The billionaire attack on D5

Billionare mailer tries to sink Olague over her vote on the sheriff

The attack on Sup. Christina Olague, funded by a couple of right-wing billionaires, is in full swing in District 5, with mailers, robocalls, a social-media buy and even TV ads. It’s a disgraceful effort to buy an election in the final week, a flood of sleaze that’s outrageous even by modern political standards.

On the surface, the PAC called San Francisco Women for Responsibility and an Accountable Supervisor is talking about domestic violence. One mailer features a woman whose daughter was killed by an abuser saying she is “appaled” that Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi still has his job -- and that Olague voted not to throw him out. A 60-second TV ad features Ivory Madison, the Mirkarimi neighbor whose video was the centerpiece of the campaign to oust the sheriff.

But the PAC is entirely funded by Ron Conway, his wife Gayle, and Thomas Coates. Conway hasn’t been a leading voice on domestic violence issues, and neither has Coates -- they are business people who are primarily interested in making money. In the case of Conway, he’s someone who has publicly announced that he wants to “take San Francisco back” from progressives and install more big-business-friendly politicians at City Hall. Coates is a real-estate investor who has spent a lot of time and money fighting to limit tenant-protection laws.

Why are these two so interested in the D5 race? Well, in an email, Conway told me that “the Committee that my wife Gayle and other women, including longtime anti-domestic violence advocates, have formed and that I and others support exists solely to oppose Christina Olague because she put her own politics ahead of women and the victims and survivors of domestic abuse.”

But it’s eminently clear that there’s a larger agenda here, that the wealthy donors are using the domestic violence issue to get rid of a supervisor who they see as not sufficiently friendly to their economic interests. And there’s probably a bit of payback involved: Olague defied the mayor with her Mirkarimi vote -- and while a lot of observers still say this was all a setup to demonstrate her independence in time for the election, Conway, one of the mayor’s closest allies and advisors, clearly didn’t get that message.

Coates lives in Los Angeles. Conway lives in Pacific Heights. Neither of them has any connection the D5 -- except for their desire to get rid of Olague. They’ve taken a real, serious issue -- domestic violence -- and used it to their own political advantage.

We haven’t endorsed Olague, but we know a shady scam when we see one, and that’s exactly what this is. The voters of District 5 should reject this kind of outside-influence politics and not let a couple of billionaires decide the future of their the city.


It's not that Conway and Coates didn't get the message. Lee will run against Mirkarimi city-wide for the next couple of years. And he will thank C&C for helping him out to do that. In the meantime the struggling Olague can run against Coates and Conway. Much easier than her actual opponents. 'Cause, yes, who wants a couple of billionaires.

Ask yourself, How many 8 Washingtons did the Mirkarimi vote buy?

Vote for an independent progressive voice in D5. Someone without the Lee/Pak/Brown baggage. Someone who will represent the people and focus on the neighborhoods. I'm voting for Thea Selby. Olague is closer to the billionaires than you might suspect.

Posted by Gust on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

What about the big dollars being put into the sleazy anti London Breed ads paid for by SEIU.

And I hope the irony isn't lost, as Chris Daly and his in-laws are landlords too.

Posted by Chris Pratt on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 12:49 pm

Conway and Coates are also the primary funders of the Yes on B campaign. One has to ask oneself what interest these billionaires have in our parks? This is directly related to the overall campaign to take San Francisco over and to privatize our parks. Voters should repudiate their efforts and VOTE NO ON B.

Posted by Guest DA on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:26 pm

There might be actual signs that Prop B is a slush fund for some of Willie Brown's clients (signed sealed and delivered ) this is based upon a "report" from personnel at a very posh eatery. The personnel overheard a conversation where the Brown party were having dinner and where every time Prop B came up in the conversation "Willie Brown started actually "salivating like mad". NO on B

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

NO ON B make the 1% go cold turkey.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

Good for her. While The Guardian and Mirkarimi's defenders trashed her reputation and attempted to destroy her life she remained silent. But she's not silent anymore.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

We continue to try and destroy her life by pointing out that despite her high-faluting claims to being a leftist, she's taking money from big developers to promote pro-development politicians.

