Who got my first contribution, and why.

I just made my first donation to a Presidential candidate today.
In this diary I'll explain who got my money and why.
First off---it wasn't Hillary. Why not? She doesn't need my money!
If she loses in the primaries, it certainly won't be because I didn't donate.
Second, I do prefer Hillary, as you may have deduced from a careful exegesis of my body of commentary.
Third, this contribution was to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior  at the same time.
So, who was it?

John Edwards.
Am I crazy? Or did I suddenly become not crazy? Well, no.
I have doubts about Edwards, which I have not overcome.
However, there are a lot of good things in his platform. Also, even though I don't have confidence in him at the moment, it's indisputable to me that he has forced the other candidates in the Progressive direction, most obviously by being the first candidate to come up with a plan to achieve universal health cover. The specific good behavior I'm rewarding is his pledge to meet with world leaders in the first 100 days of office to discuss global warming. This pledge will probably force the other candidates to say something similar, so again, he will affect the race in a good way, even if he is not the nominee.

The bad behavior I am "punishing" by donating to Edwards is Obama's.
While I lack faith in Edwards in a general sense, my worries about Obama are much more specific---that he will throw the left under the bus in the general election to win votes.
His attacks on plans with mandates, while not offering UHC himself, as well as his "crisis" rhetoric on Social Security---not to mention the pandering to black homophobes---do not demonstrate that Obama is going to fight for my values. Hillary will fight. Edwards will fight.

About the Obama-Krugman dust-up, you can find Krugman's response
at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

"    On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn’t quell my worries that Mr. Obama’s dislike of "bitter and partisan" politics makes him too cautious. But at least he’s come out with a plan.

And I was prepared to leave it at that — Obama’s plan was weaker than his rivals’ because it wasn’t universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice.

But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.

And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here."

This explains the difference that has mystified some Obama supporters, between Krugman's tone now and six months ago.

Also, from "thirdestate" at Mydd is a very interesting theory:
http://www.mydd.com/...

"Why focus on Social Security at all, since it's not really a big problem? Why attack health care plans that have mandates, rather than say why your approach is better? And why in the world would your campaign attack Paul Krugman??

I've been considering these questions for some time, and I'm becoming more and more convinced that Obama is trying to win the "media primary" (which I referred to awhile ago). My suspicion is that Barack is attempting to appease/manipulate the class of establishment pundits, and with them the press corps as a whole. It's not a bad strategy as far as it goes. As Rove knew, if you can get the press to attack a candidate, you don't have to do it (or pay the price with higher negatives). An opponent, no matter how formidable, isn't so scary if he or she is busy fighting the press AND the opposing campaign. By making noises about Social Security and mandates, Obama is feeding the media beast. Heck, it might even work, if recent polls are any evidence.

What concerns me is that the beast is always hungry. I know Obama doesn't want to go on some crusade against the powers that be (look what that's done for Edwards), but do you really have to suck up to them that much? Do you really think the press will stay friendly to you forever? Did you read that execrable Washington Post piece on the "Madrassa" rumor?

So while Obama's (or should I say David Axelrod's) strategy might make sense, I find it very, very worrisome."

There's a final reason to support Edwards rather than Obama, IMO.
Edwards  vs. Clinton is very distinct choice. Obama vs. Clinton is not.
There will be a much healthier debate between Clintons'
and Edwards' than we are seeing now between Obama and Clinton.

•  Tip jar.

  Here's to any  candidate who does not need to impugn Paul Krugman's integrity to make an argument.

  by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:08:55 AM PDT

•  .

  

  by PhillyGal on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:14:48 AM PDT

  •  Self portrait?

    O!

    by jre2k8 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:36:51 PM PDT

•  You are full of shit. Really.

  Bad behavior?  And Edwards?  I hope it was $250 so he can get matching federal funds.  You never cared for EITHER candidate, but hey, Edwards need the money.  And your tirate and rant about Klugman?  Dude, who cares?  Really, who?  Obama has everyright to challenge those who write about him, as Hillary or John, so what?

  But I am sure the Edwards campaign is appreciative of you giving monies, because many did not give money these past few weeks for Hillary's awful behavior.

  by icebergslim on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:15:31 AM PDT

  •  I can tell I did a good deed, from your

    courteous response.
    Incidentally, Obama does not have every right to insinuate that Krugman is dishonest---not if he expects to get votes from principled, progressive Democrats.
    Do have a nice day, though!

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:18:02 AM PDT

    •  Waaaaaaah.

      You take a douchebaggy action and you got called on being a douchebag.

