Skip to main content

Big h/t to ceebs for alerting me to this story.

From Business Insider:

Two separate statements from News Corp. appear to indicate that the company's News America Marketing — which handles its obscure but lucrative grocery coupon and in-store supermarket advertising advertising business — has lost 8,200 stores from its network.

It could be the beginning of a costly ad client mutiny for Rupert Murdoch's News, which has already seen Rite Aid, Family Dollar and Dial Corp. turn against it. Those store networks and advertisers are angry at News after litigation revealed it allegedly used illegal monopolistic practices to keep prices artificially high for its advertisers. news settled those allegations — which came from competing coupon and in-store agencies — for $656 million.

Dial Corp. then sued News, alleging it held an unfair monopoly over certain stores. Rite Aid and Family Dollar removed their stores from News sometime in early January.

The litigation mentioned in the above excerpt refers to the "Floorgraphics Scandal", described thusly in The New York Times:

In 2009, a federal case in New Jersey brought by a company called Floorgraphics went to trial, accusing News America of, wait for it, hacking its way into Floorgraphics’s password protected computer system.

The complaint summed up the ethos of News America nicely, saying it had “illegally accessed plaintiff’s computer system and obtained proprietary information” and “disseminated false, misleading and malicious information about the plaintiff.”

The complaint stated that the breach was traced to an I.P. address registered to News America and that after the break-in, Floorgraphics lost contracts from Safeway, Winn-Dixie and Piggly Wiggly.

News Corp. eventually settled this case for well over half a billion dollars. However, as this most recent development suggests, the settlement hasn't kept stores from fleeing Murdoch in droves.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (149+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ToKnowWhy, Roadbed Guy, SCFrog, parsonsbeach, luckylizard, blue aardvark, Vatexia, EclecticCrafter, tardis10, thankgodforairamerica, stagemom, blueoregon, Dave in Northridge, ExStr8, Sun Tzu, Matt Z, Sandino, radarlady, Shockwave, anodnhajo, zerelda, AnnieR, chimpy, cotterperson, get the red out, Alma, bluedust, FisherOfRolando, OIL GUY, CA wildwoman, jaf49, roses, hwmnbn, OldSoldier99, gustynpip, white blitz, Brit, confitesprit, semiot, Amber6541, MKinTN, karmsy, MartyM, eru, Caddis Fly, rubyr, rja, Sychotic1, AZ Sphinx Moth, nmjardine, 2thanks, Haf2Read, Gowrie Gal, RandomNonviolence, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, bumbi, Powered Grace, tommymet, RUNDOWN, alwaysquestion, statsone, dlemex, lostboyjim, markdd, JoanMar, sfarkash, Creosote, trumpeter, Ohiodem1, quaoar, navajo, NapaJulie, pasadena beggar, addisnana, akze29, Witgren, wilderness voice, jacey, UncleCharlie, SilentBrook, Sean Robertson, Friend in Miami, parakinesis, Lujane, AllanTBG, Smoh, FlyingToaster, Its a New Day, Shotput8, Puddytat, fumie, grrr, mcgee85, Carlo, remembrance, Pam from Calif, ewmorr, JVolvo, glitterscale, thomask, davelf2, Calamity Jean, BlackSheep1, deepeco, shortgirl, Empower Ink, Rosaura, dadadata, countwebb, antooo, seefleur, Just Bob, beach babe in fl, DeminNewJ, prfb, Eyesbright, wader, catly, 1BQ, PeteZerria, buckstop, Southcoast Luna, virginislandsguy, avsp, arizonablue, dotsright, dwahzon, Liberal Granny, slowbutsure, renzo capetti, Chaddiwicker, olo, basquebob, Dumbo, Nebraskablue, PeterHug, SadieSue, ceebs, Ice Blue, Curt Matlock, Herodotus Prime, Jeff Y, radical simplicity, ask, brentbent, ColoTim, jayden, sidnora, Tinfoil Hat

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:48:03 AM PST

  •  You mention Rupert & Floorgraphics (64+ / 0-)

    but not the role of everyone's (newly) favorite GOP flunkie?

