High-Level McCain Volunteer Worked To Keep Blacks Out Of Jefferson Group
It looks like John McCain could have another controversial campaign associate on his hands. This time it comes in the form of Paula Abeles, a former Clinton-backer who has now taken a lead in organizing support for McCain among women voters.
One problem, as Ben Smith has discovered: Abeles previously attained notoriety in 2003 as part of her husband's association of Thomas Jefferson descendants, working hard to keep out any of Sally Hemmings' African-American descendants. When it was discovered that she'd used a fake Internet identity to undermine the efforts of Jefferson's alleged black descendants, she said it was necessary to make sure the family reunion was "a calm and civilized gathering."
An anonymous McCain aide told Smith: "We typically don't vet people who are simply expressing an interest in supporting the campaign, but the campaign will evaluate the policy to assure that appropriate steps are being taken."
Former Clinton Supporter? You just can't make this stuff up. Really.
1) How was this not discovered while Clinton was still in the race?
2) Is McCain's campaign completely oblivious to the word "Google" and it's relevance to running a half-decent campaign?
June 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the answer to 2) had conclusively been proven to be "yes" well before this. What's funny is that they still don't get it. I'm envisioning his oppo team as a bunch of cranky, arthritic 65 pluses leafing through bound magazines and microfilmed newspapers in libraries.
June 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you mean, "the Google"?
June 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is this "google" you speak of?
JSM
June 16, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well its obvious why it "supposedly" wasn't discovered during the clinton campaign and people already admitted to their dirty tactics last week.
I agree that for some reason the mccain campaign doesn't know what google is, you dont have to do much vetting to find out what these people have been up to.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one ex-Clinton supporter whose motives for supporting McCain instead of Obama are not difficult to decipher.
June 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's just trying to make the Presidential race a "calm and civilized" affair.
We can't have none of them blacks mucking things up.
June 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
we can't have any green yodas sliming it up ignoramus
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's with this "possible Afraican-American descendants" crap Ben Smith is talking about. They've got frakkin DNA testing to prove it, for cripes sake.
June 16, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the DNA evidence did not resolve the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings#DNA_testing
The DNA evidence is suggestive, but does not, for example, eliminate other male descendants of Jefferson's grandfather. (Of course the white descendants probably don't have a better claim.)
June 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same people who doubt Jefferson was the father of at least one of Hemings' children probably also believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by tree hugging scientists.
A quote from the PBS Frontline site:
June 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How low can this get?
June 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
How low can this get?
June 16, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, for her, racism trumps women's rights.
Also, NOW the McCain camp is saying that they don't vet certain campaign associates, whereas a week ago it was all about "Why didn't Obama vet the person vetting his VP?" Hypocrites.
June 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's "Campaign supporters" vs. "Campaign Advisors," apples and oranges. Remember the head of Hamas is an Obama campaign supporter.
June 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas doesn't like him, either:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126413
June 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace doesn't care. He'd rather spread distortions and outright lies to serve his purpose than facts that are a bit...inconvenient.
June 16, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was later, remember y'all were pounding on Joe for wondering why Hamas wanted Obama instead of McCain...?
June 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's weak. No one from Hamas is meeting with Obama nor being welcomed into his campaign with open arms. If Obama holds an event, "Hamas for Change," and shakes hands with actual terrorists, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, spare us.
June 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamas is really just trying to sway and disrupt our elections. We all know that Iran and Hamas have gotten stronger because of the war and if mccain is elected then we will stay longer in the middle east thus making iran and hamas stronger
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the name of her group Racists for McCain?
June 16, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The AP article linked in Politico says Abeles impersonated a black woman in a chat room in her effort to keep Hemings' descendants out of the reunion.
The money quote, for me:
""It might have been somewhat unethical," said Paulie Abeles of Washington, D.C., who participated for eight months in the Yahoo! message board created for relatives of Jefferson slave Sally Hemings."
Ya think??
June 16, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...this goes a long way to explain the poster dijamo here.
I'm going to start addressing "her" as Ms. Abeles for now on.
June 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
and why would you do that?
