Tom Donilon, the Washington lawyer who did the delegate-counting for Jimmy Carter in 1980, has a bit of practical wisdom that he has offered over the years to many other Democratic presidential hopefuls.
“There is no learning curve steeper than your first race for national office,” Donilon has warned those who have turned to him for counsel, many of whom have survived tough races in their home states. The difference between the scrutiny that applies to contenders for president or vice president and candidates for any other offices is so great that shocks are inevitable, Donilon advises.
The Donilon maxim is about to be tested — in spades — by Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old freshman governor of Alaska chosen by John McCain as his running mate.
Over the next few weeks, starting this evening with her acceptance speech, then with her first solo campaign trips, her first news conferences and interviews, and finally her Oct. 2 debate with Democrat Joe Biden, Palin will be tested as never before. Nothing she has experienced in her home town of Wasilla, where she was mayor, or her state capital can really prepare her for this.
The highlight of the evening for me was Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of Palin as well as McCain. He wasn’t expected to mention Palin but he did anyway:
Folks, when the former Dem VP nominee endorses Palin, it’s time to shut up about her qualifications.
I am not convinced anyone has good enough qualifications to become president going in. It isn’t until after the inauguration when the CIA/Secret Service/Military chiefs take you into the War room and have the Come-to-Jesus meeting about how the world really works that Presidents get a real grip on reality.
In 2000, I said that GW Bush had been a good governor for Texas, but he would never survive the media glare of a presidential race. My mouth is shut on Gov. Palin, but I will watch her speech this evening with intense interest. I really want her to be good. She is much more interesting than the other 3 – you know, the senators – and gives me some hope for the country.
I’m sure that her speech tonight with have been carefully scripted and vetted by the McCain campaign, particularly after the past 5 days and the couple of unscripted clips floating around the internet (on the role of the VP and a rambling comment on security/oil/Iraq). Her real tests will begin when she has to do press conferences and interviews — not to mention the debate with Biden — where she will either have to respond off the cuff or else resort to carefully rehearsed sound bites provided by the McCain campaign.
Broder is quite right. She is being tested in ways which few candidates (but every candidate for President & Vice President) are ever tested. And it is guaranteed to get worse.
Ken,
My feelings exactly — about Obama. 🙂
Ken, have you heard Obama when he isn’t scripted? I saw him talking about a kid with asthma and why his health care plan would be good. Obama could not even string three works strung together. His cute answer about when life begins was stunningly stupid. For some one who has spent his life as extreme in his pro abortion views it was a poor showing.
sorry it should be “three words together”
Dave, maybe you need a script// 😉
But seriously, my library listsrvs are now being innundated by stories (From that most reliable of sources, [i]The New York Times[/i], about how Sarah Palin, as mayor, tried to get the local library to ban all sorts of books!
[blockquote]Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and [b]it was unclear which books or passages were in question[/b].
Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,†Ms. Kilkenny said.
In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.â€[/blockquote]
As you can see by the part I put in bold type, the Left makes all sorts of claims but NEVER can follow through on SPECIFICS!
Meanwhile, where is the media outrage and indignation against Joe Biden for erroneously claiming he was shot at while visiting Iraq?
#9 Steven I agree. I have been on line a lot and there are some very distubing stories about someone on the other ticket and the stories are true. The media has not mentioned these stories. The media talking heads have no trouble digging up dirt on Palin and her family going back years. I think it is disgusting. Gov Palin took on a lot of corruption and has made a lot of enemies who are more than willing to go out of bounds. The press should know better. Gov Palin’s social security number is now being distributed. Some news people want a paternity test to prove Trig is the Gov son. These people are out of thier minds.
Very few teens have downs babies — but whatever, what does it matter if she is g’ma or ma — many in this country are being raised by g’ma. It is family business — not ours.
#12 Perhaps interpreted as “contradictions” and not as ethical lapses.
[blockquote]However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.[/blockquote]
Is the quote I found indicative. She’s not against earmarks or federal spending: she is against stupid uses of those funding sources. Of course, the senior Senator from Arizona might see these particulars in a different light.