    Speaking of course of Chris Christie . .. .

    Here are two very different takes on Chris Christie's corruption buster street cred. One's the cartoony glimpse of Christie afar. The other is darker - much darker - and much more accurate.

    [jump to the second]

    Second video is from Countdown (now at Current TV), an interview with Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. This tracks the emergence of info from a former Rupert Murdoch Newscorp employee turned whistleblower, in an investigation that could prove that Newscorp acted illegally in this country. But it may also show that Chris Christie turned a blind eye when evidence of illegal practices was brought to his attention. This is the Floorgraphics case (see Hacking, Schmacking) involving hacking of that NJ company's proprietary information by News Corp. (which has already admitted hacking and settled for millions). The question now is, Why didn't Christie's vaunted corruption-busting US Atty's office go after Murdoch's company?  Floorgraphics was beseeching prosecutors to look at the evidence.  What happens if the a pattern of misconduct can be drawn of Murdoch's company in the U.S. and in New Jersey? Was it acting as a 'criminal enterprise'? Boehlert says yes: lawbreaking, hacking, strong-arming clients, defrauding shareholders, anti-trust. And if the investigators decide criminal charges will be filed, some hard questions may come to former U.S. Attorney Christie about this pretty slam-dunk case of corporate corruption, in which his own political allies may be implicated. Why did he, or his office, ignore this case? Was it because of who owns the 'criminal enterprise' in question?


    •  Shhhhh (41+ / 0-)

      Let's wait for Christie to be at least the GOP frontrunner for the 2016 nomination before bringing this up.

      We really do want to have their next nominee be chosen at the convention, after all. No vetting by the big money boys, just let the true believers have at it.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:11:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There was a TON of slime involved in this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0, SadieSue, Creosote

      Not only did Murdoch's company hack Floorgraphic's computer system and use the customer data there to start bad mouthing the company behind the scenes, but by the time the whole thing was over (Murdoch et al found guilty), Floorgraphic was so weakened financially that Murdoch bought them out.  Floorgraphic had become successful by launching the concept of in-store ads placed on the floor of grocery aisles and Murdoch decided he wanted that business along with other elements of store advertising.)

      Murdoch's store advertising organization (which offered to handle both in-store ads and out-of-store promotional mailings - those damned multi-page shopper/coupon fliers that clog up your mailbox) had been growing its market by massively undercutting competitors to land contracts with store chains to handle their advertising.  Once they had the contracts, they began squeezing the stores....jacking up rates and telling them, if you want this kind of advertising you have to buy this as well or pay massively more for the single route.

      That approach made them a ton of money, but if this diary is true, it appears that they also made themselves a ton of customer enemies and the castle is crumbling.

      The Murdoch organization has a long track record of corporate nastiness.....evidence suggests that in order to win over a foreign cable TV distribution network, they hacked the dish encoders of their competition and flooded the market with the hacked code.  The sudden loss of revenue weakened the competitor and Murdoch won.

      And of course there were all the assurances given to the Bancroft family, previous owners of the Wall Street Journal by Murdoch....assurances that he would preserve elements of the paper's operations....assurances that were quickly dropped once he had ownership.

      The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones was owned by hands off owner, the Bancroft family from Boston. He had tried to buy the newspaper several times before but his offer was always snubbed by its owner. Later on when he learned that there are divisions among the Bancroft family, Rupert seize the moment and offered to buy The Wall Street Journal at 2x of its price per share during that time.

      The staggering offer split the Bancroft family even further and children are running to sue their parents if they’ve agreed to sell to Murdoch which according to the newspaper’s management could certainly damage the quality of The Wall Street Journal if Rupert would use what he practices for years in his own newspaper business.