Shame. Shame on us.

How could we even have supposed for a minute that we might keep such a vibrant voice muzzled?

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Courtesy of Larry Bush CitiR.] Take it away Ivory, (“In her OWN words) when she says she was...
”…. a courtroom advocate for a woman whose husband mutilated her genitals. I was the only white person invited to speak at a statewide NAACP rally at an African-American Baptist Church in Louisiana (really Ivory says she was the only white person invited…? She must have stood out.)
“but I became an expert at fighting for all women, all at once. I found that it was much easier for me to lobby legislators about domestic violence than to leave my abuser. Even after I finally escaped, I didn’t want to think about my victimization. I wanted to be a hero. I still do. “ ( So Ivory wants to fight for all women and be a hero …hmmm how could she find a way to do that? hmmmm...)
“My agenda is…. I belong on the front lines, fighting for national and international policies that promote global women’s rights in praxis.”

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

All of that sounds like the kind of activist who, in other circumstances, would be hailed by this city's "progressive" community as a hero. Did her background and temperament cause her to act more bravely than others might have done when a bruised and crying Eliana Lopez showed up at her door? Maybe, though she did what any friend ought to have done. Does it make what she did wrong? I don't think so.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:19 am

The video that Madison produced, after convincing Eliana she'd need to keep her son Theo in some future possible custody battle. "Screw him! Screw him!"

The same video which ersatz-attorney Madison then advertised to the local political machine through Phil Bronstein.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:46 am

I know she's an actress but . . jeez.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 9:20 am

It was an emotional situation. Probably we can all agree on that. The fight was about custody issues. There's a difference between being a vigilante, and taking a measured approach. Alas, a lot of people around these blogs don't seem to want to do the measure approach thing.
And alas, a lot (not all, thank God) of the Domestic Violence Victims advocates, not doubt victims themselves, seem to be afflicted with a psychological syndrome which makes them *react* to any whiff of violence—to the point where they seem to want to sanitize life of all its inherent warts—with a "kill" mentality. This "kill" mentality is what we saw in the desire to oust Ross MIrkarimi, and it's what we see now in the way these folks are trying to scuttle Christine Olague for her measured approach to the Mirkarimi case.

We live in a violent culture....and I think it's the height of irony when the very advocates for DV victims act in violent ways themselves: *reacting* instead of responding, wanting extermination, ousters, defaming a person (now it's Christina)...which are all the antithesis of love and symptoms of this violent culture that is still our reality. Luckily for San Francisco, in the case of Ross Mirkarimi, love won out. But, some habits (the one of our culture being violent) die hard, and we will no doubt continue to see this kind of misguided self-righteousness masquerading a while yet. Don't be fooled.

Posted by Daniele E. on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 10:19 am

acknowledgement that, as Ross said, an act of violence was committed towards Eliana.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 10:37 am

No one is disputing "an act of violence was committed against Eliana". Sure, an arm-grab in the heat of an argument is a form of "violence". But you have to put it in perspective, Guest. You have to put it in perspective, is all. When a person yells at someone, that too is a form of violence in that the recipient is "hurt" by it. And that is where you and I may diverge, as, as I wrote, some of us think that life has its "violent" moments, and that that is indeed, a part of life. Others wish to exterminate these incidents, and go as far as wanting to kick someone to the curb for them. Who is more violent? The one who lost it temporarily during a heated argument, or the one who *can't tolerate* any semblance of violence? Ask yourself this question.

People are not perfect, including you and I. They never were, and they never will be. Would you like to dispute that as well?

