Peace is welcome. Life is changing around me rapidly.  Yesterday I had dinner with the boys and they are genuinely concerned that I am making a sound decision.  I reassured them that I am.

Today my dear friend, gardener and peace-loving EM came to work in the yard for the last time this season.  She’s on her way back to Hesperus, and I’m sad that she’s making that trek.  I hope she’ll be able to winter here again.  I think describing her as peace-loving really doesn’t do justice to her.  EM is peace-loving, but she also exudes peace in her mannerism, thoughtfulness and her voice.  As she witnesses the changes in her own life, in the lives of her family members, she is thoughtful about how everything changes constantly.  I shall miss her.

Next Monday there are changes that will take place for me.  I am peaceful about them, and even welcome the new name, life companion and new family members.  In the past changes haven’t always been “good” or positive for me.  The sweeping and suffocating deaths of my parents almost put me under too.  Those changes were riddled with pain and isolation.  However, now as I view others dealing with their parents’ dementia, poor health and demands, I am almost grateful for the changes that took my parents to heaven early.

One of the most profound changes has been the emerging adults my children have become.  As I said in another post, worrying is something I do readily…I am finding that the worries of my heart are a little lighter now that they are competently surging forward in their jobs, graduate education and relationships.  Those changes are also out of my control….they are going to grow up and move on despite my worrying.

So, as I approach Monday and the violinist plays her sweet music, and the pastor makes his pronouncements I am anticipating that this change will cause my face to turn toward the sun, add a lilt to my heart and a smile to my face.  But most of all, this change will provide me with a closure to the loneliness and hopelessness I’ve had for the last two years.  This will be a change for love.

Yesterday I received a call from my neurologist’s office.  I could tell it was positive news because the nurse was unusually happy and had a lilt to her voice.  She relayed that UCB Pharmaceuticals sent a two month supply of the Neupro patches for me.  They sent them under the “compassionate use” allowance - even though the patch still remains unavailable to people with Parkinson’s and restless legs syndrome.

I have been critical of UCB in the past….well, more sarcastic than critical - but I am grateful to them for sending these to me.  I still think it’s insane that my body is so rigid, achey and twitches uncontrollably.  But I am thankful for the patch. At least it keeps me from having nausea everyday.  Not long ago I read a news article from Europe that said UCB was recommending that their European clients put their Neupro patches in the refrigerator to keep crystals from forming.  It was a very short news release, and unfortunately there was no mention of the prevelance of this situation in Europe or Canada.  I hope that UCB is able to release these in the U.S. again soon.  While most patients can tolerate the Requip, the side effects are pretty debilitating for me so I can’t really take it.

There was also a news blurb this week about the extended release Requip made available to the market here in the U.S.  This Requip would be a once-a-day solution which is so much better for folks who have to manage their meds with times/reminders, etc.  So, for those Parkies, I’m happy they have some new progressive results with Requip.

Now, if only all of the other Parkinson’s Disease symptoms were so easy to fix?

The more I become educated about Parkinson’s Disease, the more I am amazed at the symptoms that I’ve had for years, and had I not viewed them as symptoms of other situations the PD diagnosis might have happened earlier.  One of the symptoms that drives me crazy is my propensity to sweat uncontrollably.  For years I believed that I was having hot flashes (or power surges as a dear friend calls them).  Perhaps the pre-menopausal state had something to do with this, but looking back, I’m sure that the tons of sweat I’ve produced are not totally due to crazy hormones.  Of course, the thyroid failures I’ve had also contributed to my sweats - but that usually happens when one is hyperthyroid (overactive) rather than hypothyroid (underactive).  And now I find out that Parkinson’s Disease causes changes in the production of sweat and regulation of body temperature due to the involvement of the autonomic nervous system which controls involuntary bodily functions that are basic….for instance, digestion, sweating, and heart rate.

Over the years I’ve learned to cope with excessive sweating.  I wear cotton clothes and layers, usually a tank top or camisole under an overshirt or light jacket so that I can peel it off.  Rarely am I cold.  If I am, it usually means I’m ill and just need to go to bed.  Another coping mechanism is keeping my hair very short.  I’ve lived through the objections of my dad and husband as they nag me to grow my hair long like it used to be (to the back of my knees).  But I’ve learned that long black hair is akin to wearing a fur coat….it keeps me very warm.