June 16, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between vetting, or not vetting: (a) a member of your VP search team, and (b) the known (and unknown?) universe of people who volunteer for a campaign or otherwise speak in favor of a candidate.
In case (a) there is perfect information about who the parties are. In case (b), not.
June 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only question is, if you are going to be doing stuff like this, why you would publish your home address publicly on the internet??
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=649#comment-173482
What a retarded woman. Maybe everyone should send her a nice "Heard you were a racist, get well soon!" card.
June 16, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Watch your adjectives. Persons with mental retardation don't deserve to be put in the same basket as Paula Abeles.
Try idiotic, stupid, repulsive, arrogant twit of a, slime bag.... I'm sure you can think of several more appropriate and colorful descriptors.
June 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! :)
June 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful here folks. I'm not a lawyer but this may be interpreted as crossing the line.
June 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What line?
O, and I am a lawyer. I have no idea what you mean.
June 16, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. I thought if someone actually does carry through with something threatening to this woman then these comments could be interpreted as inciting others to action and could carry some responsibility. Since this isn't the case I'll stick to my area of expertise (which is nothing) and retract my comment. Carry on.
June 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
She posted the information herself. I merely linked to her post(as did Politico). I was intentionally careful to not relay her private information directly. If there is a liability, it's over at HillaryIs44.
June 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heeeheee! I followed your link to that foolish post on hillaryis44. I had cruised around over there before, but never noticed that one of the buttons at the top of the screen says "Confidential Tips". It opens a blank Email addressed to the site staff, so you can send them juicy tidbits. I sent them this:
Subject: Top Secret
Pssst - Hillary is no longer in the presidential race!
Tell your friends!
June 16, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fun! :)
June 16, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that this Hillary "supporter" was supporting her in the Primary, but had never intended to vote for her -and her policies- in the General Election?
I think so. She really wasn't supporting Hillary, she was supporting any White candidate. All she really wants is to keep the country "calm and civilized."
June 16, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we certainly encountered more than a few of those here, didn't we?
June 16, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All she really wants is to keep the country "calm and civilized."
Apparently, she will be neither calm nor civilized when we elect our first black president.
June 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this race-baiting even necessary? 90%+ of blacks are already voting Obama. Why stoke the racial flames?
June 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
cause there are white people who don't like racism either. some of them might have been considering voting for mcCain.
June 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling out racism isn't race-baiting, Gooper Troll.
June 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, good luck to McLame finding a Repug who isn't a racist.
It's the party of racists, perverts, haters and greedheads.
Where is McLame going to find any decent human beings? He's not, if they are Repugs.
June 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You truly think all Republicans are "racists, perverts, haters and greedheads?" (Hint: this is why you guys keep losing the White House)
June 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Hint: It has to do with some of the people the Republican Party pushes to power. Though I agree that painting all Republican voters as such is over the line, I wouldn't think that doing so for those in the Republican machine is all that inaccurate.)
June 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell us why Republicans keep losing the White House, then.
June 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we've won 7 of the past 10...
June 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"7 of the last 10"?
Or 7 of the last 12 (58%)?
Or 10 of the last 20 (50%)?
June 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Whigs used to be really good too...
June 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You remember the Whigs?
Hey! This guy is really McCain!
June 16, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would probably add "hypocrite" to that list.
June 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
*clap* *clap* *clap*
You'll be pretty fucking pissed, I suppose, when you learn Barack Obama thinks Republicans are (gasp!) human beings whose ideas are worth some respect.
I have to agree with the poster who said your sneering disdain is illustrative of why we keep losing elections. Fortunately, this time, our candidate disagrees with you.
June 16, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena -- I respect you and agree with a lot that you say on various posts .... but not this. I work with many people who are registered Republicans - active in the party even - and guess what? There are good ones and bad ones and boring ones and facinating ones and racist ones and ones that have gotten choked up and bursting with pride at the fact that we've come so far that a black can run for President. While party identification is certainly more of a choice than gender or race, this sort of global prejudice doesn't get us anywhere and is unfair to a lot of decent and good people. And it certainly isn't in keeping with Obama's approach or view. My .02, anyway...
