Clinton vs.Obama, something worth reading

Since I do everything ass-backwards, I get into lengthy disquisitions about my own thinking in my comments about other peoples' diaries, but I'm devoting my first-ever diary to a link to something that's not mine at all.

http://www.newyorker.com/...

George Packer's new New Yorker piece on Hillary Clinton's philosophy and style, as opposed to Barack Obama's.  The piece is more about Clinton than it is about Obama, so he doesn't get as much attention, but beyond that it looks pretty fair-minded to me.  Those who like and dislike Clinton will find something to suit them, although those who detest her with a passion probably won't.  After the jump, I'll say a bit more, if only to justify posting an actual diary :)

I was gratified, in a vain way, to see that Packer lays it out pretty much as I have put it in my throwaway comments (otherwise known as "comments") here at DK for the last couple of months.  "To Clinton, the presidency is more about achieving goals than about transforming society," so it comes down to what you want in a president.  Let me qualify that: what you want, and what you think is achievable.  I'd love for the president to deliver groceries straight to my door and then stay for tea, but that's not on my list of candidate criteria.

If anything, Packer depicts a somewhat more empathetic and interpersonally gifted Hillary Clinton than I had imagined; I'm pretty hard-core in saying that I don't value those things overmuch in a president (high-average is good enough for me), but since most people hope for more, his depiction can only be good news.  But if you think she's too wounded from past experiences to be a good president, you'll find some grist there as well.

One interesting thing: there was indeed a specific moment "late last year, as the Democratic race was tightening," when Clinton's advisers argued over "whether to go on the attack against Obama--an argument won by the proponents."  But the single thing out of Hillary Clinton's mouth that her opponents most identify with that strategic decision--her MLK/LBJ comment--doesn't seem to come from that decision at all.  It's entirely coherent with what she has always said about government and what it's for: Packer discusses her comment entirely in that context, a good two pages before mentioning the campaign's decision to go after Obama, so I'm assuming he sees them as separate things, as do I.

This article is a good opportunity to hear Clinton in her own words.  I find them very impressive, but you can be your own judge.  Maybe it will move some of you into her camp, but at this point I'd be happy if you would read the article and say, "she's not my candidate, but she's a Democrat and she has a philosophy of government and the presidency that's not idiotic."  You have to start somewhere!

•  Tips, because I'm told it's good practice

  But if you know me, you know I like criticism and mockery even more!  All Clinton supporters here are masochists.

  by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:29:02 AM PDT

•  Thanks- great diary

  Political campaigns. like foreign policy  and most things in life, are like a Chess game. By watching how someone runs a politcal campaign, it will tell you how they will run their foreign policy. Like chess, some just move their own pieces without thinking of the multitde of moves the opponenet can take, and one step farther, the scenarios that can be played out in each of those situations, each with its consequences. Some people just move foward trying to check mate the King. Some may put out a tasty morsel to entice and attack, and then take them out. Obama mentioned he would bomob Pakistan without approval if need be. ( Taking your opponent in chess) Hillary said she would too, but would notify the Pakistanis that it was the US and not India thinking they were under attack, thus causing WW3. That is the foresight to plan reactions before they become that, and have a response for that already planed out. Obama seems to run his campaign in a more Hail Mary way... but he gets off track way to easy in his campauign to let me believe he won't run his foreign policy the same way. As much as you hate the CLintons, they have anticaipated every move their opponent has made. This is how foreign policy should be done. No surprises. Every scenario thought out.

  by yogipohaku on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM PDT

  •  Obama would be fine as president of France!

    No, I'm not France-bashing, don't worry.  I mean he would be fine as president in a prime-ministerial system.  Well, even France may have too much of an executive presidency for what he's offering...maybe something less executive than France and more executive than Germany of Israel.  But we have the most executive presidency in the democratic world, that I know of, and we need someone with an executive temperament.

    Oh, and I meant to say: excellent comment, you're absolutely right and the example is perfect, because it shows how attention to detail can mean so much.