      Before the Journal was sold the Bancroft family got an assurance from Murdoch that the journal’s editorial quality will be protected and Murdoch also promised that he would certainly maintain the quality of the paper.

      In 2007 Dow Jones entered into an agreement with News Corporation that resulted to Murdoch’s ownership of The Wall Street Journal. Predictably Murdoch broke the promised that he had made and brought in his own people who certainly defeated and punctured the egos of the people on The Wall Street Journal.

      Bancroft members also said that if they had known of Murdoch's involvement in the British phone hacking scandals, they might not have agreed to the sale.

      Look....this may hurt Rupert a bit, but his empire is so large that a loss here is offset by gains elsewhere.  Unless he croaks first, I predict that while his organization will face major charges and penalties for the phone hacking scandal, he will survive handily and continue forward.  

      Son James may be out of the limelight, but he clearly shares his father's ethics (or lack of them) and for Rupert, would be a worthy successor.

      Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

      by dweb8231 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 11:30:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh well done! (12+ / 0-)

    Thank you for reporting this.    

    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Vatexia on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:19:51 AM PST

  •  Great diary, thanks (11+ / 0-)

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:23:41 AM PST

  •  Awesome news! Thanks for a good start to the day! (12+ / 0-)

    While not all republicans are bigots, all bigots are republicans.

    by Maximilien Robespierre on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:53:29 AM PST

  •  Murdoch (almost spelled it Mor-douche) (11+ / 0-)

    is SOOOOO unethical I hope more businesses refuse to work with his companies as being too risky.

    Why isn't the US DOJ or FBI investigating this kind of hacking problem?

    Something that doesn't make good sense, makes bad sense. That means someone is being deliberately hurtful & selfish. Look for motives behind actions & words.

    by CA wildwoman on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:08:06 AM PST

  •  I believe Chris Christie helped out Murdoch on (5+ / 0-)

    the floor graphics issue as NJ AG at the time.  

    "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness" -Annie Savoy (Bull Durham)

    by Jacoby Jonze on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:10:44 AM PST

    •  JJ - Christy was never AG of NJ (10+ / 0-)

      He served as the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey for six years. US Attorney's are appointed by the POTUS, confirmed by the Senate, and are part of the US Department of Justice. US Attorneys are not elected positions.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:22:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Floorgraphics case was interstate commerce (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Creosote, ericlewis0

        Therefore under the purview of... Wait for it... The US Attorney in the District concerned.  Which would be... Oh my, that would be Chris Christie, who was given the complaint and ignored it.

        But thank you so much for implying JJ was wrong for suggesting that Christie was helping Rupert Murdoch in this case. Because getting the name of the position wrong means Christie must be completely innocent of aiding a crony instead of prosecuting business fraud and illegal hacking which led to Floorgraphics' failure and Murdoch's firm gaining a near-monopoly by illegal business practices.

        It's funny how you never play this little distraction and deflection game with Democrats, though. One would almost think you're a Republican partisan who can't quite quit Daily Kos, but that couldn't be the case.  It's just the 1,475th time you've sided with a Republican but that's completely coincidental! Silly of anyone to think your intentions here are dishonest and underhanded!  Why it's just a giant misunderstanding!  Just like the last one! And all those times you defended Mitt Romney's business ethics and favorable tax advantages! I don't know why anyone would think you're not being 100% honest about your presence here! Just because you go haven't supported a single Democrat by name in the many years you've been on this site doesn't mean squat!  

        The point is, Chris Christie was not the NJ Attorney General, so STFU Jacoby!

        •  madhaus - I was just stating a fact (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I made no mention at all of the case in question because I don't know anything about it and have no opinion regarding it. My comment wasn't pro or con any political party whatsoever. I was just correcting a factual mistake so that readers would know that Christie had never held statewide elected office before he ran for governor.

