One Bold Step

Everyone talks a great game about changing the world, or even just their lives, but courage, while free, comes with one price: action. I want to share my bold step with you, and, if you write to me with your bold step, and it's timely, I'll post it on my site every couple of weeks, if not more often.

Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!

Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Director of Research for (aka: The Foundation Foundation). Formerly with Air America Radio Phoenix ("Froggy Went A Marchin..."). Sang the National Anthem at a rally in Phoenix with Cindy Sheehan. Loves: chocolate, flowers, perfume (my grandmother), great music, politics, and a whole-hearted appreciation of the truth (Are there really "conspiracy theories" or do we need more FOIAs?). Seeker of justice and agent for change.

Monday, May 29, 2006

Nation's First Bill of Rights Monument Needs Urgent Help in Arizona

Memorial Day Appeal

Dear Supporter;

I need you take a few minutes this Memorial Day to email ( and call (602-926-5584)

Arizona Senate President Ken Bennett about the fate of HB 2682, the Bill of Rights monument bill. After being assured by his top aide that this non-partisan measure was finally scheduled for a vote last Thursday, I was told on Friday that not only didn’t the scheduled vote take place, but the bill is not at present re-scheduled.

As the 2006 legislative session is within days of adjourning, it is now clear that the Senate President could kill HB 2682 to settle some unknown political score. There is no other explanation for why a bill approving a privately funded monument to honor and celebrate the Bill of Rights, which every single member of the legislature has signed on to as a co-sponsor, can’t get a vote.

Even as someone born and raised in Washington DC, I have to admit that I am astonished by this level of partisanship. Until two weeks ago it had never occurred to me that the leadership of the Arizona Senate, given the opportunity to make their state the first in the nation to so honor this sacred document, could instead decide to snub it in such an off-handed way. That this snub could take place right after Memorial Day, when we take time to remember those Americans who died to defend the freedoms embodied most eloquently in our Bill of Rights, adds insult to injury.

Unless Senate President Bennett hears loudly and clearly from you that he will be noticed and remembered for what he does with this bill, as will the entire Arizona Senate, that is exactly what could happen. Tell Ken Bennett to stop playing politics with HB 2682, and to do the right thing for the people and state of Arizona and the nation by approving this long-overdue honor for the Bill of Rights.


Chris Bliss

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Take a Number

This clip, featuring a short study of women and leadership by David Fenig of, is very telling:

When you've finished viewing this clip go here for a cool shirt with $2.00 of each purchase going to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, a local women's shelter, or the campaign to elect the first woman president:

Enjoy, and be empowered!

Your Humble Blogger

Update: ALL the proceeds for the shirts, after costs, will go to those causes: $2.00 to breast cancer, $2.00 to David's local battered women's shelter, and the balance to the campaign to elect the first woman president. Also, David is seperating the clothing out so he can form a non-profit with them. This will allow him to send more of the money to the above causes.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Too Chicken to Impeach

So, even former Senator John Edwards is talking around the "I" word: impeachment. Did I say that I'm angry about this yet? There is a reason why I care to remind people that we have a long way to go -- even within The Democratic Party. When you take your eye off the ball, it's likely to roll away, and this is as true for holding our President and Vice President of The United States accountable as it is for our own credit reports.

Now, you could say: "Well, at least he'd vote for censure." The trouble with this notion is that it suggests we'd be okay, as a nation, with settling for a slap on the wrist when what Bush's administration has done has lead to countless, needless death and murder, not to mention the loss of several of our civil rights as laid out under The Bill of Rights.