      Whaaaaaa. Whaaaaaa.

      

      by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:21:39 AM PDT

  •  He's not full of shit, you just

    being overly emotional about it.  Obama's plan is weaker than the rest, and he is using right wing talking points of trying to scare people of the 'forced' or 'mandated' health care. Krugman knows what he is talking about.

    by rigso on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:19:15 AM PDT

  •  P.S., I wouldn't DREAM of calling someone who

    interrupts MY beautiful diary mentally ill.
    You're very welcome to stay here and discuss issues with all the lovely people who visit my diaries:)

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:20:57 AM PDT

  •  but how ought they be challenged

    by showing your own merits, or by denigrating the other's?  I have to say that I like Obama, maybe not for the same reasons others support him. I see him as a guy who got an opportunity to run, got some encouragement, and decided that this was his opening, and a guy who can see an opportunity and act seems cool to me.  But I like him for his put-down sardonic humor, his way of saying, 'it's not my understanding .... with a zinger.  He's funny, like Maureen Dowd, although I'd never want him against me. Like Maureen he can find what can be mocked in someone's message, and mock it, he's good at making his opponents seem silly, and irrelevant.  Along with Bush's inanity, he helped influence the last Australian election, with one of his 'it's not my understanding' put downs.  

    But are there not some serious issues that require thoughtful consideration? I can't tell if he choses a mocking tone because he has no real rebuttal, if he prefers the one-liners and can't pass up a joke, or if he's unwilling to rethink a problem once he's come up with his own solution.  

    I'm not sure if he's battling Krugman because he can't admit he's ever been wrong (has he ever admitted he was wrong about anything?) or if he actually thinks he knows more about health care and the economy than Krugman. That's a scary possibility, one that will lead him to select advisors who don't know any more than he knows, and/or already agree with him.  I'd like a president who wants to hire the Krugmans, not battle with them, who wants to learn from the Krugmans, and not dismiss them over not accepting his superiority on all things presidential.  

    I wonder what his students think of him?  Can he accept challenges from his students?  Can he admit he's been mistaken on anything,  can he change his mind, or does he scare his students away with his speech-chilling but quite amusing put-downs?    

    by anna shane on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:05:25 AM PDT

•  Interesting. I think you are right about

  Obama. His plan is weaker than the rest, no doubt about that in my mind.  And also think Edwards has been very progressive, but Hillary is the one that made UHC an issue, over 13 years ago, Edwards has just in the last year coming to support it.

  but i also think Edwards is having a positive effect on the campaign, especially now that he is on a  more positive bump. He is my second choice, after Hillary.

  by rigso on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:15:36 AM PDT

  •  Oh? How long as Edwards been your #2?

    He's been on my shit list recently, as you may have noticed.. but over relatively minor incidents.

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:18:58 AM PDT

    •  i just think he'd be electable

      and he'd stick to at least some of his progressive promises, so for that reason, and the fact that a close friend is a big shot and a huge supporter in his N.H campaign, I've had him in 2nd or 3rd place for a while.  His attacks turned me off at times though, and so did his incosistency.

      by rigso on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:25:28 AM PDT

      •  Any indications of how he would help down-ticket

        races?
        It would be nice to have a sense which candidate will help get Democrats elected in Congress. If Edwards really is the strong candidate his supporters say, and if the Democrats get 61 in the senate, he'll be in a position to effect change.

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:29:28 AM PDT

•  I'm still undecided but I made my only donation

  to Edwards also. I think it is good if they all three stay in the race as long as possible. Maybe the good points of each can push the others in the right direction.

  Edwards lost me when he went too negative but now he seems back on track and the other two are the ones going somewhat negative.

  by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:19:15 AM PDT

  •  Well, Obama is not engaging in Clinton's

    tactics.  He is not going negative.  All that has unraveled these weeks have cost Clinton not Obama, as the recent Newsweek poll indicated.  Which was taken around this crap.

    Here is an NPR Report on some uneasiness of Edwards from supporters in Iowa.

    NPR

    by icebergslim on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:33:08 AM PDT

    •  Do you really think Obama has not

      done any negative campaigning in the last few weeks?!
      What's your definition of negative?

      by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:37:59 AM PDT

      •  Don't ask questions you won't like the answers to

        What's your definition of negative?

        You.

        by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:23:04 AM PDT

        •  how mature

          that's a real one-liner put down that takes away all possible discussion.  What is negative?  It's boring dem!!! Smart, show that to Obama, he'll be proud you learned so quickly.  

          by anna shane on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:38:32 AM PDT

          •  It's not like

            I wanted any possible discussion with BoringDem.

