The First Two Questions

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Debate Transcript:

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your -- (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

More . . .

Second question:

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours -- a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

To their credit, the candidates largely ignored Brian Williams' atrocious questions and instead engaged in a detailed and substantive discussion of their differences on health care. Brian Williams was not pleased:

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, a 16-minute discussion on health care is certainly a start. (Laughter.) I'd like to change up --

Neither was Tweety, who afterwards expressed disgust about the substantive discussion about health care.

NBC is a travesty of a news organization.

< Quinnepac PA Poll: Obama Gains But Clinton Still Ahead by Six | Key States for Democrats in November >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The First Two Questions | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A lot of us (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:35:48 PM EST

Have just disengaged.

Why continue blogging even?

Boredom and inertia. Someone somewhere has to say it's wrong.

"Difference in tone." (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST

Did Michelle Obama write that question?

Fire Timmeh! Fire Tweety! (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by mike in dc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM EST

Do it now, NBC! If it weren't for Olbermann, I'd probably never watch cable news.
I'd watch a show with Tucker Carlson if Rachel Maddow was paired with him.

The Farrakhan/Wright question, where Timmeh actually started reciting Farrakhan remarks AFTER Obama had said he denounced them, for me was the worst moment of the night. Just godawful.

2nd place was Timmeh playing the role of the indignant Iraqi government kicking us out.

Just glad it's over. We'll have our work cut out for us in the general election campaign.

Keith Olbermann is a travesty (5.00 / 10) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:37:58 PM EST

Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST

He's been drifting that way for awhile now. It started after he established his "liberal" creds. Was he pandering in order to build up his ratings? Who knows, but the arc of the trajectory has been interesting.


Why? (none / 0) (#12)
by mike in dc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:44:04 PM EST

You won't think so (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST

I imagine but imo his coverage is so biased, uninformed, trivial and ridiculous that he is a travesty.

But you probably enjoy a "newsman" who spends his entire newscast mocking a Democratic Presidential candidate, unless that candidate is Obama of course.

You won't like too much when Tweety is doing it to Obama though.

I'll be ripping Tweety for it of course, but part of me will be laughing at folks like you that applauded it when Punchline KO Olbermann was doing it to Hillary.


hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by mike in dc on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:34 PM EST

...the interesting thing is that most of the Obama supporters got the decided impression, up until a month or so ago, that KO was pretty firmly in the pro-Clinton camp.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the factors involved in his change of attitude was the Shuster suspension. Reporters, cops, doctors, politicians, etc. all tend to back up their own.

I was at law school and didn't see Countdown before the debates, so I'll have to take your word for it.


Demopnstrates how unrealistic (5.00 / 5) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:03:29 PM EST

Obama supporters have been about the Media coverage.

That is just a laughable sentiment.


I remember reading somewhere a year (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by tigercourse on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM EST

or two ago that Keith had once said he would never vote for Clinton. So, I never thought he was in her camp.


He said that on radio (5.00 / 5) (#50)
by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:09:02 PM EST

On Dan Patrick's show.

Odd cause mixing politics and sports isn't a good idea. He made an exception of course to put that out there.

Anyway. Obama supporters have always embraced people who have said "I will never vote for Clinton in the General Election."

This realization became a watershed moment for me and this Primary. I don't think I've ever recovered.


And a few have also suggested.... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM EST

...Colin Powell for VP. Yikes.


That doesn't bother me (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:29:05 PM EST

What bothers me is Clinton being criticized for saying Powell could have a legitimate role in her administration's diplomatic efforts, and then the same folks who criticized that, then refusing to criticize the suggestion above.

The Obama rules are in full effect on this issue.

I think Powell's a good guy. Kind of like O'Neill but he stuck it out too long.


I personally find Powell objectionable.. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM EST

..in any capacity. He needs to serve a long time out. But your point about the hypocrisy is extremely well taken.


The Obama rules (none / 0) (#59)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST

would bother me a lot less, well less, if I thought they would extend to the general.


: I dont like separate rules for each candidate (none / 0) (#63)
by tree on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST

mainly because it hurts the electorate more than any candidate. As Clinton said, she'll be fine, Obama will be fine, but as a people we really all need to grow up and stop acting as if Calvinball rules are OK in politics or anywhere else. Its not a smart or compassionate way to run a country, and we are all just starting to play the high price for those idiotic rules.

Do you have a link for that KO comment? (none / 0) (#70)
by jawbone on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST

Thnx. Googled by my terms didn't bring it up.


in the pro-Clinton camp (none / 0) (#43)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST

I have been a regular viewer and I am not sure where they got that idea.
but then I am not sure where they get many ideas.