I'm glad to see that the dire need for civics classes are back in the national debate (thanks for the air-time, Randi), but I'm now going to take this one step further: we need to teach Thomas Paine in classrooms across this country. I'll be the first to admit that it took me ten years after my high school graduation to finally read Common Sense. [NOTE: Barnes & Noble carries a very thorough store-published volume of Paine's works for the money.] However, the more I delved into Paine's writings, the more pissed off I became. Here is the man, love him or not, who finally lit a big enough fire under the seats of enough of our colonists that they finally realized they had to break away from Great Britain, and we never read Common Sense in high school. What a shame! In Common Sense Paine delivers many passages that made me realize just how "kingly" our present day President is. Now, I knew that what he was doing was morally and legally offensive, but the detail into which Paine describes The Colonies' relations with King George, III, are astonishingly similar. The last time America took on a task as closely as the Iraq conflict with Great Britain was prior to our Revolution. [NOTE: Mr. Blair, did you really need to partner up with our George on Iraq? Where's your history book?] Hence, the following from Part III of Common Sense:

"I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself, are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.
"But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as her own is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same motive, viz. the sake of trade and dominion.
"Alas, we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was INTEREST not ATTACHMENT; that she did not protect us from OUR ENEMIES on OUR ACCOUNT, but from HER ENEMIES on HER OWN ACCOUNT, from those who had no quarrel with us on any OTHER ACCOUNT, and who will always be our enemies on the SAME ACCOUNT. Let Britain wave her pretensions to the continent, or the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain. The miseries of Hanover last war ought to warn us against connections.
"It has lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i. e. that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very round-about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were. nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as AMERICANS, but as our being the subjects of GREAT BRITAIN.
"But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so and the phrase PARENT or MOTHER COUNTRY hath been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from EVERY PART of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still."

It ought to have been a HUGE signal to Prime Minister Blair that he was heading down a bad road if he chose to follow President Bush for no other reason than the fact that occupying Iraq turned out so poorly the first time. However, apparently no one in his Cabinet thought to look at their own HISTORY. Can you imagine? Thomas Paine must surely be rolling over in his grave, which happens to be back in England (he was buried on his farm in New Rochelle, New York, for only ten years before an admirer from England took him home to his country of birth).

Paine went on to write what became at least a good portion of the backbone of our current system of government. He discussed the idea of a constitution at length. Surely, enough time has passed since The French Revolution that we can give this man's ideas a second look. Here is Paine on the distinctions between "Society" and "Government," (Part I):

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
"In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out of the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
"Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
"Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.
"But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
"Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say, it is right."

" this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED." What a statement! This, alone, is the whole reason for impeachment. Yes, it can get ugly. Yes, it can be mean. But when done for the right reasons, impeachment can save us from immoral disasters of revolutionary proportions, the likes of which have started to happen in 2006.

The question is all, then, that remains: Do we really want to avoid impeaching Bush and Cheney?

My answer: Not if our nation's future depends upon it.

It's time to keep our eyes on the ball, Friends. Last time, Nixon was pardoned. Now, we have Bush. This time, we avoid impeachment. Next time?

Saturday, May 20, 2006

An Urgent Message from Chris Bliss and

Dear supporter:

We urgently need your help this weekend through Wednesday of next week. For the last month, HR 2682 – the unanimously co-sponsored bill approving placement of the nation’s first monument to the Bill of Rights here in Arizona – has been in limbo awaiting a final vote in the Senate. After passing the House 57-0 and sailing unopposed through its Senate committee hearings, the bill – which is non-partisan, has zero cost to the taxpayers, and would bring new prestige to the state capitol - suddenly can’t seem to find a spot on the voting calendar. Incredibly, a non-partisan measure to celebrate and honor the Bill of Rights that's co-sponsored by every single member of the legislature, can't find its way to the Senate floor for a vote.
The office of the bill’s Senate sponsor, Senator Karen Johnson, tells me that the bill is up again in Monday’s Senate caucus, presided over by Senate President Ken Bennett, where a series of measures will be scheduled for votes on Wednesday.