            But you're right - I acted just like a Hillary supporter with that behaviour.

            Won't do that again.

            by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:58:02 AM PDT

            •  I was thinking more Barack

              Except he's often funny.  

              by anna shane on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:14:02 PM PDT

            •  You are just putting out statements that

              are trying to aggravate the situation.  Don't pretend that it is just supporters of Clinton that do that, I've seen it coming from you quite often.  Noone has perfect posters to their credit here, definitely including your candidate.

              by hopscotch1997 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:16:55 PM PDT

              •  Thanks for your opinion.

                Back atcha.

                I know you are, but what am I?

                Got anything else to add to this?

                by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:33:33 PM PDT

                •  Yes, Just one question.

                  Is this high school or grade school?  It's hard to tell.

                  by hopscotch1997 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:46:07 PM PDT

                  •  It's

                    School of Rock.

                    As in between one and a hard place.

                    by blue vertigo on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:48:51 PM PDT

    •  You are looking at Obama through rose tinted

      glasses, but if you are a person who can see objectively, you would see that he has taken nasty shots quite a few times.  He has appeared nasty to me, and I am looking with a biased view, but I can still see both poking at each other.  Neither have really wallowed in the mud to the extent that past campaigns have see, though.

      When you make statements about how perfect your candidate is and that he never blah, blah, blah, you don't fool anyone.  Everyone can see for themselves what has gone on.

      by hopscotch1997 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:14:22 PM PDT

    •  Not going negative?

      "Edwards doesn't have money to compete with Hillary."

      That's the O! O! O! Obama! spiel in Iowa.  Nothing on policy or general election prospects.

      A hopeful progressive my ass.

      by jre2k8 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:40:21 PM PDT

      •  obama is a lightweight

        most people see that.

        by titotitotito on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:21:07 PM PDT

•  Thank you for donating to Edwards

  I read Krugman this morning on Obama and health care.  It was enlightening.

  Sen. Clinton was on CNBC earlier this week.  She gave her plan to help the homeowners in the subprime mortgage crisis.  She stood her ground in a very "red" setting.  Maria Bartirouma interviewed her and Hillary was impressive, knowledgeable and inspiring.  In fact, the market rose during her interview, and CNBC talking heads were wondering if she caused it.  Heh, let  them wonder.  I remember a strong bull market during the Clinton years and no national deficit.   She did not hesitate to tell them she would do away with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.  She sounded like a strong democrat and reminded me of Edwards.  I was awestruck by what she said.

  I think Edwards has brought the Dems to a more progressive side.  Thank God, I am sick of talk of guns, gays, and the flag.  Iraq, healthcare and the environment are the most important issues to me.  I hope Hillary stops with the hawkish stance soon.  

  by Sandy on Signal on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

  •  I guarantee Hillary will not stop talking like a

    hawk. She has calculated that being consistent over the long term is a winning electoral strategy, even if she comes down on the wrong side of some votes, like Kyl-Lieberman. It's not a pretty sight, but since I don't think she is actually a warmonger, I'm willing to accept that side of her in order to get a fighter in the White House.

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:23:35 AM PDT

    •  She has also calculated that

      her campaign MUST survive in the case of another terrorist attack before the election for the Dems to have any chance of winning the White House under such circumstances. Edwards' and Obama's campaigns certainly wouldn't.

      I'm for Edwards, but I do appreciate some of Clinton's strategy and tactics.

      by Vico on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:38:51 AM PDT

      •  Well, there's a level I hadn't thought of!

        That's a logical argument I had not heard before.

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:40:00 AM PDT

        •  Early in the campaign, Clinton brought up

          the idea that in the event of a terrorist attack the American people need to be aware of their underlying belief that republicans do better in fighting terrorism.  People here flipped out that she would be saying that Repuplicans have the better reputation out loud.  But she wasn't, she was bringing it up to expose it and to make people aware that although they may have that in their subconscious,it is not right if they have the right Democrat in place to fight it.  She said she would be the best candidate to win in case a terrorist attack happens befor the election, and that she could dispute that ingrained idea better than Obama and Edwards.  

          In order to change an idea that people have, it has to be brought to the front and disputed before hand.  Otherwise, because of brainwashing about the Republicans foriegn policy expertise, and protective abilities, voting for a republican would be a knee jerk immediate response of most.  Noone doubts that the republicans would manufacture some type of scare right before the election to take advantage of their false reputation, and the whole subject needs to be out in the open and the republicans abilities disputed well befor the moment it happens.