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM PDT

    •  I forgot to mention

      Bill and this McCain thing is the perfect example. His linkage of Hillary and McCain hits 2 buttons. First, it reminds the conservatives McCain is a middle of the roader, and second, their stomachs go into knots when they hear the word HIllary CLinton, and then linked wtih McCain, Programs the 2 to be linked emotionally as a pattern. He is using Hillarys name like a taser to zap them. McCain-HIllary/ZAP Friends/Hillary/ZAP. Like animal animal prod to herd thm.

      by yogipohaku on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:45:33 AM PDT

      •  Even Obama suporters ought to appreciate...

        ...that kind of political brilliance when they see it!  Not that I'm holding my breath, of course.

        by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM PDT

        •  That's the naive thing again

          If you don't think thru the consequences of your actions before you take them, you will be forced to learn that sometimes, even with good intent, consequences can take you to places you did't want to go. Just because someone vocalizes your dreams doesn't make your dream a reality. Only concentrated effort and focused determination will let you achieve your goals.

          by yogipohaku on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:00:55 AM PDT

    •  that comment makes about as much sense

      as saying that Hillary Clinton would make a good gang leader.  
      Because much like a gang leader you need to make sure the people who follow you are well aware of the dangers of the world and they need to believe that you are key to protecting them.  And if there are people not blindly following you, send out your minions to do a little dirty work.  
      Your leadership has to be always divisive because giving in to a rival gang would only show you weakness.
      Gang leaders rely on the politics of fear to keep their power and control.

      by in2mixin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM PDT

  •  i don't remember mr obama saying he would

    bomb pakistan without warning. you are welcome to post a link to that & show me where i'm wrong. otherwise i'll assume this is just another mischaracterization. my recollection is he said if he knew where bin laden was he'd give the pakistani government first crack at taking him out, if they balked, he'd do it. joe biden later remarked it was a non issue, since that was supposed to be u.s. policy anyway. but you should post a link backingup what you are asserting. thanks.

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:50:46 AM PDT

    •  It was in the foeign policy

      debate when asked about Pakistan. ( I can't remember which one- there have been so many)  He said he would go in without Pakistani authority if he needed to. Then the moderator said " well, that is the Bush Doctrine, isnt it?" and he realized he had walked into something that wasn't easy to get out of. Hillary then responded saying she would do the same thing, but before the bombs had landed in Pakistan she would let The governemnt know. Just goodle Obama Debate Pakistan Bush Doctrine.. it should come up a few different ways

      by yogipohaku on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM PDT

      •  no he didn't

        He said this

        If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

        by in2mixin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM PDT

        •  This does imply notification

          Hill's point about making sure Pakistan understood the Indians weren't involved in any hypothetical raids is common sense, and everyone can rest assured that most reasonably competent government staffers would be able to point this out even if their boss was clueless. It's not like Pakistan enmity towards India is something only regional experts truly understand.

          One of the many problems of Bush is that we no longer take competence and common sense for granted. I don't think any of the remaining Dems will present a problem in this respect.

          by bflaff on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM PDT

      •  according to the post he said

        "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

        link
        biden's criticism was not about the policy, but in talking about it;

        The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Sen. Joeph Biden said yesterday at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."

        same with mrs clinton;

        "She will take whatever actions are necessary to kill or capture bin Laden but wouldn't telegraph how we would do so," campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.

         
        so going back to your original comment, who is the one who will set the bombs off without telling anybody first?  

        by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:10:50 AM PDT

        •  Try these

          here's the whole thing... Obama is on page one and his statement, and HIllary is on page 3
          http://www.iht.com/...

          here's Clinton's page 3 response if you can't find it: ( 3rd paragraph is the India part)
          GIBSON: Senator Clinton.

          SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think it's important to get back to your question, because obviously that's the most direct threat to the United States. We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership, who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences.

          Now, as far as I know, there are, like, five things, quickly, that we should be looking at.

          Bin Laden has in large measure regrouped because we did not put in the troops and make the commitment to aggressively going after him inside Afghanistan when we had a chance. Therefore we need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible.

          Secondly, I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration, and at some point probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.

          Bscially. be careful what we throw into Pakistan. It may hvae consequences we didnt think of ( Obama didn't see this far) like starting a Nucelar exhcnage between India and Pakistan

          by yogipohaku on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM PDT

•  Reference

  I'll read this.  Getting to any real debate that involves Hillary on the issues is a struggle on this site.  But we need to keep trying.

  by Athena on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM PDT

•  This article is well worth the read

  It is insightful and well written, as is most of the writing in the New Yorker.