The Bill of Rights needs and deserves to be remembered, revered, and celebrated, not held in reserve fro reasons unknown. This is especially true at this point in our history, with citizens facing the most serious challenge to their personal freedom in generations. We need you to take a few minutes to email and call and your state senator, as well as Senate President Bennett, and tell them you care about the Bill of Rights, and to please schedule the vote for this non-partisan, unanimously supported measure, HR 2682.

To contact Senate President Ken Bennett:
Call : 602-926-5584

To find out who your state senator is, and how to contact him/her, go to: (you will need to know your district #)

Chris Bliss

IMPORTANT PS:: Please, also take the time to thank Senator Karen Johnson. It was Karen, solely out of her passionate belief in the Bill of Rights, who stepped forward to join hands across the aisle and declare her active support for this proposal from the very beginning. It is because of her leadership that the bill is on the verge of Senate approval.
To thank Senator Karen Johnson for her leadership:

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Love Your Member of Congress?

Courtesy Dana Milbank of The Washington Post and Keith Olbermann, the question arose on "Countdown" this evening of people actually continuing to vote for their own member of Congress, even if they don't like the majority of what that person's party is doing right now. Over 60% said that they would vote for the incumbent.

Note to and the Democrats: It's time for the "Love Your Congressman?" commercial. Many Americans, it seems, need to be reminded that just because you love someone doesn't make that person good at his or her job, or even a good person, it just means that your constituency is attracted to charisma, gerrymandering (albeit with some ignorance of this situation), and... power.

The boldest thing we can all do this November is take an honest look at our own Congressional Representatives and Senators and ask ourselves if they are really meeting up to the standards being an American, i.e. actually protecting and defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights. By the way, if you don't remember what's actually written in these documents and need to do your homework, you're not alone. So do many Americans.

If you can do this, you deserve kudos from me.


Sunday, May 14, 2006

A Look Inside The Democratic National Committee - Time To Look Again?


I posted this article at Arizona Indymedia and back in December. Given the current state of The Union, and of the Democratic machine, I thought it might be interesting to do a repost. I called myself "Friendly Fire" that night, half-jokingly, but I didn't hold back. I asked the tough questions, including the ones that many of our nation's top mainstream journalists were, and to a degree still are, ignoring or, at the very least, not openly exploring.


Your Humble Blogger


Rachel Gluck

On Thursday, December 1, The Progressive Democrats of America hosted the opening party of the Democratic National Committee semi-annual meeting at The Lucky Break on Second Street and Jefferson in downtown Phoenix. It was a boisterous event with about 200-300 of the party’s 450 delegates present. People milled around the pool tables, ate terrific hors d’oeuvres including quesadillas and chips with salsa, Phoenix favorites, and chatted up the place over a myriad of drinks, tee shirts and books for sale, and the wonder that comes with meeting other people from all across America. I had the chance to talk with some of the D. N. C.’s finest, including Howard Dean’s National Finance Chairman for his past Presidential race, Terry Lierman, Christine Pelosi, daughter of famed Democratic national House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Representative Maxine Waters from California’s 35th district, and the Chairman of the P. D. A., actress Mimi Kennedy. This article is the result of my interviews. Key questions included Iraq, immigration, and the character of the Bush administration, including the history of fascist support within the Bush family, itself, and how that might play into the current political landscape, as has been discussed on several national Air America Radio shows including “The Randi Rhodes Show” and “The Mike Malloy Show”. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, had been rumored to be coming, but did not appear.

First off, the state players, Arizona and elsewhere: I met with Jeff Latas, Candidate for The U. S. House of Representatives, Arizona, CD 08. Mr. Latas is a mild-mannered, well-spoken man who has served five tours of duty in the Middle-East and currently has a son in Iraq. He has served in Iraq himself, during the Gulf War in the 90’s, and spent several years in Saudi Arabia, among others. Jeff has a strong knowledge of the local agenda, including hot-button issue immigration. He told me that the most troubling parts of this issue are the legal status of new immigrants working, or who want to work, in Arizona and that there needs to be a stronger crack-down on employers who hire immigrants illegally. As for national issues, the most imposing one, the Iraqi offensive, needs to be dealt with responsibly. He shares many of the opinions on the war currently circulating among many in the progressive wing of the Democratic party and is supportive of Representative John Murtha (D-PA). Jeff Latas receives my endorsement. He has the right combination of ease in personality, sense of purpose, and knowledge of complex issues that can go a long way in Congress.