Posted by Daniele E. on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 10:56 am

Her droning speech the evening of the Mirkarimi vote made clear she wasn't voting to reinstate him because she believed his version of events - she allegedly voted to reinstate him because she felt the mayor usurped his power in removing Mirkarimi, when in reality we all know it's because she felt it was the best choice for her politically. So her defenders here going on ad nauseum about arm grabs and all that bullshit should STFU and listen to her speech again - she's not a fan of Mirkarimi's conduct on this issue. You're refighting old battles - Mirkarimi is once again sheriff. That issue is finished unless there's a recall.

So what it really comes down to is her bad judgement in making that call. In addition there are the other issues around Olague - she has no backbone and she'll do whatever she has too in order to remain in office. She's the worst kind of political prostitute (taking money from Rose Pak, supporting Ed Lee) and progressives who are singing her praises because of this one vote, conveniently forgetting all the others which REALLY matter, are slitting their own throats.

The videos in question here make everyone uncomfortable because they get down to the real nitty gritty - should someone who is entrusted by the public to make the hard calls, like in the Mirkarimi case, instead fall back on what's more politically advantageous for them? In every instance when she's been tested she's failed. Spineless, weak and craven - this is who you REALLY want representing you?

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 10:52 am

was just way over your head. There was no direct evidence of anything other than a simple arm grab which both Eliana and Ross didn't deny. Olague and the other three votes for Mirkarimi understood that the city charter section used by the city attorney and Mr. Lee in their attempted lynching was woefully flawed. Had Ross, an elected official not been returned to his job, the city would have had to spend more than the 1.3 mill they did spend to defend at the Court of appeals. Then, when they certainly lost, damages to the plaintiff. There was no "official misconduct", whether you imagine it differently, or not.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

about DV sadly mimick the very habit of violence which they abhor, there is a big difference between them and those who are far closer to the root of this behavior; those who habitually engage in scorched-earth tactics, applaud the imbalances of power in society, and exhibit vitriolic hatred of anything associated with progressives or progressivism: reactionaries.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 10:54 am

Lilli, don't you ever get tired of diverting? P.S. Bronstein had stopped working for Hearst by then.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Hortencia, you have a simplistic way of looking at relationships. Technically, Bronstein was working for the Chronic when he had several telephone calls with Madison prior to her going to the police. He retired from the Chronicle a few days later. Phil certainly didn't leave the Chronic in bad graces. He and the Chronic have continued to be in lockstep with the anti-Mirkarimi powers at City Hall. The Chronic has given the benefit of the doubt to every one of Lee's and Gascon's actions and the opposite on Mirkarimi's side's actions.

Further, a simple interview with Bronstein could have clarified his involvement in this case, but the best the Chronic could offer were a couple of apologetic lines in Matier & Ross's column. That is, the Chronicle, by editorial decision, were not only in lockstep with Bronstein but were assiduously protecting him and his actions from public scrutiny.

This is legal. Playing politics is what these people do. And while the Chronic is the "paper of record" for SF it doesn't have to investigate perjury allegations against Lee, or Gascon's failure to pursue them.

But when those who lost to Mirkarimi in the election are funding anti-Mirkarimi billboards, and when billionaires suddenly fund domestic violence interests, it is either naive on your part or disingenuous for you to presume that Downtown political interests are merely independent actors in this. And considering how the SFPD treats the poor and homeless, violence domestic or otherwise is pretty far down on their list of things to correct in San Francisco. State violence is the necessary insulation between the rich and poor. Mirkarimi and progressive politicians have always been a threat to the profiteering class, and they will spend their money to destroy those who might cut into their profits.

Posted by Bob In Portland on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 11:53 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

But I'm just a D5 voter who thinks Madison did the right thing and that her friends Lopez and Mirkarimi have dragged her name through the mud in retaliation.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 6:47 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

You'd better knock off with that language, misogynist, lest Madison drop a house on you!

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

...had left the Chronicle in an angry huff, you'd believe him? Anyway, I'd really like to see any evidence that "He and the Chronic have continued to be in lockstep with the anti-Mirkarimi powers at City Hall."

