Texas Democratic State Convention?

Group pushing Clinton as VP choice tied
to her campaign

By Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A group called VoteBoth has been leading the charge for Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama to team up on the Democratic ticket.
But the people behind it come from just one of those camps — Clinton's — and one of their goals may be keeping Clinton's White House prospects alive.

The group's founder, Adam Parkhomenko, until recently worked as an assistant to Patti Solis Doyle, who was Clinton's campaign manager until February. Parkhomenko in 2003 founded the Draft Hillary for President Committee.

VoteBoth's spokesman is Sam Arora. He's a law school student who in recent years worked for Clinton and for former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's presidential campaign chairman.

VoteBoth's Facebook page lists three others as administrators, all with Clinton connections.

One is a Richmond-based Democratic technology consultant, who was quoted in a New York Times story about the Iowa Democratic Party's 2006 Jefferson-Jackson dinner, where he was passing out "Hillary for President" stickers. Another appears online in a photo with Hillary Clinton and others at a summer leadership program from 2006.

A third is a history professor and campaign contributor whom Clinton named earlier this year in a press release of prominent Virginians who'd endorsed her.

VoteBoth first filed with the Federal Election Commission on April 8, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary that Clinton won and that was considered a crucial window for her comeback. The group's original mission promoted the idea of Clinton as the nominee, with Obama as her running mate.

On May 1, days after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's latest divisive remarks and Obama's renouncement of his former pastor, VoteBoth amended its mission. It now would support a joint ticket in either order, so long as Clinton's name was on the ballot.

Last week, as Obama's strong showing made him all but certain to clinch the nomination, VoteBoth leaders began putting themselves in the spotlight, sending regular press releases, posting blogs and appearing in interviews.

Parkhomenko wrote a widely circulated piece on The Huffington Post on Tuesday as voters went to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana primaries. "VoteBoth does not aim to pick who leads the ticket," he said. He wrote of friends who "believe in Barack as strongly as I believe in Hillary" and wanting to be inclusive "as a matter of fairness, practicality, experience and hope."

On Friday, when word went out that Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., didn't see Clinton as Obama's pick for a running mate, VoteBoth released a statement offering respect for Kennedy. But it added, "We think that the millions of Democrats who have voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have something to say, too. Why stop at having a nominee who has the support of 51 percent of Democrats when we could have a 'Dream Team' ticket that has won 100 percent?"

On Friday, Parkhomenko said through a spokesman that his decision to change the mission came after talking to an Obama supporter. He also said he gave neither the Clinton nor Obama campaigns a heads-up about his group.

In an interview Friday, Arora said VoteBoth is not coordinated with Clinton's campaign, and is "just a bunch of us volunteering our time because we think this is a good idea." Despite the lopsided Clinton connections, he said it isn't just about supporting Clinton but about bringing together the rivals' historic turnout and fund-raising machines and constituencies.

"There's been a lot of talk about a unity ticket and we think that's where the conversation should be," said Arora, choosing a word — conversation — that Clinton used to frame her campaign appearances. "If we've been able to help the discussion forward, that's what we're focused on."

"If Barack Obama is the nominee and he takes Senator Clinton as his vice president, you've got a ticket that's already won 100 percent of the Democratic vote, that's turned out a record number of Democratic voters and that has shattered fundraising records. A unity ticket is the way Democrats win in November."

Obama's campaign declined comment on VoteBoth. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Obama or Clinton? Neither beats McCain
in Ky., poll finds

By Ryan Alessi | Lexington Herald-Leader
Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 

LEXINGTON, Ky. -- U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton enters the final week before Kentucky's May 20 Democratic presidential primary with a commanding 27 percentage point lead over U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll shows.

But either Democratic candidate would trail the expected Republican nominee, John McCain, in the state by double digits if the November general election were held today, according to a companion survey of likely voters.

A poll of 500 likely Democratic voters, conducted for the Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper and WKYT television, found Clinton leading Obama 58 percent to 31 percent, with 11 percent undecided.

The results reinforce the expectation that Obama will lose Kentucky, even as he seems on the verge of securing the Democratic nomination. They also put in doubt whether Kentucky will be a battleground state in the fall, despite its track record of backing the winning presidential candidate in each election since 1960.

McCain leads Obama by 25 percentage points and Clinton by 12.