          I thought we were a fact based site. My comment received nine RECs and your blast at me one. It's one thing when we have differences on policy, but why the vitriol when I am just correcting a factual mistake?

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:46:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're comparing recs when I comment to you (0+ / 0-)

            In an old diary at 11 o'clock PACIFIC?  Are you for real?

            The sad thing is I think you are.  Of course you were just stating a fact, and of course it's a complete and utter coincidence that your statement of this fact leaves the impression that the OC was unfairly accusing Christie of not doing his job. Why, no one could have foreseen that your correcting the OC on a fact while not mentioning anything else at all about the case because you "don't know anything about it" would lead the casual reader to think Christie was innocent of the accusation.  One would think that you didn't understand the purpose of the US Attorney's Office at all, or that you didn't understand how many politicians use it as a launch for elected statewide leadership positions.  Wow, one would think there's a whole Atlantic Ocean of things you don't seem to understand yet make unqualified authoritative statements about them anyway.

            And no one could have foreseen that when I suggested, yet again, that it's awfully odd you're so active on this site when you have never, ever, ever supported a Democrat by name, that instead of responding with a list of all the Dems you've advocated for or donated to or diaried about or at the very least VOTED FOR in 2008 and 2012, you once more respond to a very tiny sliver of the comment and quibble about your reply being factual.

            One can be factual yet still be misleading.  Correcting someone for naming the wrong position while you're simultaneously ignoring the responsibility and function of the position being discussed is misleading.  Comparing recs received during a diary's active phase with those received in the wee hours in misleading.  Ignoring substantive concerns about your purpose on a site dedicated to "electing more and better Democrats" is extremely misleading.

            I don't think asking someone to explain why s/he only pushes Republican and Conservative memes on a Democratic site is vitriolic. I look forward to your next factual response addressing this jarring misalignment of your values with this site's purpose, and why you should be completely excused from any criticism for it.

            •  The diary author gave a REC to both my comments (0+ / 0-)

              Someone likes facts and likely sees this dustup as having nothing whatsoever to do the with diary topic.

              I don't have to defend my writing to you or anyone else. I have been here for six years and have written nearly 25,000 comments. I have people who follow me who find what I write interesting and a handful of critics, including you. And that's fine except my critics seem to either cherry pick my comments or like in this instance create an entire story around my motives which are a complete fantasy. Lot's of my comments are just correcting factual mistakes, with no opinion intended at all. Like all unedited blog sites people here at DKOS constantly write material that is factually incorrect. When I am reading through a diary, or comment, and see something that is incorrect I'll ask a question or correct the mistake as in this case, and I think many here appreciate that.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:55:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Eric recommended my comment as well (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Which suggests he appreciates people commenting in his diary, independent of whether he agrees with the commenter.  He's probably looking at our usernames and saing to himself "If madhaus were in Animal Nuz, what kind of animal would she be?"

                You repeatedly confuse quantity with intent.  For all we know you could be a paid-by-the-post troll hired by a KochBros wingnut welfare warbase to post intelligent yet subversive comments that skew conservative.  Your refusal to explain your purpose here leaves me little choice but rampant speculation as to your ulterior motives.

                After all, you know why you're here and I know why I'm here.  Yet my political opinions arent wildly out of skew with the site's stated purpose, so those who disagree with me would question my reasoning, tone, or tactics, not whether I belong here in the first place, or whether I'm actually here to undermine the good work done by others.

                Why you wouldn't honestly own up to your reason for posting conservative memes to a liberal site doesn't speak well of your motives.  But keep sharing those facts with us!  You never know, maybe one of them might even skew 51% Democratic if we ignore the red wrapper your facts always seem to come in. There's always hope!

                •  There is always hope! (0+ / 0-)

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:34:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And once more the kitchen gets too hit for you (0+ / 0-)

                    Think about that fact.

                      •  I don't comment much about actual races (0+ / 0-)

                        and candidates, but more on policy issues. Public policy is the area that interests me and why I blog here.