  One paragraph worth noting is this one

  .... if this campaign is, among other things, a referendum on the current occupant of the White House—as elections at the end of failed Presidencies inevitably are—then its outcome will be determined partly by whether voters find George W. Bush guilty of incompetence or of demeaning American politics. Clinton is presenting herself as the candidate who is tough and knowledgeable enough to fix the broken systems of government: the intelligence agencies, the Justice Department, the legislative process, the White House itself. Last week, speaking on the phone from California, she said that a President allows advisers to oversee the running of government at his or her peril. “Otherwise, you cede too much authority, and although it may not be immediately apparent to the public, the government picks up on those signals,” she said. “What we now know about how Dick Cheney basically controlled the information going to Bush means that we’ll never really know how much responsibility Bush should be assumed to have taken with respect to serious decisions  

  I think America is hungry for competence and hungry for a president who will PAY ATTENTION to what is going on.  Someone who will read the 'effing
  daily briefings, someone who understands world history,  and someone who doesn't  rush off to bed at 10 pm with his bangie while the plant goes to hell.

  by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:47:42 AM PDT

  •  agreed, somebody who will read the intelligence

    reports before sending our armed forces into wars of aggression would be a big improvement. even better would be someone who recognizes unprovoked invasions against another sovereign nation is illegal & immoral. for myself, i'm not looking for someone who will fight  an illegal conflict more competently.

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM PDT

    •  That's something for another diary...

      ...and if my rum supply holds out, maybe I'll do one tonight. I'll just give a tease here: the case against invading Iraq has a lot of compelling parts, but the "another sovereign nation" part isn't compelling in my opinion.  

      by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:01:15 AM PDT

      •  you find the concept of sovereignty "quaint?"

        by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM PDT

        •  I didn't say quaint, did I?

          Nope, I didn't...it was a three-line comment, so it didn't take me long to review it.

          Not quaint, but morally vacuous if you're alleging the sovereign equality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the USA, even if our president happens to be George W. Bush.  I won't sign on to anything that ludicrous.  It doesn't mean that I would go invading other countries for sport (I'm pretty sure Clinton won't, either) but if I otherwise thought it was a good idea, the purely nominal and entirely undeserved sovereignty of the world's worst regimes wouldn't stop me.

          by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM PDT

          •  then you & i have a profound difference.

            from the nuremberg tribunal:

            Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"

            by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM PDT

            •  Yep, we sure do!

              Like I said above, I may be able to write something about this tonight, and if you're around maybe we can get into it in some more detail.  Nuremberg is a whole can-o-worms.

              by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:10:04 PM PDT

•  Bravo---

  for a good first diary! I've always found your comments under mine thought-provoking. And thanks for the link to the New Yorker article. I'll just say I've my views on Clinton.

  by Louisiana 1976 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, that is very nice of you...

    ...because I haven't exactly shown the best solidarity with your campaign to have a debate in NOLA.  Now that I have you on the phone: you've had the chance to see a few of those debates...are you sure you still want one in your town? :)

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:50:55 AM PDT

    •  You're welcome....

      I don't live in NOLA--but quite far from there. I've been calling for a debate there and supporting her in other ways from afar because of the fact that so much has been left undone and unaddressed not only by the Bush Administration but by other politicians of both parties. Because the lackluster response to the flood and the neglect of that city is truly a national issue--for one thing, if that can happen to NOLA, it can happen anywhere.

      And the mainstream media has been complying with BushCo by keeping NOLA off the radar--so I think holding a debate there would both ensure that issues of the flood's aftermath are discussed in debates, which they haven't been lately, and attract media attention to the city.

      And bear with me for bringing this up here, but colorofchange.org is having a vote on debates questions for the 2 coming up next week in Los Angeles--and here's a way you can vote for a question on Gulf Coast Civic Works to be asked there.

      by Louisiana 1976 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM PDT

•  Obama's supporters

  do not help him by crying racism where most people see none, as in the MLK LBJ flap and the "fairy tale" quote out of context (as opposed to Cuomo's "shuck and jive" and the drug dealer comments).  Every criticism of Obama is not racist, and every criticism of Hillary is not sexist.  

  by MadRuth on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:49:29 AM PDT

  •  well what about this quote then?