Rosalinda Guillén, Affirmative Action Chair of the Whatcom County, Washington, Democratic Central Committee and Executive Director of Comunidad a Comunidad (Community to Community), explained the situation of minutemen in her state, along the U. S. – Canada border. “There were several men from Whatcom County that volunteered for a month [in Arizona]… and started a minuteman contingency in Arizona.” She went on to tell me about County action dealing with the situation: “We have a county council that has drawn up a resolution opposing the minutemen.” Rosalinda let me know that a resolution dealing with this issue would be brought before the D. N. C. this weekend. For more information on Whatcom County Democrats, and issues there, go to:

Now for the people with national connections: Tom Hayden, who authored what eventually became the P. D. A.’s “Out of Iraq” strategy, gave the first major speech of the night. “The goal of the [Bush] administration was to remove the [Iraq] war from television.” In light of recent revelations in this week’s Rolling Stone Magazine ( about how the war was sold, his statement took on the aura of prophecy come true. He went on to state that the Democrats need a new “New Deal” and that immigrants should be at the center of it over the next decade. Tom mentioned that Iraq is already a member of the World Trade Organization and the problems that this suggests for the Bush administration. When asked if he knew whether or not fascism had a bearing on this administration, Tom said that he didn’t know.

Next up in the cue of my digital recorder was Terry Lierman, currently Maryland’s Democratic State Chair. When the issue of fascism was brought up, the following was his response: “If you look at President Bush’s policy as it relates to energy and the military industrial complex, he is so smitten with both of those that it’s going to be paid for for generations by our children.” When I asked Terry about why this country is still supporting voting machines, he explained a measure coming up on the Maryland ballot in about a month and a half: “It would make a paper record required for verification for counting your votes, for letting people know exactly how they voted the second after they voted. So, in Maryland, we’re really trying to take the lead on that. The second reason is very simple: people are not demanding it enough, and they’re not asking their legislators to put it in.” In light of the recent Ohio election, this might not actually be the case. The Columbus Dispatch reported overwhelming support for reform prior to the election, but the issues “failed” on Election Day. On the “liberal movement,” he said, “That’s what’s so important about the liberal movement, the liberals have got to wake up their elected officials and get these issues on the ballot.

On the D. N. C., Iraq, and Democrats speaking truth to power: “I think [Rep. Jack] Murtha’s statement was absolutely terrific. What [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi said was great. I think more and more Democratic leaders are speaking out because they see the consequences of not speaking out. I think the Democrats have learned a really, really, really difficult issue in the last six years in this country. The greatest risk is not taking one, and silence is deadly. We’re now saddled with a seven trillion dollar debt. Medicaid is cut. Our environmental and educational programs are all cut back. The list goes on, and on, and on, and, finally, people are saying, ‘enough is enough.’ We have got to stand up for what we believe in, and I’m proud of Democrats now. We did ourselves, and the nation, a terrible disservice by not speaking up. Now we are speaking up, better late than never, and we’re speaking out on the issues of moral values. More values are addressing issues of poverty, investing in America’s future for our children, talking about health care for everybody, talking about immigration programs; talking about issues that really mean something to every day Americans.”

Christine Pelosi, member of the D. N. C. from California since 1996 and one of five children of Representative Nancy Pelosi, was present and talked with me for a few minutes. “Not everybody came to this position at the same time, but I think Jack Murtha changed the debate [about Iraq]. He spoke for the kids he visits in the hospital every week. He spoke for the child he once was fighting in Vietnam.” Ms. Pelosi praised the diversity of voices within the party and said, “We are not going to bow to any efforts to curtail our liberty.”