A comment on last night's (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST

live-blogging here. Quite humorous to see Jeralyn inquiring which nickname applied to which "moderator." Better give her the cheat sheet for the GE debates.


Heh (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM EST

what is Williams nickname? (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM EST

Max Headroom?


: Airhead (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:04:56 PM EST

MSNBC is a longform (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST

talkshow.

Yes, but with a veneer of (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST

"neutral."


Bingo - Morning Joe, Hardball, Countdown (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:47 PM EST

Dan Abrams, Tucker Carlson -- these are all talk shows. Where is the nightly news? I don't think one exists on this network.

We need to inject this into the conversation - it is a talk show, it is not a "news organization".

They also replay some missing white woman shows [from Lifetime?] and some prison show "Locked Up".

The whole network is a long-form talk show.


Abrams (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by lobary on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST

From my vantage point as a former Edwards supporter, I always got the impression that Abrams was very pro-Clinton. He's the only one on MSNBC who regularly questioned the imbalanced press coverage, and he did so well before Hillary began to make it an issue.


: I think this is a misconception: (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by ahazydelirium on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST

the idea that defending Hillary from the slanted and sexist coverage is somehow "pro-Clinton."
To defend her from obvious biases is neither endorsement nor cheerleading. It's simply fair play. It's a calling out the disingenuous figures and their lack of integrity.
As far as I know, Abrams hasn't come out in favor of either candidate. Indeed, he has criticized Hillary in his fact check segment alongside Barack. He has also corrected guests that claimed he was obviously favoring Hillary. He explanation: pointing out media biases is not pro anyone; journalism should be unbiased reporting.
Pointing out media biases is not necessarily pro-Hillary. Claiming that it is just demonstrates how she really is fighting on two fronts.

: But Abrams is a talk show (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by catfish on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST

And yes, it's a sad day when you are for equal time or equal scrutiny, you're "pro-Hillary".

do you still think (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:38:58 PM EST

Andrew Mitchell was taking the reporters to task about their complaints re: spending "too much time" on healthcare?

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST

"too much time" (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST

how dare they actually talk about issues when they are interested in muckraking.
time is limited after all.

Forgive us, oh Brian of Williams (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:41:27 PM EST

For being interested in health care.

The last debate (none / 0) (#13)
by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:46:29 PM EST

I really enjoyed hearing the long discussion on healthcare. But there wasn't much new brought up last night.


But the discussion of (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:42 PM EST

NAFTA was groundbreaking to you?

Surely you jest?

When Farrakhan becomes a staple of the NBC GE discussions will you be happy with the "new ground" broken?

Oh NBC is going to provide Obama supporters a comeuppance and part of me is going to LMAO.


The joke will be on all of us (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by andgarden on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST

and I will NOT laugh.


Part of me will (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54:16 PM EST

The public part of me will continue writing these screeds against the Media.

Obama supporters will like me better then.

But I will be the same person.


: A strong emotion indeed, the schadenfreude is (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by lobary on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST

I hear you. However, when it happens I will take no joy because I'm frightened about the damage another Republican president will do to the federal judiciary.
But yeah, the Obama supporters savaging Clinton with right-wing smears deserve a major smackdown. Too bad it can only come at our collective expense.

part of me is going to LMAO. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:55:37 PM EST

I have been trying so hard to not have this reaction.
but I am weak and backslidin'.


Look forward to Farrakhan as a guest (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:55:22 PM EST

on MSNBC. After all, if Tucker Carlson can invite -- not once but twice -- the founder of the anti-Clinton organization called C.U.N.T., Tucker certainly can say that there's nothing wrong with inviting a guest who has endorsed a candidate!


The repeated questions to (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:43:25 PM EST

HRC and then to Obama trying to make them commit to cancelling US participation in NAFTA were also quite oor. What thinking person who is not the nominee, much less the President, would say "yes" to such a question? But that was the only answer Russert would accept.

I think they are still mad about Shulster (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:46:43 PM EST

He always did a nice job but he just screwed up and I bet they are still mad over that. Tim just disappeared after the debate. I did not see him if he was still there. Brian went around and shook hands with them and Chelsea. I was disappointed with Keith. He was almost sneering so I suspect it was payback time for David.

Yes, how dare a mother (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by kmblue on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST

defend her daughter.
All those male journalists are still licking
their wounds over that one.
Look, Chris Matthews is over in the corner
whining, "But what about MY pain?"