    They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender. That's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here,

    Bill Clinton

    by in2mixin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM PDT

    •  That's not racist

      and it's not sexism.

      by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:51:31 AM PDT

      •  It's both

        to say that the voters in S.C. are mainly voting based on race and gender and not based on an intellectual decision of who is best to represents the issues, is both racist and sexist.  And to further say that the main reason that his wife will lose S.C. is that black voters are voting based solely on their racial background is even more racist.

        To discredit the people of S.C. and to reduce the validity of their votes is deplorable.

        by in2mixin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM PDT

        •  You're going to see it the

          way you see it, as will I.  

          by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:51:22 PM PDT

          •  that's your arguement?

            you can't break apart what he said and tell me how it isn't sexist or racist?

            ok

            good luck to your candidate

            by in2mixin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:46:27 PM PDT

            •  I've done it so often

              and no one's paid much attention, and I'm just tired of talking to people who have their minds made up.

              by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM PDT

•  Rich, you ignorant slut

  your comments are useless and unwelcome
  in my recent diary only you chose to go negative
  so suck it
  and in the future refrain from sniping

  or we shall truly lock horns

  by gregoryjames on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for visiting!

    To save all of the rest of you the trouble of finding Gregory's diary and my comment, here is his diary entry in its entirety:

    I just have to say, for the record, that I am obsessed with the Obama candidacy. I feel stressed that I cannot contribute in person until later in the race. I will be phone banking until the cows come home.

    I'm grateful for Daily Kos, because it helps to keep me abreast of the action. As things unfold, I believe we all will be seeing radical historical change take place.

    The key to this radical historical change is a moderate candidate known as Barack Obama.

    My comment on that diary:
    Just reflect on two things, I'm begging you! (0 / 0)

    (1) Is obsession any healthier in politics than in other realms of life?

    (2) Can a moderate candidate really embody hopes for radical historical change?

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM PDT

    •  Think he needs a TR?

      His comment is really below the belt, ad hominem, and uses nasty personal insults like slut.  I'm holding back because of your friendly response to him.

      by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM PDT

      •  Do you remember classic....

        Saturday Night Live when Chevy Chase did the news, and would address Jane Curtin,

        "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

        I'm sure it's a take-off on that, and maybe meant to be snark.

        by Louisiana 1976 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM PDT

        •  Yes, I agree...

          If he meant it literally, he'd be naming names.

          by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM PDT

        •  exactly

          by gregoryjames on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM PDT

        •  Oh I definitely do

          and that's another reason I hesitated.  But the following words made it seem that he meant them 100%.  It didn't really feel like snark.  Again, though, this is why I asked.

          by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM PDT

      •  Nah, why bother? And besides...

        ...he is bringing out my inner slut.  Wait till my wife finds out!

        by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:24:12 PM PDT

        •  Okay then :)

          'Tis your diary and your call.

          by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM PDT

  •  Nasty personal comment

    from an Obama supporter.

    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

•  A must read article

  Thanks for posting it here, Rich. Lots to chew on. One thing that struck me was this argument from Blumenthal:

  Sidney Blumenthal, a former staff writer at this magazine, who was a senior adviser to Bill Clinton and is now a senior adviser on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, describes the 2008 election as a chance to secure progressive government for years to come. “It’s not a question of transcending partisanship,” he said. “It’s a question of fulfilling it. If we can win and govern well while handling multiple crises at the same time and the Congress, then we can move the country out of this Republican era and into a progressive Democratic era, for a long period of time.”

  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but given the context, it sounds like an argument for a strongly Democratic victory, but also one that leaves out the other side. Indeed, it sounds designed to thoroughly defeat the other side and render it powerless. Like, finally we're going to make partisanship work for us instead of against us. And the people will love us for it.

  Does this sound familiar? Conservatives were sure the country would be with them, too, and now they're in the wilderness. So I don't know that this is the wisest course. Partisanship is normal, fighting for your side is normal, but this appears to be an argument for something new (for Democrats) and something more drastic. There's a way to win and get things done without locking the other side out of the room. Because when they finally break down the door and get back in, they're just going to return the favor.