          This whole discussion is too nuanced, though, and was wasted on the American public who sees things in concrete black and white.

          by hopscotch1997 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:10:20 PM PDT

    •  So your first choice is a warmonger

      Maybe you should contribute over at RedState too, they dig war over there.

      by young montana voter on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:41:12 AM PDT

      •  Why don't you read? I said she is not a warmonger

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:15:59 PM PDT

•  Your candidate is Manchurian

  my candidate is the true believer.

  by Stroszek on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:32:28 AM PDT

  •  You a Kucinich man?

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:33:02 AM PDT

    •  My candidate doesn't throw mud

      just delicious Godiva chocolate.

      by Stroszek on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:35:27 AM PDT

•  What I don't understand about these types...

  ...of diaries, is that they focus on rhetoric, not policy. In fact, they don't even cite actual rhetoric, but just point in a fuzzy way to how this or that progressive icon has spun Obama's rhetoric.

  Yet for every Krugman annoyed with Obama's language, there's a Robert Reich, a Lawrence Tribe, a Lawrence Lessig that praises it.

  What's left aside is the policy substance itself. No matter that Clinton and Edwards voted us into a war that's killed tens of thousands while Obama vigorously spoke against it...hey, it's just not as important as Obama saying there are problems to address with Social Security to secure all Americans' benefits into the future.

  Krugman concedes that Obama's health plan is not half-bad from a practical perspective. Krugman concedes that in 45 years, a worker of 25 today will only receive 80% of her social security benefits. And of all major candidates, Obama takes the most politically courageous step in proposing to raise the cap, a practical and economically fair alternative that Clinton calls, in unmistakably right-wing language, "a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class".

  So who is really throwing the left "under the bus"? Not Obama's policies by any means.

  This focus on fleeting PC rhetoric over policy substance is why many Americans haven't a clue what Dems stand for, and why they keep turning to the GOP for "pragmatic" solutions.

  Less focus on rhetoric, more focus on policy. Please Dems!

  by Maxwell on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:45:33 AM PDT

  •  What I don't understand about your argument,

    is that you decry diaries which focus on rhetoric, and then you proceed to praise Obama for what he has SAID about Iraq, which  is in stark contrast to what his votes to fund the war indicate.
    If you want more focus on policy, I would say Obama is not the candidate to look at, these days.
    Edwards pledge to meet leaders to discuss global warming, and Hillary's mortgage proposals are solid, recent issues-oriented developments.
    By the way, I'm not aware of ANYTHING Obama has said about the mortgate crisis. What has he said? Has he proposed any solutions, short or long-term?

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:51:02 AM PDT

    •  Obama didn't have a vote in Congress.

      How could he have done anything else? He could have kept quiet, but like Gore, like Dean, like Clark, he spoke out against it. When it was very unpopular to do so, and in the middle of his own political race.

      You've completely swept the issue of the war "under the bus".

      How can you vote based on recent "pledges" and sweet nothings, when the candidate you favor voted the wrong way in the MOST IMPORTANT VOTE IN A GENERATION.

      I find that, when 21 Senators and 126 House members had the courage to vote against this war that almost everyone on this site saw through in 2002-3, that a YES vote on the Force Authorization is an immediate disqualification to become the Democratic nominee in 2008. Kerry's vote on the war did more to sabotage his candidacy in 2004 than anything else. Like Kerry, Clinton and Edwards were for it before they were against it. Hell, Clinton even indicates she'd probably vote the same way again.

      Maybe looking the issue straight in the face embarrasses you after all this time, and you need to talk about something else. So you wildly change the subject to the mortgage crisis.

      Ok then: from a policy perspective, I disagree with Clinton's plan. The mortgage industry doesn't need a bailout for their past idiocy, nor should we decrease the risk involved in dealing with unsecured loans and option ARMs. I had the opportunity to take out an ARM two years ago and sensibly passed it up. What needs to be addressed is how sub-prime lenders target and swindle disproportionately poor and minority families into taking these risks. This is an issue Obama was all over two months ago.

      So you deflect away from the most important issue of the decade, you suggest Obama's said nothing about an issue he was talking about months before Clinton, and you settle on Edwards because, QUOTE:

      "Edwards pledge(d) to meet leaders to discuss global warming"

      Huh? "Meet leaders" Whu? Who hasn't pledged to "meet leaders"? How about a hard cap on carbon emissions to decrease emissions by 80%, making all new US buildings carbon neutral, a venture capital fund that invests $10 billion annually in clean energy starts ups, how about investment in nuclear waste reprocessing and smaller, more secure and stable nuclear tech (Cf, where France gets 80% of its energy). Etc etc

      Real proposals, even if politically controversial. "Meet leaders"?