"This is a tough state for a Democrat for president," said Del Ali, president of the firm Research 2000, which conducted the surveys. "If Obama's sitting down with (his chief strategist) David Axelrod going over the electoral map in the fall, Kentucky isn't part of the equation. I think with Hillary it could have been."

The telephone survey of 500 likely Democratic primary voters was conducted between May 7 and May 9 and has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points. The poll of 600 likely general election voters has a 4-point error margin.

Obama's campaign has long downplayed expectations in Kentucky, as well as in neighboring West Virginia, where Democrats go to the polls Tuesday.

"Sen. Obama is certainly the underdog in Kentucky," said Obama campaign spokesman Clark Stevens. "President Clinton and Sen. Clinton have been campaigning here for two decades. And people in Kentucky are just now getting to know Sen. Obama."

Stevens said Obama's goal in these states is to personally deliver his message of change and to introduce himself to Kentuckians, which he will do at a Louisville rally Monday and at yet-to-be-announced stops Tuesday.

Ali said the poll was not all bad news for Obama.

"I actually think this polling shows an improvement for Obama," Ali said. "If we had polled prior to the (May 6) primary in Indiana and North Carolina, my guess is that Hillary would have been over 60 percent."

Clinton, meanwhile, is banking her survival in the race on big returns in Kentucky, as well as on Tuesday in West Virginia and Puerto Rico on June 1. The goal, Clinton strategists have said, is to overtake Obama in the national popular vote.

Depending on voter turnout May 20, a 27-point advantage in Kentucky could yield Clinton at least a 100,000 net gain in votes to cut into Obama's 710,000-vote lead.

But Clinton's campaign expects the race in Kentucky to get closer in the last week.

"That margin is going to be difficult to maintain. It is going to tighten because we are being outspent," said Clinton spokeswoman Jamie Radice. "Sen. Obama, in other states, typically outspends us 3-to-1 or 4-to-1."

Clinton dominated Obama among most demographic groups in the poll, supported by about 60 percent of men, women and white Democrats. Obama was the choice of 78 percent of blacks.

-- Posted by Linda P. Campbell, Star-Telegram Editorial Writer/Columnist

think globally, act locally, eat birthday cake Thursday with Wendy Davis

When:  tomorrow, Thursday, May 8 from 5:30 pm to 8 pm

Where:  Southside Preservation Hall, 1519 Lipscomb

What:  birthday party/campaign rally for Wendy Davis, Texas Senate District 10 candidate

Who's invited:  you and the whole crew

What's happening:  food, music, drinks, games

Why go:  *to thank Wendy for everything she's done for FW during her years on City Council
              *to find out what messes she'll be fixing once she gets to Austin   
              *free food
              *have you always wondered how old Wendy really is?  here's your chance to find out!
              *to find out what games will be played--laser tag?  red rover??
              *to meet other like-minded citizens who care

Cheers from:  Adair Bean, precinct 1108

                        

Obama and the "isms" (Part II - Classism)

Joseph Koos       Obama Supporter       Precinct 2171      SD 10

    First, a disclaimer: As Part I was met w/ a singular chastisement for a lack of political correctness, let it suffice to say I'm not particularly concerned w/ "PC-ness." In fact, its my assertion that our nation's preoccupation with this social phenomenon often makes honest and forthright discussion on sensitive issues nearly impossible for fear of offending someone. That said, while it is not my intent to offend, I fully intend to provide my opinion honestly and forthrightly.

    The type of classism I fear plagueing Obama, (and the Democratic Party in general), is a type made most popular by President Reagan and perpetuated by President George W. Bush. It's described at length in a book entitled "What's Wrong with Kansas." While I've not yet the pleasure of reading it, it has come to my attention that I agree with many of its assertions. Here, I mention just a couple.

    One such situation concerns the middle, (and I daresay lower classes), and how they have been convinced to align themsleves with a party which cares little about their welfare. Furthermore, once so-aligned, they compound the problem by often voting against many propositions in their own best interests. One such issue this election year is a war being fought on foreign soil primarily by those people (and the sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers) least likely to profit from the exercise. The President would never allow his own daughters to enlist in his "noble cause" to eliminate WMD's or liberate Iraq or whatever excuse du jour is given for our invading them in the first place. Nor, would I imagine, do most well-connected, well-invested individuals. It's also doubtful any of these brave men or women soldiers or their families have much to gain personally, politically or monetarily from the no-bid contracts or the rising stocks of those companies receiving them a half a world away.