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

The former editor for the paper talked to the central character here, Ivory Madison. Twice. The story was that Madison wanted to get a group of Mirkarimi's friends together and stage an intervention for him. She allegedly talked with Bronstein to get names of those who would attend the intervention.

Do you believe that, Guest? Who did she try to contact? Don't know? Why not? Because Bronstein isn't telling and the Chronicle chooses not to ask. Why? Because it's undoubtedly a lie.

If Bronstein had left in a huff one of the half-dozen reporters who've been covering this would at least have gotten a "no comment" to get a dig in on Bronstein.

Maybe I shouldn't presume. Maybe Bronstein did leave in a huff. But after almost a year there is not a ray of sunlight between him and the Chronicle.

Posted by Bob In Portland on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

is entirely relevant to her political involvement - which includes hosting a Mirkarimi fundraiser and the past presidency of a NOW chapter. Both of those clearly indicate to me that she is a secret mole for fascist forces. Just like lifelong progressive feminist lesbians like Andrea Shorter are also moles for a reactionary social agenda. That's right lilli - only you know what's REALLY up.

If this series of videos weren't so damaging you wouldn't be in full-on hysterical attack mode. But you are - which tells me they're far more effective than any of you are letting on. It's kinda difficult to attack grieving mothers of dead children isn't it? However I'm sure you'll find a way - your type of slime always does.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:59 pm

The actual relevance is if you read the thing...Ivory really opens herself up and she betrays a lot of inner motives and unresloved issues "I want to be a hero, I still do" in relation to DV that totally is relevant for why when Eliana trusts her and Ivory makes a video that Ivory later uses the video against the "interests of Eliana while pretending Ivory is helping her. Ivory wants to be the hero she must publicize the video and in her mind she thought she would be "heroic"where she conquers her previous inaction. Unresolved motives stay in the psyche of a person forever frozen in time it surely explains her motive for highjacking Eliana's custody issue. But it doesnt explain what later happens is THAT situation is hijacked by the political machine for its own purposes BUT they must use the DV issue for cover or they cant get away with it. The thing goes on like a three ring circus with the Billionaires corruption the Willie Brown machine and the creepy Ed Lee the petty corrupt little dictator ugh.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

in psychology Dr. Commenter? Please tell us more about this person's "unresloved [sic] issues" and "inner motives," your penetrating analysis of which has been gleaned from a 3 or 4-page law school admissions essay.

Imagine the business you could create from analyzing admission essays - you could diagnose AND cure a multitude of illnesses simply from reading the pleadings of students to get into an institute of higher education!

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

There is actually MORE again [Courtesy of Larry Bush]
.” In an interview about her noir writing, Madison observed “I realized recently that most of my fiction is about ineffective female assassins.”
SO she wants to be the hero "I still do" meaning take "action" and her "fiction" is about "ineffective" female assasins.....SUDDENLY she can become the hero and become the "effective" female assasin from Wiki the definition of assasin IS
Definition of Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons

An assassination may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives; it may be carried out for the prospect of financial gain, to avenge a grievance, from the desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition)

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

and his application essays to Columbia and Harvard. Have you ever considered how closely you resemble the same pathetic conspiracy theorists on the right with their incessant demands and your reading into a decade-old law school admissions essay?

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

Nothing there is conspiracy , this is the opposite it is the words of a central character a Ivory Madison and Ms. Madison's "noir" statement is recent and not related to her essay nevertheless the content of which appeared heartfelt (even if misguided) so we know a lot about who she is. Nothing conspiratorial it was"her own words" and her own actions making a video for her "friend"s protection of custody rights and then betraying this trust for "some other reason" and making it public in fact Madison's words to Eliana to let her know Ivory contacted the authorities were "your going to kill me" so she knew this was against Eliana'a interest that shows there is a lot of distortion and hidden agenda THAT situation was highjacked by the Willie Brown/Ed Lee machine. Now how about give it a rest.