I agree there are differances and problems with everybody. I do not agree with all of McCain’s past nor do I agree with Palin 100%. I choose those who fit most nearly to my own thoughts and philosophy. I just find it so arrogant of the press and talking heads to dismiss her as unqualified with out investigation. In two short years she reformed the oil industry in Alaska, got a 30 billion dollar pipeline under way and conducted investigations that have result in criminal convictions for corruption all the while being a mother, wife, and hockey mom. Gov Palin has made hard choices and had hard fights and stood by her beliefs when they cost her, so has McCain. Obama and Biden have not come close to suffering this level of scrutiny or attack and believe me there are things out there about both of the other ticket. I would rather deal with policies and positions then clay feet and human foibles as long as they are not part of corruption or abuse of power.
Ok how well vetted is Biden? Here is a little Washington Post article on BidenA son and a brother of Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) are accused in two lawsuits of defrauding a former business partner and an investor of millions of dollars in a hedge fund deal that went sour, court records show.
The Democratic vice presidential candidate’s son Hunter, 38, and brother James, 59, assert instead that their former partner defrauded them by misrepresenting his experience in the hedge fund industry and recommending that they hire a lawyer with felony convictions.
The legal actions have been playing out in New York State Supreme Court since 2007, and they focus on Hunter and James Biden’s involvement in Paradigm Companies LLC, a hedge fund group. Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist, briefly served as president of the firm.
A lawsuit filed by their former partner Anthony Lotito Jr. asserts in court papers that the deal was crafted to get Hunter Biden out of lobbying because his father was concerned about the impact it would have on his bid for the White House. Biden was running for the Democratic nomination at the time the suit was filed.
The suit against Hunter Biden was previously reported in January 2007.
Joe Biden does not talk much about his son’s lobbyist background. Hunter Biden lobbied for clients that paid his firm at least $380,000 in the first six months of this year, federal records show.
Hunter lobbied Biden. Any problem with this?? What is more important, a pregnant daughter or conflict of interest?
One more comment. This is not a vetting, it is a witch hunt. The firing of the Police chief in Wasilla and the State Public Saftey Officer has been fully investigated. ABC has presented them as scandals reflecting on Gov. Palin’s integrity. This is not journalism; it is full blown political biases trying to damage a good candidate. The press is throwing what ever it can at the Palin’s hoping it will stick or drive them out of politics and it is despicable!!!
The truth is that Alaska cannot survive without Federal Government earmarking largesse to some degree, which Palin has recognized. However, Palin has sought to reform this system, and earlier this year reduced the value of earmark requests by over 50% from the previous year, almost all of which was to continue funding prior budgeted requests, and she also has taken the position that requests should serve a federal purpose and have citizen support. Her ultimate goal is to improve the state’s self-sufficiency (and thus reduce the need for earmarking) by improving revenues through increased energy resource production. Last year Newsweek in fact praised her reform agenda. The hyperventiliating media reports suggest that Palin claims to be an earmarking purist, something that is not in the record. However, she is clearly a government reformer, something that Obama’s record in Chicago lacks utterly.
I should, by the way, address something posted in a previous T19 comment string, which is now closed, concerning the allegation that Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for a few years in the 1990s. This is another allegation based on premature, hyperventiliating reports in the media, which have now been proven false by Palin’s voter registration records showing that she has been a registered Republican for over 25 years. The New York Times has in fact been forced to run a retraction of that earlier story.
Speaking of fringe parties . . . maybe we can now expect The New York Times to show as much interest in the fact that Obama sought and obtained the endorsement of the Marxist New Party in Chicago for his first State Senate run. But I suppose that’s really not relevant, is it?
Matt Thompson: where is the press outrage over Biden? Where are the hyperventilating talking heads? Where are the ABC and CBS reports? The only reason I came across that story on Biden is because I read in the lower basement of some of the blogs!
More on Biden, especially for those of you not old enough to remember the 1988 presidential primaries:
http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/
Biden – long on words (many of which he stole from someone else!) and, as the facts of this article prove, short on integrity.
I’ll give Slate magazine (a leftist publication) credit for being brave enough to publish the truth about the Democratic Party’s VP candidate.
Matt–Apologies for the Frontpage link; you deserve better sourcing. Here is something straight from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America website. Scroll half-way down to an update on a membership meeting of the New Party where its recently endorsed candidates, including Obama, appeared. Here is another report. As for evidence of Obama’s reform efforts in Chicago, I am afraid I can’t oblige as nothing exists in the public record.