I was shocked and appalled (5.00 / 4) (#37)
by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:57:22 PM EST

By Keith's transformation, which has been in progress for a couple of weeks now. He is far more attractive when he manages to retain some nuance and subtlety. He crossed over the line last night and went straight into attack mode. Not a pretty thing. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen him be so sneeringly dismissive, even with when he's doing the worse, worser, worst segments. He surprised me, and not in a good way.


: He's been that way... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by kredwyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST

off and on for the past few weeks/months. I sent him an email asking that he stop and return to reporting the news.
Guess he didn't listen. Maybe he will when his ratings drop.
I know I've stopped watching.

: Actually I never saw KO do nuance. (none / 0) (#57)
by MarkL on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST

He's always been like a bull in a china shop.

Keith has gone overboard to the point that he (none / 0) (#24)
by tigercourse on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST

is attacking John Stewart for making jokes that defend Obama. It's surreal.


like I said in an earlier thread (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST

I think its pretty clear that any of the things he has done that we liked in the last few months were only in the interest of carving out a ratings niche.
he has it and the thinks they approve. probably he is mostly right.


I read that KO also has (none / 0) (#36)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST

a very young girlfriend. Maybe that's making him think younger than he is? (Watch for the Grecian Formula next.)


he has also been on a jag (none / 0) (#49)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST

about the use of his middle name.
could someone please tell me why it is some kind of slur or insult to use his middle name?


I mean (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST

my middle name is Henry.
I dont like it but I wouldnt consider it a slur exactly.


: Can you point to some value it adds to the (none / 0) (#66)
by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:22:53 PM EST

discussion? Do people use Henry when calling your name? Do your coworkers call you by all 3 names? Has Obama ever asked to be identified by all 3 names?
The only reason to use his middle name is to mock it, and that is not what the campaign should be about.

the only answer Russert would accept. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST

when he starts doing that he reminds me of the single mindedness of my dog.

My dog can be distracted by a biscuit.... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM EST

...maybe we should try that on Russert.


: But can you then distract him (none / 0) (#39)
by vigkat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST

from the biscuit? Russert had the bone; he was not going to let go of it.

The news media is just in terrible shape. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by tigercourse on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST

Those questions are awful, their "reporting" is terrible (Matt Drudge as a main source now? Really? REALLY!?) and their objectivity long, long gone.

Matt Drudge on his website (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST

the correct answer would have been "Brian, any question that includes the words "Matt Drudge" should not only be ignored but scorned".
the crowd would have gone wild.

: Word, that! (none / 0) (#71)
by jawbone on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST

That would have been brilliant. But, as Somerby points out, when a pol, especially a Dem pol, takes the MCM (mainstream corporat media) to task that pol is then attacked as "whiney" or something similar. Tweety in his inteview with the LATimes essentially withdrew his apology to Clinton and went on another attack against her.
Jonathon Altar today on To The Point said that the Clintons are just "upset" that the MCM won't do to Obama what was done to them in the 90's!!! Uh, Jonathan, the MCM is still doing it to the Clintons. Sheesh.
Which is why Somerby has been after the lib/progressive voices in the near-MCM and in the MCM to take on that task.
But I think the near-MCMers are trying to preserve their hirability--and the MCMers with a lib bent probably feel they wouldn't last long if they called a snake a snake. There aren't many Molly Ivins left in this world. Most really lib/left/progressive voices have to go abroad or to the distant reaches of the media to be presented.
The ReThugs learned how to take on the MCM, work the refs, without exposing their pols to such attacks. The left/Dems have not learned that--or don't have the think tanks, etc., to protect their fledgling pundits and media analysts.
Thank dog for the internet and blogs.

It was appalling (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by MichaelGale on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST

disgusting and vile. Most of it was toward Clinton.

They were bullies on the playground and treated her like there was something wrong with her that she would even be sitting in that chair. They harassed her, degraded her and tried like hell to make a national joke of her.

It was a talking head gang mentality and it was repulsive.

Clinton's Tone Change (none / 0) (#23)
by 1jane on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST

Any reporter worth his or her salt would have asked Clinton about her different presentations of during the 5 days before last night's debate. She was warm and caring with Obama in the debate before the one last night. Over the weekend her shrill angry, "shame on you" then sarcasim, "the skies will open and celestrial choirs will sing" comment. What's unfair about inquiring about her statements?

Yes (5.00 / 7) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:53:04 PM EST

YOU would think so. I suppose you think asking Obama about why he proclaims to run a positive campaign while sending out negative fliers would have been out of bounds? But you KNOW you had nothing to worry about on that front.