In order to keep sweat out of my eyes when working in the yard, cleaning the house or exercising I simply wear a head band or rolled up bandana to absorb the waterfall that can sting my eyes.  So, the solutions I’ve invented aren’t necessarily new or earth-shattering.  This is a solution to a problem that plagues me daily.

Now I’ve learned that my drugs also cause me to sweat excessively.  Really, with four strikes against me, how can I know what is the “main cause” of this situation?  It used to bother me to distractions, but now I just cope and realize that getting rid of the thyroid cancer, living beyond menopause and watching my med schedule may help alleviate some of the sweating, but it will never, ever go away.  That’s because I believe that the PD causes most of it, and we all know there’s no cure of Parkinson’s Disease.

Okay, this is a rant. Today I read a news story on Yahoo News about two Marines who have been disciplined for cruelty to a dog.  So, why am I in a furious RAGE?  These two inhuman cretins actually threw a dog off of a cliff and video-taped their senseless savagery, AND THEN POSTED IT ON YOU TUBE!!  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_re_us/marine_youtube;_ylt=Aj_cAJUkPeKTDFE5VGP7RBdvzwcF

One Marine is being dismissed from the Marine Corp, and the other one will be “disciplined”.  Neither of these Marines are being disciplined appropriately as far as I’m concerned. In matters of cruelty to helpless animals and people, I believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  Don’t think that I am not aware of the influences these two men have probably endured in their own childhoods.  Most likely they have been abused at some time in their past, or lack the discipline/training/love that instills peace and compassion in young lives.

Don’t think that supposing they were also victims of abuse excuses their behavior in my mind.  I’m sick and tired of people who line up for “mercy” once they have abused another being.  In Austin this week we have a man who has been sexually abusing children for as many as 30 years while working as an advocate for abused children.  He has asked the court to provide him with a court-appointed lawyer.  Where does he get off asking for my tax monies to pay for his defense when he has personal wealth accumulated over the last 30 years?   

I believe in mercy and grace extended to those in need.  But I no longer tolerate the idea that “what will be will be” when it comes to people who need to stand up and take responsibility for their actions.  I think it would be appropriate for the Marine Corps to keep this young man in the Corps and have him do menial tasks that will have him thinking about his own stupidity.  Requiring him to serve those who are less fortunate - cleaning bedpans of fellow soldiers who have been injured in this war, picking up trash and cleaning up scuff marks on floors in military hospitals, working in an animal shelter cleaning their cages AND requiring him to have some type of psychological treatment are all consequences that could create “teachable moments” for these Marines.  But no, we’re releasing them back to the population where they can continue to mistreat other creatures. 

Ya think if you’re going to pay a soldier with my tax money to work for the greatest killing machine in the world, you would at least take the responsibility to TEACH this guy some type of skills to survive in the real world.  And by survive, I mean how to treat others.  All of the Marines that I know personally are honorable, decent and unique in their ability to work their jobs and be productive humans.  It’s too bad the Corps isn’t taking this opportunity to immerse these two men in situations that will allow them to become productive civilians.

The Primaries are over. Barack Obama is the projected Democratic Party nominee.  Congratulations, Senator Obama.  NOW, the real work begins….convincing the American public that you really ARE the man for the White House. 

I found it interesting that Chrtis Matthews, Keith Oberman and Tim Russert were civil about Senator Clinton’s speech endorsing Senator Obama yesterday.  Of course, Mr. Russert did make one fairly snotty remark…and I expected him to be the only one of the three who would be polite.  Human nature cannot be predicted, I guess. 

So, what IS the importance of Hillary Clinton in the next few months?  I believe her importance cannot be ignored.  She holds the power to influence many, many Democrats in how they vote in November.  Barack Obama knows that and so does John McCain.  In fact, so does the world.  I admire Mrs. Clinton for refusing to be smug about the influence she holds.  Even Chris Matthews admitted she is a politician that cannot be ignored…and we all know that Chris Matthews is her most evil critic. 

A week ago I was ready to write in Senator Clinton’s name on the ballot in November.  But after her speech yesterday I am considering following her request - to vote for Obama.  But then again, it’s a long time until November.

My good friend JHO had his DBS surgery yesterday.  He got through it fine and stayed in recovery quite a while. Life will change for him now.  He’ll be less dependent on his Parkinson’s drugs and will face some frustrations as they “tweek” his battery unit and the amount of electrical impluse they shoot into his brain.

I won’t be able to see him for a few days, so I hope he knows I’m sending happy thoughts and prayers his way.

Thank you for being courageous, JHO.  I’m watching your progress closely because I, too, hope to be free of PD symptoms….just like you.

Let me tell you about a small victory, one you probably didn’t notice. Last Thursday the Supreme Court of Brazil conducted two days of heated debate on a topic that had been deadlocked for the last three years.

The Biosafety Regulation was approved in March 2005.  This regulation would allow Brazilian scientists the ability to conduct research on embryonic stem cells that were created by in vitro fertilization and had been frozen for three years. (These cells were due to be destroyed.)  However, in 2005 the Attorney General at that time, Carlos Fonteles filed a petition stating that the legislation was unconstitutional and violated right to life. 

On May 29th the Brazilian Supreme Court took hours to discuss and argue the differing views about this topic.  However, by a slim margin (6 Ayes, 5 Nays), the resolution passed!  This now makes the way clear legally for Brazilian scientists to aggressively begin research! 

The Health Minister, Mr. José Gomes Temporão said, ““The decision in the Supreme Court exhibited a significant divergence on the issue, showing that there are ministers who have ethical positions similar to the CNBB. That is, it is not about religious matters, but about promotion and defense of human life,” says a statement distributed by the CNBB. “

Now, I anxiously await our leaders in Washington, D.C. to show courage and backbone and follow the lead of their Brazilian counterparts.  Yes, life is priceless…..isn’t mine as valuable as a frozen embryo?

I challenge you to read this entire posting….if you are a Republican, Obama supporter or member of the media, I doubt you have the guts to read all of it!

This article was written by a reporter in the UK.  If he can see our political situation so clearly, why can’t Americans recognize the sinister sexism in remarks by Tim Russert, Tucker Carlson, Ken Rudin, Chris Matthews, Candice Tolliver, and Keith Oberman?  Well folks, it’s NOT because they think Obama is the better candidate to beat McCain….it’s because these corrosive, acerbic pundits & politicos are AFRAID of the strength, intelligence & potential of a woman like HIllary Clinton.

Hating Hillary

Andrew Stephen

Published 22 May 2008

 http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media  

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton . Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio’s political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as “a fucking whore” by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America ? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate’s “thick ankles”? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. “All men are created equal,” Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain , too. Just 16 of America ’s 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.  

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. “How do we beat the bitch?” a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year’s Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked “How do we beat the nigger?” and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. “Iron my shirt,” is considered amusing heckling of Clinton . “Shine my shoes,” rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention. 

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton’s has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America ’s would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as “its nightly horror shows”. Tim Russert, the network’s chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton’s political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.  

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a “she-devil”. His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton “feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.” This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out  

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media’s tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: “The press will savage her no matter what,” predicted the Washington Post’s national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. “They really have their knives out for her, there’s no question about it.”

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.  

“The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man,” says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University . “We don’t have an image, we don’t have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat.”

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. “Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test,” says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University . A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the “seven sisters” colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is “cool and calculating”.

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of “Billary”, the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama’s opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York , but some amorphous creature called “the Clintons “, an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

“What’s particularly saddening,” says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, “is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.” Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the “venom” in the campaign “is coming from supporters of Obama”.

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. “While I was working in the streets,” he scolded her, “. . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart.” Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.”

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King (”Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964“) and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela (”I’ve been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary”) were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that “a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements” and saying: “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?” That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama’s victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton ’s remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman’s presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself “unhappy” with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton’s approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the “racist” tag. “African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton ] are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. “This is the politics of the 1950s.” Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka “Hildebeast” and “Hitlery”) from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

This disturbing article in today’s New York Times caught my attention.  Considering Medtronic is the manufacturer of DBS probes and battery packs, this is information that potential DBS patients need to understand.  While there may be arguments stating that Medtronic did not own Kyphon when the alleged fraud occurred, we shouldn’t forget that Medtronic knew about the alleged fraud and bought Kyphon anyway.

That sends up warning flags for me, especially since I sat in a conference held by Medtronics recently where the neurosurgeon stated that the DBS process would take two hospital visits.  He gave the reason for this as the hospital makes more money when they have two admissions per patient.  And this helps them recover their costs.  As I’ve stated in a previous blog, I also attended a conference in another city where the neurosurgeon stated that two hospital stays are not an option for his patients.  He gets the entire procedure done in one hospital stay to cut down on the risk of infection, to make the patient as comfortable as possible, and to expedite the usage of the DBS device.

While free enterprise does not exclude the methods of medical manufacturers to make profits, let’s be aware of what Parkinson’s patients might face as they become dependent on any specific device or drug.

Please ask questions, do your research and most of all talk to other Parkies before you make the decision to turn your life over to any company, including Medtronic.

Here’s the article from the New York Times.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/business/23device.html?th&emc=th

Medtronic Settles a Civil Lawsuit on Allegations of Medicare Fraud
Two insiders had said Kyphon, which Medtronic acquired in 2007, improperly persuaded hospitals to keep people overnight for a simple outpatient procedure to repair small fissures of the spine. Medicare then reimbursed the hospitals much more generously than it otherwise would have for the procedure, which was developed as a noninvasive approach that could usually be done in about an hour.

By marketing its products this way, Kyphon was able to artificially drive up demand among hospitals, bolstering its revenue and driving up its stock price. Medtronic subsequently bought the company, its competitor, for $3.9 billion, greatly enriching Kyphon’s senior executives.

The settlement requires Medtronic to pay the federal government $75 million plus interest, and to enter into a “corporate integrity agreement” with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. The agreement will require the company to give correct advice to customers about how to apply for Medicare reimbursements. The company will also have to set up internal procedures to make sure it complies with the law.

Earlier in the campaigns of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama I stated that I was proud to be a Democrat.  Today, I’m retracting that statement.  Here’s the reason why. 

While many, many people support Senator Obama for the Democratic nomination there are scores of supporters for Senator Clinton.  I am extremely disappointed that the leaders in our Democratic party, especially Howard Dean have not stood up and denounced the rampant sexism and vitriolic statements toward Senator Clinton.  Would Dean sit by silently if media pundits stated that Obama should withdraw because he is black?  Heck no!  There’s no one in the media who would have risked the demise of their career by stating Obama should “shine our shoes”.

Lately there has been a lot of discussion about sexism in our society.  It’s not a secret that women who are equally qualified as men to do a job make only 70% of the salary the men make.  It’s also no secret that fewer women are in positions of leadership in our corporate culture.

Recent remarks from media pundits and Obama supporters show the deep disrespect toward Senator Clinton - because she is a woman.  There have been calls for Senator Clinton to concede to Senator Obama since she has fewer delegates going into the Democratic convention.  However, history reveals that when two men are running for the nomination, no one demanded that one withdraw.

Look at the 1924 Democratic convention.  It was a long, drawn out process to select John W. Davis as the nominee.  It took over 100 votes for him to be named.  It was controversial and a difficult struggle for the delegates.  But the delegates did their jobs, they worked through the process to emerge with a nominee.

In 1948 the Democratic party was splintered into three folds.  The incumbent President, Harry Truman was not supported by two thirds of the party.  Governor Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace, who was FDR’s Vice President, were leaders of the other two factions.  No one suggested that Thurmond or Wallace withdraw from the race before the convention.  The delegates had a chance to hear each of them speak and then they chose to disagree and split three ways.  Eventually, Truman won, but the people were allowed to voice their choices.

There are other examples as well.  Just be sure that if you think the women of the United States who do support Senator Clinton will “sit down and shut up” and pick up our knitting needles during the convention, YOU ARE WRONG. 

While I respect Senator Obama, I do not think Senator Clinton should withdraw.  In an interview on NPR yesterday, former Colorado Congresswoman, Pat Schroeder reminded us all that this is not an athletic competition.  There is not a winner or loser.  We need a candidate that represents ALL of us.  Unfortunately, right now I don’t think that the Democratic party is considering a nominee that represents all of us.  Or maybe they still think that women are subservient chattel that don’t need representation.

Let the Democratic convention be what it should be - an opportunity for everyone to express their views, and for the delegates to come to a consensus.  If this doesn’t happen, I hope those of us who really are disenfranchised by the party we have supported will form a NEW PARTY, one that is inclusive of all races and genders.