    Another example is in the unwillingness of those on the middle and lower economic rungs to support various social programs. Especially those associated with any type of governmental assistance. Resistance is usually based on a fear of higher taxes. Yet, when wealthy moguls pander to the taxpayer to subsidize grandiose edifices which more often benefit the corporate elite, and which the majority of the aforementioned taxpayers footing the bill will never be able to afford "on any given Sunday", again, the majority of said taxpayers pass such referendums resoundingly. Unfortunately, with many welfare initiatives a thing of the past and with this current economic down-turn not yet at its' worst, many of those middle-class taxpayers reluctant to support welfare measures may be in dire need of such relief themselves.

    I've always found a certian paradox curious, and one that combines both race and class: When lower and middle class folk align themsleves politically and personally with those of the same race but of a wealthier class. Do middle and poorer class white Americans really think their rich counterparts will admit them more quickly to their country clubs, their spas, their catered dinner parties than a person of African heritage who has acquired fame, fortune and a degree from Yale? Do they not realize their chances of encountering a black or hispanic neighbor at Target or Olive Garden are infinitely greater than the chances they'll ever receive an invitation to a wealthy counterparts social gathering, or a fund-raiser to assure McCains election?  If so, then why are these so often the most hostile toward their economic equals?

    One of the strangest political bedfellows and a partnership that is, to me, strangely oxymoronic is that of middle or lower class Americans who call themselves and who vote Republican.  Especially when one considers the long-standing history of the wealthy to divide and conquer and to marginalize and disenfranchise all but their own ilk through smarmy political affiliation and equally smarmy social conservativism. As a uniter, Obama has his work cut out for him. For there has long been a war in this great country and it's not the one in Iraq which rages on as I write these words. It is the equally great division and war not simply about race and the colors black and white but of class and the color green.

Another Florida?

By Carol Lennox, LPC

I agree with Joseph Koos in the prior post. It really doesn't matter what any of us think, the Clinton machine will keep on chugging along toward a brokered convention.

The question has been asked, "Will this harm the Democratic Party?" For this Democrat, the answer is yes. If the nomination is wrested away from the candidate who has the most popular votes, the most caucus votes, and the most delegates, the Democratic Party will be no different than the Republican Party who stole the election from Al Gore. In fact, we will be worse, because we will have done it to ourselves, not to the competing party.

If Clinton had won earlier, legitimately, I would stick by my conviction to vote Democrat, as I have in every election for the past 34 years. If, however, the Democratic Party continues to act like Republicans by stealing this election from Obama, I will be in a true dilemma. McCain would be a viable alternative, in that I can respect him on several levels, and, he and Clinton appear to have similar stances in regards to war. The fact that she originally voted to go to war is more and more prominent in my mind if it comes to a (brokered or stolen) contest between her and McCain.

Perhaps I am alone in this dilemma. If I am not, then, yes, the Democratic Party will sustain the damage of likely losing votes from some of the true "dyed in the wool" Democrats, the backbone of their party.

Who Should Drop Out - Clinton or Obama?

Joseph Koos   Obama Supporter     Precinct 2171     SD 10

     You'll probably think being an Obama supporter that I think Hillary Clinton should drop out given it's a mathematical impossibility for her to gather enough delegate support or to win the popular vote by convention time.  If so, you'd be wrong.  What I think is that it doesn't matter what I think, or you think or anyone thinks.  The matter is a moot point.  It's pretty obvious that she has no intention of dropping out until she's forced to do so.  Even if she were to lose every primary by double digits from now til the end, it won't matter in the least.  What I DO think is that she fully plans to broker the convention, plain and simple.  She doesn't think Obama has even earned the right to be in the race to begin with and that he's, in effect, cut in line to inherit what is, in her mind, rightfully due her.  What I also think, and what I don't understand why it's not being addressed even remotely in any of the media, is how this attitude is so very similar to the current President in his arrogant unwillingness to be accountable to the people who elected him.  Frankly, as everyone knows, if the roles of Clinton and Obama were reversed, Obama would already be history.  But, we are talking about the Clintons, another political family dynasty. Unfortunately, for the Democratic party and for "We The People", their ruthlessness to continue that dynasty, like the Bush's, is only matched by their unmitigated gall to scrutinize their opponents over matters they themselves are equally, (and often moreso), guilty of themselves.