                        The whole Romney/Private Equity thing was largely a communications issue of which I did a very poor job understanding what others were writing about. I kept thinking they were writing about the Bain Capital investment partnerships and people were intending to mean Bain Capital, the management company. While they often used the wrong terms I should have clarified my comments better. While I have never worked at a PE firm, on behalf of a former employer I was a limited partner in several so I have more understanding than most here at DKOS about how PE actually works. I have also been a General Partner of investment partnerships in other areas (not PE) and how all of these investment partnerships work is very common. Nearly every diary, and many comments, about Bain Capital had factual errors and I was hoping to be a source of information, but it came across to most as advocacy. I did a poor job. I do have experience in areas that are relatively uncommon here such as serving on public company boards of directors, actually recruiting and negotiating compensation for CEOs and other senior executive, chairing public company compensation and audit committees, and being a professional investor. I have a solid background in tax, although we have a handful of people here who are expert practitioners and I am not in their league. However, with the exception of our few experts much of what is written here about tax have glaring errors of fact. This allows me to bring some real world experience, and context, to the discussion of certain issues. I am glad the election is over, and Romney lost, and many of the issues in the campaign have moved off the pages of DKOS.

                        "let's talk about that"

                        by VClib on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:10:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I really do appreciate it when Kogs share their (0+ / 0-)

                          expertise here.  Really.  I do.

                          But I don't think this is limited to your repeated inability to discern, over dozens and dozens and DOZENS of diaries that many people were upset over how Bain Capital made money for its partners as opposed to its investors.  In order for your story to be true, you were simultaneously this big, swinging d--k (see Liar's Poker) who knew the world of PE and everyone else was an idiot who got basic facts wrong, yet you were too thick to recognize that an investment company could use The Producers as a business model.

                          Here's another firm in a completely different field who found a way to do that.  

                          So how can this be?  You're deeply steeped in a rarified world where few know the ins and out or the lingo, yet almost everyone at this site can understand a concept that was so completely beyond you?  Realistically, isn't it far more likely that you played the naif rather than that someone as brilliant as you really was that stupid?

                          This site has a very short and easy to understand mission statement.  Ducking the question of which candidates you support on this site just makes you look like you have something really awful to hide.  

                          And this is not the first time you've avoided very direct questions about your politics.  If you declined to discuss your politics on an investment board or a fishing forum that would be completely understandable, but DK is explicitly a political site.   Furthermore, you don't stay in the Pootie and Music and Books corners.  You're in all the news threads. This is the equivalent of posting on an investment board, advocating strongly and repeatedly for various monetary policies that would affect bond prices, and then flat out refusing to say whether you were long or short on them or what mix your preferred.

                          And given what you've shared about your career experience, it seems you've spent a lot of time working closely with not just the 1%, but the .01%.  That could seriously skew your sense of what's right, what's fair, or what's appropriate when setting policy for an entire country.  And once more, by repeatedly sweeping your politics under the rug, your behavior suggests not merely acknowledgement that you're not among landsmen, but guilt.  After all, your politics must be so abhorrent to the typical DK reader you dare not share them.  Ever.

                          These are some of the many reasons why I have my doubts as to why you're really posting here.  

                          •  madhause - I have been a Democrat since (0+ / 0-)

                            I was eight years old and handing our flyers for my uncle who was running for state legislature in the Democratic primary where the Dem primary winner was a lock. My Dad was a blue collar Depression era high school dropout, my Mom worked at the local Sears store in the back office. I grew up in a fourth floor walk up. My family has always been solid Democrat and so have I. I am much more of a JFK Democrat than a Teddy Kennedy Democrat, but being a Democrat here is essentially a given. I am very liberal on social issues, and more free market on economic issues. I live in a very Democratic area where essentially all the public office holders are Dems. I tend to view politics more from the perspective of a political scientist than an advocate.