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

She's got her own unique way of determining the truth which has no relation to facts or logic.

But certainly you've done well to answer the weak points she's tried making.

And in addition to the primary sources with regard to Ivory Madison's personality make-up your cited thatthewayitis, we also have her rambling declaration to the EC.

Take item 20, which attempted to explain how she got Phil Bronstein involved -- supposedly with Eliana's concurrence:

"20. Eliana brought up the idea of calling Mike Hennessy, the recently retired former sheriff who had endorsed Ross to repplace him, to see if he could intervene on her behalf and convince Ross to stop his aubsive behavior and go into counseling. We discussed that perhaps in addition to Hennessey, other "male authority figures" who might have influence over Ross were former mayor Art Agnos and former President of the Board of Supervisors Aaaron Peskin. Eliana said she didn't have their mobile phone numbers, so I told her that I had a friend who might be able to help. My husband and I are close friends with Phil and Chris Bronstein. I told Eliana that Phil, who is the former executive editor for the San Francisco Chronicle, probably knew the three men and had their mobil phone numbers. Eliana said to go ahead and discuss the situation with Phil, and ask if he would help her and how he things she should handle making the calls."

Note the use of the phrase "male authority figures" -- hmmm... so familiar in Ivory's writing.

"She is a dark hero, always brooding, a loner, very tough, principled; conflicted but always takes action; characteristics of Batman and Catwoman. She could have ruled the mob, but instead she wants to take down the mob. Her sincere Catholic faith is interesting, her problems with Batman and with male authority figures is interesting."

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

too. He became a national laughingstock for that stunt - your "personality diagnosis" of someone you don't know and have never met, based on a law school transfer essay written a decade ago and a few fictional writings, is analogous but even more ludicrous. At least Frist was a physician.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

No wonder she's got such confidence. (Isn't it striking how often such misplaced confidence goes hand in hand with being particularly stupid?)

No. Troll #2 must have honestly thought she'd made a point there by mentioning Bill Frist.

Sorry Troll Scat, but of course the question of whether or not Bill Frist is a real doctor -- certainly a much more valid question than the existence of a med. school diploma might indicate -- has no bearing on Frist's capacity to diagnose Terry Schiavo through watching a video. The big problem is that isn't the least way analogous to forming an opinion of someone's personality based on their own writings *about* *themselves.*

Really ridiculous. Beyond your usual level of ridiculousness, I mean.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

You're an unemployed 50-year old virgin who lives in a studio and gets his rocks off imagining your wild ravings here make a difference - or that anyone gives a shit.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

Granted Frist "diagnosing" that poor women via video tape was pathetic, but really there is very little question that Frist was/is a "real doctor. Google is your friend- shows that he is board certified as a general surgeon and used to perform heart and lung transplants. Real enough for everyone but you I guess.

Posted by D. native on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:30 pm

Frist graduated from Harvard Medical School and was Chief Resident of Cardiology at Stanford. He has performed over 150 heart and lung transplants.

Yet lilli won't accept that he is a 'real doctor'. His ability to deny the truth is astounding.

Whatever they are giving him, they really need to either up the dosage or try something else. Or maybe they aren't real doctors either.

Posted by Troll on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:24 am

Troll, if you can't figure out that the most obsessive posters here - lilli, marcos, Brooks and a few others have some issues, REAL ISSUES - that would cause them to post here day in and day out without anything more important to do with their lives, then you need to be included with them. Please start to use an identifying name so we can skip over your posts too.

These are people not even talented enough to create their own blog, but have no problem inserting themselves on every issue, every post, every comment. Their whole life mission appears to be trying to dominate discussions on the seldom read SFBG blog, get the last word in, and browbeat anyone who dares disagrees with them. Responding to their posts makes YOU look bad since YOU can't even figure out the people who are worth paying attention to and those who aren't worth your time and effort beyond a simple smile and the timeless, "You're so right lili/marcos/Brooks. You guys are so clever. Why didn't I think of that!" And then scurry away as fast as possible to spend your time on much more meaningful interpersonal relationships that might lead to somethng worthwhile rather than a bunch of worthless, nonsense discussions with them.

Posted by Guest Zee on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 7:32 am

... but really just another distraction from the message that Ivory Madison is trying to get out.

"I wanted to be a hero. I still do"

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 7:59 am

And yes, he did a bunch of operations back in the day when win/loss ratios weren't widely disseminated -- but of course that wasn't my main point.

The truth behind my main point was a bit too obvious for the golums to denigrate. The fact is the Ivory Madison's written description of herself is highly instructive about her personality; just about the best one could hope for in that regard.

Silly trolls.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 6:41 am

and her fascination with "male authority figures" too:

"And since when did Helena have a problem with male authority figures? She was protected and trained by two men to be a fighter! Why would she have a problem with male authority figures?"

Still -- all *far* less significant than Ivory's own wordy self-description linked to up above; but rather only a small and relatively insignificant detail.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 7:20 am

for which to engage in your remote "personality diagnosis" business. Your penetrating analysis of someone you have never met, based on her decade-old 4-page law school transfer application, her fiction writings and a couple of interviews - is fascinating. Have you considered work with the FBI's Serial Killer Profile bureau, or perhaps CIA's foreign leader analysis division?

You and Bill Frist could team up - he could do the medical diagnoses and you could do the personality analysis - all you two would need is the subject's 4th grade grammar essay and a picture of them running track.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 11:03 am

for the completely lame premise.

Bill Frist -- not a specialist in brain function -- "diagnosed" Terri Schiavo through a T.V. screen image. Later when the poor woman died, her autopsy revealed that the actual doctors on hand were correct, and Frist was wrong; her brain was liquified.

Now, on the other hand, when presented with an essay by a person describing themselves, repeatedly using self-descriptive phrases using such words "I" and "myself", we can think two things: either these are facts which require no analysis, or they are lies which then might require and be subject to analytical treatment.

Are you saying that Ivory Madison lied on her Standford admissions essay?

Answer, and we'll move on from there.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 11:49 am

aimed at convincing the reader to allow the applicant to transfer to their law school. Not exactly the medium any sane and rational person would then use to justify a "personality diagnosis" of the writer, someone they had never met. Furthermore you are not a psychologist or psychiatrist, at least Frist was a board-certified physician during his pathetic and laughable attempt at remote diagnosis.

Keep digging lilli - I'm enjoying watching you disappear.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:27 pm

"Like many high-school dropouts, I had found myself waiting tables and bartending, by default. But I knew I wanted more and so, like most marginalized self-styled orphan-hero protagonists, I cleverly plotted a meteoric rise to power. I wasn’t sure what people learned in business school, so I went to the library and studied small business management for several months. I was working graveyard shift as a cocktail waitress on a casino riverboat. Watching the sun come up over the Mississippi River to the din of slot machines later became watching Neiman-Marcus shoot their Christmas catalogue in my celebrated French bistro. The sunrise was more edifying, but there were important lessons learned and skills honed in those years of struggling to build my own business."

See, one thing it tells about Ivory Madison no matter how you judge it in terms of being factual, is that she didn't do the least bit of basic research in what constitutes a winning law school admissions essay.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:55 pm

...whatever you think of the merits of this one, she must have successfully written one to get into New College.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

unaccredited, now defunct.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2012 @ 11:14 am

Many lawyers from that school are practicing law in California today.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

She considers herself a "marginalized self-styled orphan-hero protagonist"?

Posted by Bob In Portland on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

...should be insulted by this whole line of reasoning. I'm surprised more of them in Madison's network haven't come out to defend her, actually. Just because someone writes fiction means they can't have a point of view or act to help a friend?

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:16 am