Representative Maxine Waters gave a terrific speech about the battles that must be fought by the Democrats. She covered everything from Iraq to election reform, including endorsing a “no machines” policy. When I sat down with the Representative, we were able to get into detail about a few more issues. I presented Ms. Waters with The Council for Secular Humanism’s Fourteen Points of Social Humanism and Fascism ( - search fascism for those points). The Representative was open to the idea that fascism may very well play a role in the current administration. I explained that the word “ownership,” which has been a large part of Bush’s agenda (“ownership society”), is the foundation of domestic violence (Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft, the preeminent expert on abusive men in the nation). In response, Rep. Waters said the following: “We have to be careful because when you grow up with this idea [as Americans have], it [ownership] becomes part of the society.”

I asked Ms. Waters about two people who seem to be thorns for progressive Democrats right now: Senator Joseph Lieberman (D – CT) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D – NY). On Lieberman being an apologist for the Bush administration and Iraq: “I am very disappointed in him. I thought he was coming from a much better place than he apparently is.” On Clinton: “[Hillary] thought a lot people would be there for her while she took the more ‘centrist’ positions on the war and abortion, but a lot of people aren’t.” It seems to be a shift in the way people look at candidates who come from their own party.

Finally, I talked with Mimi Kennedy, Progressive Democrats of America Chairwoman and a woman who has studied non-violence with Reverend James Lawson (, who taught Martin Luther King, Jr., and was taught by Mahatma Gandhi. On her role as Chair, “It’s been the second most demanding role I’ve ever had. The most demanding has been my children. I remember being a good Republican girl in upstate New York during the Vietnam War, and I wanted to stop that war, as I saw the political realities [of it]. When this administration was selected, I didn’t believe that Al Gore had lost because he’d won half a million more popular votes. So, I really thought something was wrong. I predicted that Republicans would go to war because that’s what they knew and loved. I was right. My husband went to Afghanistan and started the Global Exchange Teachers Program to try and reconstruct the country because there had been a war, and it was the least we could do to help with the aftermath.”

Mimi was approached by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich about helping him with his campaign, “As he was the only candidate speaking for peace, I readily agreed and traveled with him and spoke for him.” During this time, Ms. Kennedy met Tim Carpenter who told Mimi that he was starting a new organization, and that anyone else who wanted to join could meet at The Democratic Convention. She was offered the honorary position of Chairman and agreed. “It’s been two years since I joined, and I’ve had the most wonderful opportunity to work on my country, which I love. I’ve gotten to work with people who have convictions of social justice and community and peace and strategy.”

On Democracy in America and fascism in America today, Mimi commented: “In the process of my work, I have found that we really are in danger of losing Democracy in the United States. P. D. A.’s main issues are ending the war [in Iraq] and fair and honest elections…. What I find troubling about fascism in America now is the lie that national security in this day and age of air wars can be law by telling another country we’re going to fight our battles on your soil and ruin your country for our purposes.”

On Iraqi contractors: “They don’t know anything about national security, and they don’t know anything about patriotism.” On our military and making service mandatory for all Americans who are healthy enough to serve: “Something is wrong with the military right now. The military has been thrown like cannon fodder at every problem the way we throw money at every problem. There’s no human caring, and there’s no human intelligence, and I’m not sure that the lack of intelligence can be solved by teaching every young person to thrust their bayonet into a dummy and say, ‘Kill, kill, kill the dummy.’”

All in all, the night was successful. While it would have been the icing on the cake to have an opening appearance from Dr. Dean, Representative Waters more than filled his shoes. Tom, Mimi, and Terry also made the night exciting for the Dems, who stayed until midnight to take part in the festivities. If every issue mentioned in this article is being seriously discussed this weekend, then it will be a successful weekend, indeed.