  For me, a great accomplishment this election would be to start to break the cycle of trench warfare, and lower the overheated, zero sum game we've been playing for the past decade or so. Not continue it. I think you can work to implement a progressive agenda without making it a bloodsport battle between Democrats and the other side.

  by bflaff on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:08:23 AM PDT

  •  If there's a plan to do that..

    ....then count me in!  But right now it's a hope rather than a plan, and at the risk of dragging the whole Clinton candidacy down, I don't do hope!  At least not when it comes to Republicans.  As I often say, give our adversaries some credit: they hold those views for a reason, and they're unlikely to give them up just because we field an unusually attractive candidate.

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:15:33 AM PDT

  •  That is not going to hapen with

    these repubs. They will not go away and they will not stop fighting. If we don't beat them down, they will continue trying to dominate. They will pretend to be your friend all the while stabbing you in the back. They have an agenda to own the World. This is what I don't see Obama realizing. He may want to go along to get along, and they will take control.

    by Owllwoman on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

•  Go SC - end the Billary campaign

  by tom3256 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM PDT

  •  That sig will make you popular here :) N/T

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:16:15 AM PDT

•  on a day when Hillary's campaign begins to vanish

  i am pleased to appear at this diary to spread the news. Although she seemed at first to be ready for a fight and for lack of sufficient substance as a candidate prepared to tactically dismantle Obama, she has shown her achilles heel, and it has been revealed to the American people.

  Hillary cannot get it done without Bill.

  That means: Americans realize thery have to decide for or against both Bill and Hillary as a candidate team. And the recent Rasmussen poll of her downslide and Obama's upsurge show the decision is being made today.

  So remember, today is the first day of the end of Hillary's candidacy.

  by gregoryjames on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:17:03 AM PDT

  •  Really, no time for hubris

    After NH, I'm not going to be confident until we've counted 99% of the precincts. Let's not offend the election gods.

    by bflaff on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

  •  Listen to the man--he's right

    The Clinton campaign is kaput.  Go back to your homes, Obama partisans.  Nothing to see here, and certainly no need for you to keep working so hard.

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM PDT

•  she's not my candidate

  but she's a Democrat and she has a philosophy of government and the presidency that's not idiotic.

  There, I said it!

  I'm a strong Obama supporter, but the Supreme Court is way too important to leave appointments to a Republican.

  Moreover, Clinton will have actual scientists running the EPA, will have an attorney general whose mission is not solely to protect a lawless president, and will be a far more rational foreign policy actor than the current goon-in-chief.

  I have very good reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, and the above-linked article highlights some of those reasons, but as we all know, any Democrat is far better than MacMittens, say nothing of Bush.

  by sakitume on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for such a sane approach

    to the election.   I've changed my sig line to reflect the danger to the Supreme Court, but your point about science is another extraordinarily important issue.
    As are the Justice Dept. and foreign policy.

    The very idea that some Kossacks would throw the election to the wingnuts out of spite towards Hillary is just unbelievable.

    I'm voting for the Democratic party nominee no matter what.

    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM PDT

•  Talk among yourselves...it's nap time!

  For me, that is.  Thanks to everyone who read and commented, and by all means keep going.  I'll check later, though I'm not going to weigh into that whole Pakistan thread if it's OK with you :)

  by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:23:20 AM PDT

•  Good diary and good article

  That goes far to explaining my thinking on Clinton.  I don't trust charisma in a politician.

  In an entertainer, sure.  Absolutely.

  In a politician, it just permits too much vagueness.  Change, hope, inspire, transform the country, new direction... WTF?  I want concrete examples before I'll sign on for just any change.

  Clinton has the concrete policies and the experience.  Edwards has really good policies, too, but he's not going to win.  Obama is still spending far too much time trying to be inspiring.  

  by Montague on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM PDT

•  You've only posted 2 diaries

  And niether of them has you "defending" anybody.  In fact, near as I can tell ... you're a new comer who probably just got a profile just so you could come in and BASH Hillary Clinton.

  Well you came to the right place.  You'll make plenty of friends ... even though your diary is utterly meaningless, pandering, and deceitful.

  Welcome to DailyKos.  And thanks for helping to fuck it up some more!

  by Detroit Mark on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:20:09 PM PDT

  •  What in the world are you talking about? N/T

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM PDT