June 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX,
So Democrats aren't "racists, perverts, haters and greedheads" too?
June 16, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not as a party - that's not the party philosophy.
Read some Repug platforms sometime and then get back to me.
June 16, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im an independent and I kindof new as far as my level of attention in the political process. I would have to say that yeah democrat and republicans have racists within the party. But the democrats would definitely have to be the more inclusive party as far as the policies and core values they have. It doesn't help when you have a fellow democrat's campaign use racial bias to divide the party which didn't even work because obama became the nominee, so really she divided the party for nothing.
I think McCain is going to become the candidate thats getting the disefected racists democrats of the party which doesn't make mcCain's possible win in November seem that exciting. That really has to beat on someones consious to know that a lot of people voting for you are loud and proud racists.
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
June 16, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all don't think Repugs hate:
homosexuals?
women who want to have a personal right to our own bodies?
Muslims?
You don't think Repugs don't think poor people are just lazy?
You don't know of Repug writers who claim African Americans are inherently not as smart as white people?
You don't think Pat Buchanan is a racist?
I have no love for the people who have fucked up my country and no use for being polite about them and what they have done.
Y'all are free to see it otherwise - I'm a partisan and I'm very proudly partisan.
June 16, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I don't think most Republicans *individually* hate gays or minorities. I think most think that it really is all about baseball, mom and apple pie, and they are unable or unwilling to think critically about and question what they are so accustomed to. I think they are generally unable (or unwilling) to see the institutionalized racism and discrimination in their party.
For most of these people, a genuine examination of all that their party has done to the United States is a very painful process of disillusionment.
It's a process that has to take place if we're going to recover as a nation, but we shouldn't ignore that it is painful for people.
June 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, but keep your sanctimonious shrieking to yourself until after the election, please, unless you want to torpedo our candidate. Christ. And you wonder why half the country hates you.
June 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half the country hates HusseinTena? Did I miss a poll?
June 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her whiteness is showing
June 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't say "all," she said "party of."
I believe that by their actions, that is what they have shown themselves as, personally.
June 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me this is the real fun part of the story:
Abeles brought all this attention to herself when she wrote Politico and complained that Stein had not given her enough credit for organizing the McCain event. This led Stein to investigate who this Paulie Abeles was.
What a joke!
June 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing - who do you think it was who came up with the Southern Strategy? And do y'all know what it is? What it's based on?
Racism - straight up. And the Repugs have been using it since integration.
Do not tell me that they are not the party of racists and haters.
June 16, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. Thank you, Dick Nixon (and Pat Buchanan, his speechwriter from back in the day). All explained in that new book Nixonland by Rick Perlstein.
June 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The actual author was Kevin Phillips, who in recent years has turned into a decent human being. Pat Buchanan does have an unfortunate xenophobic streak but he speaks a good line on war, empire and preserving our republic.
June 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's as stupid as calling the Democratic Party the party of communists and terrorists. Shut up. Please just shut the fuck up.
June 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama must apologise to hillary voters for what sally hemmings did to thomas jefferson. otherwise i will surely vote for mccain because he cares about women and slaves.
June 16, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain Campaign: A Never-ending Train Wreck
June 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
that hair is a train wreck
June 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I pay Mister Alexis $150 every Saturday for my styling (including mustache shampoo and mousse). And I frankly don't think he'd appreciate having his loving handiwork described as a "trainwreck."
June 16, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX - Well said! IMHO, there are only 4 reasons people vote for the rethuglicans. 1-they're malignantly greedy; 2-they're repulsively racist; 3- they're willfully ignorant or, 4- they're abjectly stupid. Most of 'em, in my experience fall into categories 1 or 3.
As Winston Churchill observed, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
June 16, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winston Churchil also said "A young conservative has no heart, an old liberal has no brains."...
June 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
no he didn't, SFC. Churchill gets attributed lots of things he never said. Aristide Briand (former French Prime Minister, use the google to look him up) said this:
"The man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head."