An Open Letter to NBC's Tim Russert

by Tim Sledge, Keller

Tim Russert, I'm a fan of yours, and I generally love the work you do, but shame on you for spending the first fifteen minutes (one-fourth) of last Sunday's Meet the Press interview with Barack Obama talking about Pastor Jeremiah Wright. 

More than one of your questions feigned disbelief that Obama could have stayed in his church for so long.  Here's my question for you, Mr. Russert, why have you not left the Catholic church?   For years now we've followed multiple stories about Catholic priests sexually abusing innocent boys.  While many of these abuse victims may experience help and healing to move beyond their abuse, none of them will ever be the same.  Our legal system has acknowledged this recurring problem and has awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to the victims. 

Recently, your church's world-wide leader, the pope, came to the United States and offered a long-overdue apology for the abuse.  You've been in the Catholic church for so long, you may have missed something that is obvious to a non-Catholic like me.  The pope dresses gay!  (To quote Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with being gay.")  Elton John must envy the pope's wardrobe!  Don't you think it's odd that an old man comes to America wearing bright red slippers, a matching round red hat, and a long white frock covered with ornaments, and apologizes for Catholic priests having sex with little boys?

So again I ask you, "Why are you still in the Catholic church?"  Why have you stayed so long?  Your continued membership raises the question of whether you are a pedophile.  How can you be a part of a system that has repeatedly inflicted permanent damage on innocent little boys?

Let me guess how you might answer... "It's absurd to say that someone might be a pedophile because he has stayed in the Catholic church.  I don't agree with everything my church teaches, and I don't agree with everything done by every Catholic priest or the pope for that matter.  The Catholic church is more than the actions of some of its leaders."  Maybe I guessed your answers wrong, but if I didn't, your answers sound a lot like Barack Obama's answers to your questions.

Obama is no more a racist because of his pastor's views than you, Mr. Russert, are a pedophile because of the actions of multiple Catholic priests.

Mr. Russert, you and others like you, hold the future of our nation in your hands.  The opening frames of Sunday's Meet the Press spotlighted three issues: the soaring cost of gasoline, the price of food, and Jeremiah Wright!  You've got to be kidding!  I know you are an intellegent man.  Stop making Jeremigh Wright an issue.  I for one know all I need to know about it. 

If you can't stop focusing on this kind of thing, then at least be fair.   We need to hear more about the views of Pastor John Hagee, McCain's endorser.  We need to see endless re-runs of his calling the Catholic church "the great whore" and talking "longingly?" about the coming great war with Iran.  Also, who is Hillary Clinton's current pastor?  I can't seem to find out.  Isn't there a story there?  "Presidential candidate claims she would have left Jeremiah Wright's church, but doesn't actually go to church anywhere herself." 

I used to be a cable news junkie, but lately I find myself frequently turning the channel.   Will people like you be able to stop the man that has the potential to become one of the greatest uniter's in our country's history?  Will you leave us with the choice between a woman not trusted by over half the public and a man who seems to yearn for a long war and has few specific plans to address the crisis-level issues of our day.  I hope and pray that is not the case.

****************************************************************************

A few disclaimers... It's okay to be Catholic.  The pope is not gay.  (To quote Hillary, "...as far as I know.")  All churches have their weaknesses.  It's okay to be gay.  Homosexuals are not more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.  It's okay to dress flamboyantly. 

Calling for bloggers -- Clinton and Obama

One reader of this blog suggests that it's all Obama all the time with no room for a full debate with Hillary Clinton supporters.

Well, where are the Hillary delegates? We wish more were joining this conversation.

This blog is meant to give Democratic delegates for both Clinton and Obama a forum to connect, discuss, debate, vent and otherwise share with readers the experience of helping to choose the Democratic nominee -- and possible next president -- in a remarkable election year.

We want to see what delegates are seeing, as it's happening, in their neighborhoods, in their meetings and, especially, at the conventions. We recognize that there's more to what voters care about than can get covered in news stories.

Next up is the Texas Democratic Convention, exactly a month away, in Austin.

Tell us about the preparations, the excitement, the frustrations, the issues that matter. We want to follow the process through the national convention, August 25-28 in Denver.

Thanks to all who have enlightened us with their posts so far. Please keep providing your insights.

And if you're a delegate and want to join the blog, please contact Editorial Page Editor Paul Harral, harral@star-telegram.com, and/or Editorial Writer/Columnist Linda P. Campbell, lcampbell@star-telegram.com.

-- Posted by Star-Telegram Editorial Writer/Columnist Linda P. Campbell