But PumpkinHead gave you a preview of what is to come if it is Obama-McCain, and a part of me will be laughing at you when you complain about NBC then.


: You don't think giving her a chance to confront (none / 0) (#67)
by halstoon on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:45:23 PM EST

him in person after scolding him in Cincinnati was appropriate? You don't think she should be asked about her "kitchen sink" strategy?
In fact, by asking that question, were they not creating an opening for her to make the claim you make about the mailers? Did he not address the mailers?
Obama was challenged on Farrakahn, Wright, the mailers, campaign finance, etc. Like you say, it's a preview of the GE, and I think he handled himself well.
I don't think either campaign should complain about getting tough questions, especially not about things they've said or done in front of cameras.

Periodically, when she's feeling (5.00 / 6) (#30)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST

down.


Well It's Great For Obama (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST

Nobody's caught him saying anything nice about Clinton at all so they can't try to back him into any corners about tone changes.

He's consistently negative about Clinton.


Well, last night he did at the (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by oculus on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST

end of the debate; but it sounded to me like he did it because she scored some points last debate by complimenting him.

But what did he say earlier in last night's debate about her campaign. Something that reminded me of "she's likeable enough." Got to watch those modifiers.


: Oh Really (none / 0) (#47)
by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST

SHIFT IN TONE!!!
SHIFT IN TONE!!!
Nevermind.

And then KO can talk about (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST

the multiple personalities of Michelle Obama, too.


I've found... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by kredwyn on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 04:10:49 PM EST

that maintaining 1 type of emotion over a long period of time can be rather wearing. Especially when something annoys me, touches me, whatever.

It seems to me that the very people who were calling her an ice queen and completely emotionless are now turning around and accusing her of being "overly" emotional...shrill even.

She can change her tone. She can show emotions.

It appears that she's damned either way, eh?


Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#51)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST

has a great film clip from CNN where they are exploring whether or not the media is biased against Clinton and giving Obama a pass. They included the Tweety leg tingle.

That was overall (none / 0) (#55)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 01:25:27 PM EST

the most wretchedly moderated debate I think I've ever seen. Appalling all around, but credit to Hillary and Obama for maintaining poise and dignity under the circumstances.

Somewhat O/T: So was Hillary helping Obama out by getting him to expand his reaction to Farrakhan? (An historical low in televised debate questions imo.) It seemed almost as if she knew from her own experience the lengths he would need to go to shake it off in the GE and was helping him to go there. But then she spoiled it by pointing out how much better she'd handled her similar situation. Ah, pols...

The media reflects elite attitudes (none / 0) (#62)
by esmense on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 02:00:54 PM EST

Their stupidity is the stupidity of the country's ruling elite.

Is it any wonder that our economy is in trouble, our power and reputation in the world is suffering, our standard of living is being undermined, even our life expectancy is running in reverse?

Debate vs Media "grilling" (none / 0) (#68)
by sleepingdogs on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST

This has probably already been addressed but I have to ask:
Isn't a debate an event where two opposing sides are asked to give support for thier views on the same topic?

Since when is an event like a soft-core "grilling" by the likes of these two a debate? Do the candidates answer to the moderators?

Aren't the candidates there to freely express their views without interruption and without prodding from the moderators?

Sorry, I thought the debate went to Hillary if mostly for calling them on their sh*t when the situation called for it, and for keeping her cool when the situation called for that. Obama was mostly unflapable as usual, of course.

O/T but I hope I am forgiven:
Obama Supporters: I am an unabashed Clinton supporter. I am make no apology for that. But I LIKE your guy. He handled himself admirably during this debate and at other times I have watched him. My support of Clinton does NOT take away from my appeciation for his talent, his views and his vision. I merely feel of the two, she is better for where the country is at this time. He will be a great leader once he has the experience. And, by experience, I don't mean only political experience. He seems to need more life-experience also.

I also felt badly for him because I feel that if he gets the nomination (please excuse my optimism on Clinton's behalf), he will be losing his only chance to run for president. What is the matter with him either continuing in the senate or continuing his public service as VP? Why is now the right time for his only shot at this office?

If he continues as Senator, then no one can say he is not experienced enough after a term or two.

Or is it because he then loses his right to claim he the the change candidate, unfettered by Washington nonsense? If his voice is the one for change, I need to hear some strong evidnece that he has already done things so radically different in his short political career that it will shake Washington to its vary foundation.

For what it's worth, I would like to hear from anyone who's vote changed because of this or any other "debate."

Thanks for letting a nube have a voice and for such enlightening, thought-provoking posts. I really appreciate the conversation of sane, intelligent adults I have found here.