Appropriately for you, Churchill did say this:
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
June 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Took your advice, it seems everyone said it... Including Churchill.
http://retro.co.za/quotes/eli.html
"Any man who is not... a socialist before he is 40 has no heart.
Any man who is still a socialist after he is 40 has no head."
- Wendell L. Willkie (quoted by Richard Norton Smith)
http://www.sirius.com/~maya/poetry/republico.html
"As George Bernard Shaw said,
one who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart,
and one who remains a socialist at 40 has no head."
http://home.planetinternet.be/~smitsr/quotes/b.html
"The man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart,
but if he is still a socialist at 40 he has no head."
- Aristide Briand (1862 - 1932)
[French premier and former socialist]
http://bserver.com/bunker/party.html
"I think it was William Casey [director of the CIA] who said,
A man who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart,
and a man who is a socialist at 40 has no head."
http://abedul.pntic.mec.es/colaborativos/quotes/list.html
"Anyone who is not a socialist at 16 has no heart,
but anyone who still is at 32 has no mind."
- Woodrow Wilson
http://jerryk.com/dialogue/dialogue960915.htm
"He who is not a Socialist at 19, has no heart.
He who is still a Socialist at 30, has no brain."
- Otto Von Bismarck (1815-1896)
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/Content/1998/12/68/edits/seaton.html
"Georges Clemenceau [another French Premier and former socialist]
once said something like:
A 20-year-old who is not a Socialist has no heart,
but a 30-year-old who is still a Socialist has no brains."
http://www.bkkpost.samart.co.th/news/BParchive/BP970911/1109_busi22.html
"Not to be a Republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."
- François Guisot (1787-1874)
and:
"A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart;
a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head."
- Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)
June 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also said this, "I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents." Which is why GWB will be judged so well.
June 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humm. By that criteria, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would be judged very highly.
June 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No...they imprisoned and executed their political opponents..."W" only does that to the terrorists...of course now that Al Queda has joined forces with the ACLU, we'll see.
June 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
he also said this:
"This is not my sandwich"... which is rather apropos of nothing, like most of the quotes we're throwing out.
June 17, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little something for our rethuglican friends...
http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/
June 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX,
Spare me the lecture on party platforms; I was a delegate back when you were probably in diapers. As far as the the Southern Strategy goes, what do you think Bill Clinton was doing in the DLC? What do you think Hillary Clinton's been doing for the past few months? You rant about Republicans but ignore the fact that Paula Abeles was a staunch Clinton supporter who switched to McCain. Address the racism in your own party, thank you. (What? No comments about BKinDaHouse?)
June 16, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a middle ground to this argument in the subject of Obamicans. Obama turns red Colorado blue, so they must really exist.
June 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colorado was blue as of 2004, and confirmed so in 2006.
During 2004, the Democratic Party had made gains in Colorado, capturing a U.S. Senate Seat, another U.S. House Seat, and were also able to take control of both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. In 2006, a Dem was elected governor.
June 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, Dems have gained in local politics these past four years. On the presidential level, however, no Democratic candidate has come as close to winning Colorado as Obama currently is.
June 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry ran a stupid campaign and lost in 2004 by 100,000 votes out of 2MM, and the blue trend has accelerated since then. I think virtually any Democrat would win that state today against virtually any Republican.
So yes, BHO looks good to ride the blue wave there, I just don't think he created it.
June 16, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, having a serious black candidate for president has really underlined the fact that there are still a whole lot of stone racists flitting around the borders of public life.
Someone showed me some so-called "mainstream Democratic" websites recently (Taylor Marsh and No Quarter) and you'd think they were from the KKK or Stormfront dot org. They were THAT up-front about their bigotry. I'm talking about n-word jokes, urban legends regarding an extra bone in their ankle that stops blacks from playing hockey, the whole nine yards. Before all this I would have thought those black-hearted crackers wouldn't dare show their faces, but here they are acting like it's 1952 and the coloreds are trying to eat at their lunch counter or something.
June 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"an extra bone in their ankle that stops blacks from playing hockey"
Dude, I never heard that one. What about Grant Fuhr, the greatest goalie ever? (of course I didn't know he was black until he took his mask off for the old "Taste great, less filling" commercial.