                            I feel badly about the Bain dialogue I could have done a much better job of helping people put information into a much more accurate context.  There was so much misinformation that I would just start writing and should have given it much more thought. But that is water under the bridge. My guess is that no major political party will run an investor, or big company CEO, for national office or even most state wide offices for the foreseeable future.

                            Mostly, I do have fun here and I learn things and there is a growing group of people who seem to appreciate my contribution.

                            "let's talk about that"

                            by VClib on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 09:29:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, you've given your history before (0+ / 0-)

                            And I believe you when you talked about that.  I even believe that you feel badly how the Bain stuff went, and I know what it's like when trying to correct amateur misunderstandings but fail to do so because they're in such a different place than you.

                            Fact remains, you duck a lot of direct questions.  On a politics site.  About your politics.

                            You didn't say who you voted for.  You said who people voted for where you lived.  More ducking.  Do you even realize how much you do this, or do you think you're being so clever trying to sneak this past me?  

                            I would appreciate your contributions, given that you do have a background few people here have, if I didn't have the overwhelming sense you are hiding something and are here to subvert the discussion.

  •  This is ominous. (13+ / 0-)

    It's potentially more deadly than the previous Murdoch scandals combined, because it directly involves the bottom line. Ironic, too, that it's nothing that was said on-air, it's not the ideological of his programing that may finally bring Murdoch down, if this gains traction and gets legs.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:31:32 AM PST

  •  I have influence with one grocery store (13+ / 0-)

    chain--not a lot of influence, but a bit.
    Perhaps I could encourage them to jump on this bandwagon.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:32:11 AM PST

Thumb, Alma, Sean Robertson, glitterscale, Powered Grace, PeterHug, Shockwave, cotterperson, rubyr, pollyusa, exNYinTX, Creosote, davelf2, BlackSheep1, ask, boadicea, chimpy, roses, ceebs, jalbert, PeteZerria, fumie, navajo, Cedwyn, sidnora, Brit, wader, psnyder, virginislandsguy, Eyesbright, duncanidaho, Chirons apprentice, Sychotic1, FlyingToaster, Curt Matlock, NapaJulie, Gowrie Gal, ExStr8, radarlady, UncleCharlie, stlawrence, basquebob, stagemom, Laurence Lewis, eru, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, pasadena beggar, Ice Blue, markdd, Sandino, Shotput8, tommymet, Rosaura, SadieSue, JVolvo, CA Nana, blueoregon, bstotts, AllanTBG, gustynpip, Dave in Northridge, jayden, wilderness voice, OIL GUY, South Park Democrat, Empower Ink, thankgodforairamerica, olo, revm3up, Sixty Something, dadadata, VL Baker, Calamity Jean, Lujane, boatjones, RandomNonviolence, hwmnbn, Jeff Y, catly, luckylizard, get the red out, watercarrier4diogenes, shortgirl, statsone, lostboyjim, ewmorr, Nebraskablue, Ohiodem1, ToKnowWhy, petral, UnaSpenser, Keith Pickering, sfarkash, Amber6541, Just Bob, cezariusz, brentbent, confitesprit, renzo capetti, womankind, JoanMar, Puddytat, addisnana, rja, Betty Pinson, Maximilien Robespierre, I love OCD, slowbutsure, lillyspad, Haf2Read, thomask, bluedust, Caddis Fly, FisherOfRolando, Vatexia, SouthernLiberalinMD, jacey, Liberal Granny, anodnhajo, EclecticCrafter, AnnieR, 2thanks, tennischef, radical simplicity, MartyM, ricklewsive, avsp, arizonablue, AZ Sphinx Moth, Chaddiwicker, countwebb, argomd, Herodotus Prime, remembrance, Witgren, Southcoast Luna, parsonsbeach, Smoh, RUNDOWN, CA wildwoman, OldSoldier99, Funfurbie

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site