      No, meet leadership.

      by Maxwell on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM PDT

      •  I'll show you mine

        http://johnedwards.com/...

        If you show me yours.

        by jre2k8 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:44:38 PM PDT

        •  You can stand among the morally indifferent...

          ...and pass out your pamphlets and circulars.

          I have litmus test:

          If you ignored 147 courageous Congressional Democrats and voted to give George W Bush the authority to go to preemptive, unilateral war with Iraq, then you don't have the judgement or moral authority to be president. You have been an accomplice to the deaths of thousands of innocents, and I cannot vote for you in this primary. Nor do I believe any true humanist or internationalist should.

          You can turn your face away. You can choose to forget what happened only five years ago.

          I cannot.

          by Maxwell on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:56:45 PM PDT

          •  That applies

            only to Kucinich.

            The other anti-Iraq candidate has shown stunning moral cowardice on the quagmire since obtaining his Senate seat.

            by jre2k8 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

      •  Um, your comment is all over the place.

        I think you are implying that Hillary was proposing nothing about global warming until Obama did. I don't believe that for a minute.

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:17:56 PM PDT

•  Blech.

  No thanks.

  by Rhoda Mae on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:32:55 PM PDT

•  Interesting Viewpoint

  My first choice has always been Edwards.  My second?  I dunno.  None appeal.  Well, I lie, Kucinich and Gravel appeal (yes I'm that far to the left/libertarian quarter).  But neither has a snowball's chance in hell, and Edwards appeals more.

  However, I've had a visceral reaction towards Clinton, mostly because I really dislike her husband.  Really.  Dislike.  So I've tended towards Obama.  But he makes me uncomfortable for several reasons.

  So this diary has made me look at Clinton from a slightly different perspective.  And for that I thank you.  It makes the thought of voting for her a bit more palatable.

  However, I'll be working my ass off to make sure I don't have to vote for her, I'm sure you understand.

  by sima on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:58:28 PM PDT

  •  Thank you. Nice comment.

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:07:38 PM PDT

  •  If the race is between Hillary and Edwards, this

    would also force Edwards to answer more hard questions, which is really necessary for me to be able to support him with any enthusiasm.

    by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:08:43 PM PDT

    •  I'd like to see them all answer hard questions

      So I agree there too.  I can't stand the current debate set up.  Also, I think being the 'third' candidate, Edwards just doesn't get asked those questions.  At least not where most can hear him.

      However, I love the stuff he says.  My concerns are in some ways typical of a Democratic voter.  I hate the war, the direction the country has taken, I'm worried about the environment and so on.   But my big concern, one which impacts me directly, is the takeover of the government by big corporations. Edwards addresses that.  I'm rural, I own a small, struggling farm which is facing a death knell of rules and regulations proposed by the USDA and its big corporation partners.  So it's a life struggle in some ways for me.

      Clinton, I'm not so enthusiastic about because of the corporation thing.  She gets a 'yea, whatever' reaction from me.  I see the tall spectre of her husband looming behind her too.  I guess I'm one woman he's never charmed.  However, I do think she's a strong enough woman that she can tell him to buzz off and make it stick when needed.  Which comforts me.  

      Obama also gets the 'yea whatever' reaction.  I don't get the hype.  I've tried.  I've read his papers, listened to some speeches, read the diaries here.  I've really tried.  But it washes over me.  I'm too cynical I guess so the 'hope' doesn't catch me so much.  Maybe it's because I have no hope.  My livelihood is facing death (the new proposed rules for 'leafy greens' will kill me, NAIS will just drive the stake through my heart).  Bringing all sides to the table will see the likes of me crushed.  So that's no option.  I need someone who'll defend the little guy.

      I'll be looking more closely at Clinton to see if I think she'll be doing that.  And that's probably more than you wanted to know about my circumstances :).

      by sima on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:29:37 PM PDT

      •  We need to change ag subsidies in this

        country---big time! Current policies promote practices that are extravagant in use of resources, and not producing enough variety or healthy food.
        I don't see anything about ag in the issues section of her page, but you might like the energy/global warming page.

        http://hillaryclinton.com/...

        Hillary's a serious wonk---you don't have to rely on your gut feelings with her.

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:38:16 PM PDT

      •  I like what Edwards says now, btw..

        it's just that there's too much inconsistency in his past for me to jump on board.

        by BoringDem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:39:20 PM PDT

•  i will vote for the nominee

  and i hope it's edwards, so thanks for the contribution ;-)

  by titotitotito on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:13:08 PM PDT