June 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know the world is a beautiful place when you recognize all the colors!
As for Republicans being a party of racist, well I am really against the policy of grouping. Use a little personal story to describe your conclusions, the Southern Strategy is a factual example. I can tell you having been raised in and lived in the South for almost all my life, I have atleast 5 friends from school who I would describe as having racial issues. All of them are Republicans but they are young and I am unsure if they consistently vote. That said I, there was a female student who was from the Oregon area and she was convinced that all of us Southerners were racist. I can not tell you how many times me and buddy of mine, from Tennessee, had to get her to look in the mirror and realize that she was generalizing a entire part of this country based on very few experiences and ignoring a entire host of experiences which contridicted her conclusions. Look there are racist, sexist, authoritarians, pacifist, humanist etc in both parties(independents and others). People are human and flawed. I like to think that all of us could agree that we hope to live up to our best instead of mire in the worst.
The example from the article above shows a dis-taste for inclusiveness because of a perceived conflict or what not. I am not a fan of conflict but sometimes you have to ask yourself to do what is right, that is called leadership, that is called courage, something the Paula Abeles clearly lacks!
June 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"High-Level McCain Volunteer Worked To Keep Blacks Out Of Jefferson Group"
followed by
"It looks like John McCain could have another controversial campaign associate on his hands."
I don't think there are facts put forth here justifying the use of the term "campaign associate," in preference to the word "volunteer," which appeared in the headline. I think EK is trying to suggest, without actually saying so, that her status is somehow official or that her efforts are somehow approved officially. Camp McCain's response suggests, at least, that there is no official status. If there are facts to the contrary, they should have been mentioned.
Obama won the primary in part by not taking the low road.
June 16, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
i dont know if anyone already said this b/c i am at work and cannot read all postings prior to posting.....my point? i will damned if this woman doesn't make me wonder if Dijamo is a fake character pretending to be black....sorry Dijamo, but you really have me wondering at times....
June 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! That's absolutely incredible news. How do you run a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN and miss something like this!? please explain that one to me because with all the information at our fingertips nowadays this is an inexcusable oversight. or is it?
June 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTenaX said it right. All you concern trolls can just shut up.
June 16, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"HusseinTenaX said it right. All you concern trolls can just shut up."
If you can't prove your point with well-reasoned civil discourse, what do you call yourself?
June 17, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am a devoted Clinton supporter. 48 hours after I organized a conference call with 6,000 Clinton supporters with John McCain, I was attacked by irresponsible blogs and Keith Olbermann as a racist. Not one of them contacted me to even ask for a comment.
The "basis" for these allegations--is that I used a pseudonym on a family chat room. I understand how fair people might be confused about this issue because of the media's sensationalized reporting of the Jefferson Hemings issue--but these facts are irrefutable.
1. It was NOT a racial issue. The only Hemings descendent that had a DNA match and applied to the group was WHITE.
2. When the "Hemings descendents"--many of whom are not even descendents of Sally-- couldn't prove their case in court or to the membership--they tried to do everything possible to disrupt and sandbag the family meetings to create a media "controversy"
3. Bloggers of both sides assumed identities to gain information from the other side. Everyone whose been on-line knows what this is like. The wife of the President of the Hemings family group posed as a young white reporter.
You may disagree with the Jefferson descendent's decision--honorable people can disagree-- but both sides had facts on their side--and the decision was made on available data (see tjheritage.org for info on DNA and Scholar's Commission that reviewed all the historical evidence).
I have never listened to a racist speech, or tolerated racist language. I never will. I am a volunteer in my community, a wife, and mother of two little boys. I care deeply about women's rights, civil rights and human rights.
I am a real person and these charges are devastating. Before you simply accept the "facts" set out by the blogs--I ask you to look into this yourself.
As to whether or not I received threats--if you google my name--and see the vitriol and abuse heaped on me by people who know or care nothing about the truth--people who published my address, telephone and email--I think the truth of my assertion speaks for itself.
Thanks for listening.
June 21, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink