Tulsi in Person and 27,000 More Needed

Got to see Tulsi in person at Bronco Billy's Pizza Palace in Fremont, CA yesterday. There were well over 100 people there (probably less than 200) and it was standing room only with people in an overflow next door. The energy was amazing, with people very pumped.

Tulsi was in very forceful form last night, actually appearing angry at times saying regarding the current political climate that "This is not a joke!" giving an example of how an amendment she proposed only got 60 co-signers out of 435 that would have removed 3 pages that allow the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense to do anything they choose--without any approval from Congress--to Iran, including going to war. She was royally pissed. She reiterated a point she made in San Francisco a day earlier where she said she was not intimidated by the number of stars someone has on their shoulder, and that she did not fear the military-industrial complex. She was bold, her voice carried weight, and yet at the same time completely composed.

Later in the question and answer part, one woman of seemingly Middle Eastern or Persian ethnicity completely broke down asking how she could be sure Tulsi would actually do something--Obama had promised much of the same and nothing had come of it. What power do any of us have over it and would Tulsi be pressured into doing nothing once in power? It was something to see and hear, and was almost heart breaking the emotion she put into it. Tulsi came down and hugged her in a very tight hug for what seemed like a full minute, and at least 4 full grown (and burly) men that I could see took out or asked for tissues to wipe their eyes. It was moving, and Tulsi spoke about people like all of us needing to be heard.

More than ever, I know she has what it takes to be an extraordinary leader.

Yesterday, her campaign announced they had 38,148 individual donors. Today, that number seems to have climbed to around 38,600. Tulsi has the rest of March, and all of April and May to reach 65,000 individual donors in order to get into the televised Democratic debates. That means she needs about 27,000 new individuals to donate to her campaign.

(As an aside, assuming an average of $27 per donor, that means she's running at around $1 million right now.)

Please, if you have any interest in seeing Tulsi on those debates, and are willing to undergo a bit of Tulsi spam, donate a bit to her. Doesn't matter how much, even $1 will count. Go to Tulsi2020.com and follow the links to do so. If ActBlue isn't working for you (as it wasn't for me), or if you just won't do ActBlue to donate, there is a mailing address for checks. Please include your occupation and employer in order to be counted as a separate donor.

She is in Las Vegas campaigning tonight. From March 21 through at least March 24 she will be blanketing New Hampshire with appearances.

Post scriptum: one other interesting note--this streak of white in Tulsi's hair is natural. It appeared during her rotations in Iraq. She decided to keep it and not color it as a reminder of the rotations she had there.

Share
up
30 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

or need 65,000 donors? This is just one more way for the democrats to keep progressives from trying to change their party.

I did like that question for how do people know that they can trust her after what Obama did. Even if someone is dead serious about something people will now have doubts about them because of no drama Obama.

up
13 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg

They need 65,000 individual donors, or more than 1% in nationwide polls.

up
13 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@apenultimate

I just read this tweet about it.

This is such a stupid way to run a country that says it stands for democracy. I wonder who came up with this idea? Perez or Nancy?

up
21 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg

What problem is this new DNC rule supposedly addressing? Chaffee, O'Malley, Webb and Sanders did not leave the Anointed One enough space on the stage during the first debate?

Every time I think they could not possibly get any worse without formally changing parties, they prove me wrong.

up
4 users have voted.

@snoopydawg

states of the donors' residences also matters. IOW, if all 65,000 donors are from California, for example, she's out of luck. I think.

I asked my email list to donate a dollar or more, just to help get her voice onto the debate stage and I donated. My family and friends are scattered around at least a dozen states. Some, but not all, got back to me saying they'd donated, so I don't know if everyone donated. I was happy to ask them, but I'm not going to hound anyone.

up
7 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace on qualifying.

Tulsi will need donors from at least 20 states, IIRC

up
5 users have voted.

NYCVG

@NYCVG

up
3 users have voted.
Azazello's picture

It's not the amount of money people donate that matters, it's the number of donors.
We bought 2 Tulsi buttons and a tee shirt. The buttons cost $4.99, that counts as a donation.
TULSI 2020

up
16 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Tulsi talks about the warmongers in congress sitting in the ivory tower thinking up ways to kill people.

She sure sounds like a good candidate, but this is probably why everyone is against her. I think because of the way she speaks out against wars it's important that she gets to the debates and that's why democrats will do everything they can to keep her from them.

up
15 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg If one thinks that the MSM blackout of Bernie was bad. They have gone one step further with Tulsi. They certainly do not want her ideas going mainstream.

up
17 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@snoopydawg . . . to get on the debate stage nor the 1% polling requirement. It would be more unfair if there were no requirements and the DNC could pick and choose the debaters which would enable them to diss Tulsi. It's up to us to back her up even if we support another candidate or oppose voting on principle. Oh wait, sending money to a candidate would, oh never mind, that's not my argument.

I support Bernie but I sent a buck to Tulsi to help her get on the debate stage. I encourage everybody else to do the same or more no matter their candidate or stand against voting.

up
6 users have voted.

@Wally her courageous views on foreign regime change wars get heard on the debate stage. No other candidate is emphasizing FP.

I have no illusions about how difficult it will be for her to get the nom, but I do want her voice heard. Unfortunately it appears her fundraising operation is not up to speed. Andrew Lang, who has never run for office before, has already met the 65k threshold. So has Mayor Pete Buttigieg (sp) of South Bend, IN. She does have a couple of more months to make the goal, and it's likely this will be done, but still this is going too slowly. I have already contributed, and hope others here will consider a small contribution, and will tell their friends.

up
11 users have voted.
mimi's picture

Mahalo.

up
7 users have voted.
mimi's picture

Chris Hedges article. Chelsea Manning and the New Inquisition .

How much Aloha will she bring to and for the Whistleblowers?

The U.S. government, determined to extradite and try Julian Assange for espionage, must find a way to separate what Assange and WikiLeaks did in publishing classified material leaked to them by Chelsea Manning from what The New York Times and The Washington Post did in publishing the same material. There is no federal law that prohibits the press from publishing government secrets. It is a crime, however, to steal them. The long persecution of Manning, who on March 8 was sent back to jail for refusing to testify before a grand jury, is about this issue....

The prosecution of government whistleblowers was accelerated during the Obama administration, which under the Espionage Act charged eight people with leaking to the media—Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden. ...

“The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation,” Assange writes, “has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen.” (that is what I tried to say to Mark from Queens in one of my comments to him)

That is where we are headed. A few resist. Assange and Manning are two. Those who stand by passively as they are persecuted will be next.

This is all very difficult, isn't it? Who would want to be a President in the US? Hugs to Tulsi, I wouldn't want to go through what she is.

up
9 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@mimi
As an aside, one of the other declared Dem candidates, Pete Buttigieg, who claims to be a progressive, is no friend of Manning and Snowden. In a recent interview with CBS News, he said that he's "troubled" by Obama's commutation of Manning's sentence.

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who launched a an exploratory committee in January to run for president in 2020 as a progressive Democrat, is criticizing former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden for disclosing classified information.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-candidate-pete-buttigieg-troubled-by-c...

up
9 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

mimi's picture

@Centaurea
know him? From your quote I wouldn't even speak to him. Pffft.

up
6 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@mimi I don't recommend him to be POTUS, but I guess it's good to know of him, since he's currently one of the Dem candidates.

He served in the military, and word is that he has some connection to the intelligence (spy) agencies. If true, it's not surprising that he wouldn't approve of Manning's and Snowden's whistleblowing.

As we saw in the 2018 elections, there were numerous Dem establishment candidates with CIA backgrounds who got themselves elected to the US Congress.

up
7 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

mimi's picture

@Centaurea
then I make an effort again. So having good connections with the spy agencies is a plus when it comes to running for President? Sounds inspiring ... but not to me. Wink

up
4 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@mimi

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@mimi I thought it was a great response.

up
2 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Centaurea's picture

she said she was not intimidated by the number of stars someone has on their shoulder, and that she did not fear the military-industrial complex.

I watched Tulsi's San Francisco appearance on YouTube. In addition to the above, she stated that as POTUS she would be hands-on with respect to foreign policy. She said she wouldn't just accept what the foreign policy and military advisors told her, or automatically follow their recommendations.

That's the kind of thing that the MIC does not like in a president. They really, really don't like it. As in, alphabet agencies taking steps to make sure the person who is POTUS doesn't do it.

At this point, they're trying to handle it by ignoring and marginalizing Tulsi. If her campaign gains momentum, I hope she can get a security detail the way Bernie did during the 2016 primary.

up
13 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

mimi's picture

@Centaurea
the more courageous of her to not shut up on her campaign appearances.

They want us to fear for her. I am pretty sure, she either will take the risks into considerations and 'adapt' or she will be 'disappeared', if not literally then digitally. The MIC has no Aloha.

up
5 users have voted.

@mimi prez to repeatedly challenge the MIC, especially the CIA. The Kennedys weren't used to taking orders or being pushed around, and JFK was skeptical not just of his fruit salad-on-the-chest advisers but also his civilian nat'l security advisers. Obama didn't have the inner strength to challenge the TPTB even if his initial inclinations were to go in a different direction.

up
4 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@wokkamile
family clan. I have difficulties to see similarities in that regard of JFK and Gabbard. The Gabbard family were local people from Samoa, ie local Samoan middle class. Here is her father's bio.
Mike Gabbard.

There is a difference there. Also, Mike Gabbard was a Republican, before he switched.

Reading all his bio, I lose my hope, but would support her, if I were in the US. There is nobody else, who would incite my willingness to engage. I donated and would volunteer probably. But I am stuck in Germany, where some of our politicians asked that US ambassador Richard Grenell should be expelled, It's that bad. But no hopes for real resistance against the MAGA ambitions.

I think one just has to wait and watch what happens. It's a movie I don't like, because it looks as if it will not have a happy end.

up
3 users have voted.

@mimi rare it is for a prez to directly defy the national security/MIC state. Rare and dangerous. This is the situation she would be facing if the nearly impossible happens and she becomes president.

I have no doubt the two families mentioned are very different, which wasn't my point. But some similarity in the way she grew to be able to defy her father on LGBT rights, as JFK had to learn to become his own person politically despite a very strong-willed father.

up
6 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@wokkamile and we know what happened to both of the Kennedy brothers.

up
3 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@wokkamile Obama didn't have the inner strength to challenge the TPTB even if his initial inclinations were to go in a different direction.

were always to serve his large donor buddies and con the rest of us.

His lack of 'inner strength' was a feature, not a bug.

up
6 users have voted.
zett's picture

have to be from 65k different people, right? Or can I donate to Tulsi again and have it count?

up
4 users have voted.

Mike Gravel is my dream candidate. Bernie Sanders is my concession to pragmatism.

@zett unique donors, so donating again will only help her to increase her dollar intake, not advance her chances of getting on the debate stage. Tell your friends to consider a small donation of $5 to have her voice heard in the debates.

up
5 users have voted.

@zett yes. 65,000 unique donors.

up
4 users have voted.

NYCVG

Raggedy Ann's picture

my politically active niece blasted Tulsi for her past LGBTQ views. She has since "changed," but it's a factor to consider when talking to folks. I didn't know that about her and googled it and found it. Now, I'd be able to offer my niece a retort, but I was unprepared last week. My niece also likes that Buttigieg fellow. She's a her heinous worshipper, so now you know how many of them are thinking. Pleasantry

up
7 users have voted.

Women are human beings, not prey.
(I forgot where I read it although it might have been in The Intercept)

gulfgal98's picture

@Raggedy Ann @Raggedy Ann Tulsi's voting record is firmly on the side of LGBTQ issues.

Yes, Tulsi has some problems in the past when she was a young adult in that regard due to the heavy influence of her father, Mike Gabbard who is a devout Catholic. Show me someone who has grown over the years and whose voting record is right and I will pick them over pure rhetoric any day.

We must remember that here at C99 and in the real world also, not all of us grew up in politically liberal households. Some of us (myself) found our way on our own. That is what Tulsi has done and I commend her for it.

up
18 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Propaganda is one hell of a drug." Abby Martin

"politicians are cowards." Mike Gravel

@gulfgal98 @gulfgal98 @gulfgal98 Funny how right wing Dems are allowed to “evolve” or whatever on issues with lip service and “some of my best friends are...” while continuing to vote in a manner representing their old views while anyone else has to be 100% pure from the word go. Hell, HER practically praised Nancy Regan as an “AIDS activist” during the campaign and we were told we were being BernieBros for caring! Give me actions over words every time.

up
9 users have voted.

@gulfgal98

publicly opposed gay marriage and later evolved on the issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administ...

… in a 2008 interview, he stated that he personally believed that marriage was "between a man and a woman" and that he was "not in favor of gay marriage."[44] He supported civil unions that would establish legal standing equal to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believed that decisions regarding the definition of the word "marriage" should be left to the states.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-o...

… Good Morning America anchor Robin Roberts asked him on Wednesday, "Mr. President, are you still opposed to same-sex marriage?"

He answered:

Well, you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that — gay and lesbian — Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell — so that, you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which tried to federalize what has historically been state law.

I've stood on the side of broader equality for the LGBT community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage — in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and other elements that we take for granted. And I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, you know, the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.

But I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage.

At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

up
6 users have voted.

@gulfgal98

Hillary Clinton evolved on gay marriage also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

Hillary Clinton on Gay Marriage 2004

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2631

… *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM *To:* Amanda Renteria ...; Robby Mook ... John Podesta ...

*Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.

On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria wrote: There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation. This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this. It's better to do nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question again. Working w Dominic now...

On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin wrote: I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.

On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell
wrote: ... The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as much as we can there. More soon.

On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin wrote: I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes on offense.

On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney > wrote: If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on Friday then hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context? Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell
> wrote: ... I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic in part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies of the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them. Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC. Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA. Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in the dustbin of history? Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of people on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At Keene State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them. Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't caught by surprise later...

up
3 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

...kinda reminds me of Bernie's 2016 campaign. The debates don't begin till June...
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694841980/initial-democratic-primary-deba...

...and the primary election almost a year away. Mine is March 3, 2020. Your scheduled primary should be here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/12871941

In 2016 I introduced many people to Bernie. Lots of them supported the $hill because they thought she was a stronger (not better) candidate. Most have apologized and regretted not supporting Bernie. So this year when I recommended Tulsi they were much more open about it. Several are with Bernie, but most have moved on to Tulsi. We'll see. If the trumpeteers crank up another (hot) war in Venezuela or Iran...heaven forbid...it would add to Tulsi's appeal IMO. It is a ways till 2020....

up
12 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

gulfgal98's picture

I donated to Tulsi today. I am shocked that she has not yet met the threshold while Andrew Yang and the other guy have. It goes to show just how effective the blackout and smear campaign against her has been thus far.

I stumbled across a YouTube video recently put out by a dyed in the wool conservative who coaches public speakers. He analyzed Tulsi as a public speaker and said that Tulsi is one of the most effective speakers that he has ever seen. He was very impressed with her but said he would not vote for her because she is a Democrat.

up
14 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Propaganda is one hell of a drug." Abby Martin

"politicians are cowards." Mike Gravel

@gulfgal98 my hat to the Andrew Yang campaign. For a political neophyte, his campaign amazingly seems to be hitting on all cylinders. He's a very impressive, intelligent and likable guy who doesn't do pol speak and evasiveness. And he has a refreshingly bold and intriguing central proposal of the UBI which he prefers to call the Freedom Dividend. It is creating a buzz of discussion.

He also has firm stands on a number of other issues, available to view at his website, all rather clear and straightforward.

He hasn't been on a CNN Town Hall as yet, but now that he's guaranteed to be in the debates, I don't see how the network could refuse to have him. And that will just add to his appeal. Definitely a long-shot but definitely someone to watch.

Liz Warren was on the CNN TH last night. Just saw a clip on YT -- she has now come out boldly in favor of abolishing the Electoral College and her answer got wild applause from the MS audience. She might need some issue this bold in order to get traction in the race. Bernie seems to be sucking up most of her potential support.

up
7 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@wokkamile His website is very policy specific, maybe moreso than any other candidate.

up
2 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

"Propaganda is one hell of a drug." Abby Martin

"politicians are cowards." Mike Gravel

mimi's picture

here

Three former Hawaii governors are supporting a primary challenge to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Ben Cayetano, Neil Abercrombie and John Waihee are all supporting state senator Kai Kahele as he attempts to unseat Gabbard, a four-term congresswoman who is also running for President.

Gabbard has become a controversial figure for her refusal to condemn Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad and past anti-LGBT comments which she has apologized for.

no comment.

up
10 users have voted.

@mimi to do with her strong anti-Dem Establishment stance on foreign policy than with the domestic social issue. I understand the peculiar fellow who runs Dkos also has endorsed a primary challenge, probably for similar reasons.

up
14 users have voted.
mimi's picture

@wokkamile
and Gabbard's family.

up
2 users have voted.

got to see Tulsi in person at a different venue in Fremont, CA on Sunday. It was a wonderful crowd, also about the same number as you described, VERY POSITIVE, very intelligent questions, and most enthusiastic in response to her positions on war, peace, and military expenditures draining the country. There was a respect for military veterans and appreciation for all supporters including active military and veterans as well as several local, south Bay Area council members and assistant mayors, and very much a young, Asian-American and Southeast Asian-American presence as well.

I'm used to going to hear speakers like Chris Hedges in the Bay Area and being blinded by the white hair of hundreds of people in my age group, over 70. But at Tulsi's event, it was so refreshing to see young people, overwhelmingly in their 20's, 30's and 40's, some with children, and totally willing to stand throughout her speech and applaud strongly with respect. I didn't think they were applauding for her. They weren't overawed by her celebrity or fame. They were applauding and smiling and nodding in support of WHAT SHE SAID.

up
7 users have voted.
mjsmeme's picture

The candidate must register 1% or more support in 3 polls between January 1 and two weeks before the debate. The polls don’t have to be national; public polls in the first four primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada also qualify, but they have to be done by major news organizations or qualifying universities.

Candidates can qualify for the debates if they show their campaign has received donations from at least 65,000 unique donors and a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 US states.

The top 20 candidates will be selected using a methodology that favors candidates that meet both the polling and grassroots donations thresholds, followed by the highest polling average, followed by the most unique donors.

up
4 users have voted.
econoclast's picture

Tulsi Gabbard, Ilhan Omar, Winona LaDuke, and Barbara Lee all speak for me.
Note how all are unhyphenated women of color.

up
4 users have voted.