The other side of vetting. Why do I have to search the blogs to find out Palin structred a 30 BILLION dollar pipe line deal covering 1700 miles to pump natural gas to the lower 48. Why do I have to hunt to find out Palin restructed the oil pay outs so the citizens of Alaska get a check from natural resource revenue? Palin in her reform has made a lot of enemies.. the press doesn’t seem interested in presenting Palin’s positive attributes but following up leads on negative stuff.www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html – 73k Here is a link to a little differant take on trooper gate. I read the Washington post report and it seems a few items are missing about Wooton like how he tazered his 11 year old stepson.
Here’s the definition of Marxism:
“The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society’s allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.”
In Obama’s young adulthood he has surrounded himself with such people, and he himself espouses Marxist views. If the shoe fits….
I am not sure she used her office to go after him. That is the issue at hand. A state patrol officer who tazers an 11 year old, is caught drinking in his patrol car and several other things should be a concern to a Governor.
16 Matt T. I think you answered your own question if you examine the timing of that reversal on the bridge. As a mayor getting local earmarks you might see their local value, and figure that the next door guys are being equally responsible (as next door as the lower islands are to Wassilla area…). But as governor, you get a different perspective, in which state priorities become paramount. One of those has to be whether the good earmarks would be seen in DC as being tarred with the same brush as the bridge to nowhere.
Now, there is no proof in any of that, but for lack of anything being published cogently on this, all we have to go on is the facts as presented. And one of those facts is that this particular bridge would have been a wasteful earmark.
Matt, I could Google all night and come up with different socialist or Marxist comments Obama has made, but the best site I came across without too much work was this:
http://chrisofrights.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-obama-and-socialismmarxism.html
And judging someone by who they associate with is sometimes very appropriate. Mentors matter, and I think in this case it’s overwhelming and very indicative of his personal philosophies.
Matt, I don’t think arguing with you is worthwhile. Your arguments are frankly silly. You can pretend Obama is not for income redistribution and equalization of classes if you want, but his words and actions speak for themselves.
Weak sauce?
Your acne is showing, Matt. Grow up.
Matt
Wooton is still on the force but one more miss step and he is off. If you read my link it was turned over to the Alaska Department of puplic safty and reviewed. Wooton got a 15 day suspension for driving and consuming alcohol in a police car, tazering an 11 year old, hunting moose with out a permit, and threatening the life of Palin and her father. Ten days of that suspension were suspended (total five days suspension). The fired individual served at Governor Palin’s pleasure. Nothing wrong with firing her.
The “windfall” profit tax is nothing more than at best socialism, Closer to communism. Who owns the oil companies and what is the profit margin? I am a part owner throught my mutual funds. The big executives own about 1 % of oil company stock. Profit margin is 8%. Where in the constitution does the government have the right to take money from one individual and give to another with out due process? Is that enought to say Obama is a Marxists, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”.
Classic rhetorical shifting above by Matt Thompson — arguing against things that people didn’t say.
Exhibit A would be this: “I’m sorry Steven, but I can find no evidence that Obama sought the endorsement because Obama is a democratic socialist, or that the New Party endorsed him because he is a democratic socialist, in the link that you provided. Nor is there any evidence that he was a member of the New Party.”
When of course what Steven actually said was quite simple — leaving it up to the reader to judge the implications: ” . . . maybe we can now expect The New York Times to show as much interest in the fact that Obama sought and obtained the endorsement of the Marxist New Party in Chicago for his first State Senate run.”
Steven made no claims that “Obama is a democratic socialist” or that Obama “was a member of the New Party.”
That’s only Exhibit A, of course, amongst many other examples above.
But let’s get to the real issue.
I agree with Matt Thompson that public vetting will take place through the mainstream media, and I couldn’t care less.
Why?
[i]Because what the media values, the general public — and particularly conservatives — don’t.[/i]
For example . . . were I to find out that Sarah Palin herself — as opposed to her husband — were a member of the Alaskan separatist party, I’d smile.
But were I to find out that “Michele Obama were a member of a African American separatist movement” I wouldn’t.
Why?
Well because membership in one party doesn’t equal membership in another, morally or politically or conservatively.
When the media trumpets a dreadful [they think] association but which really isn’t dreadful at all for conservatives, and then claims that Obama’s “association” with Jeremiah Wright doesn’t matter a hill of beans, then that tells me their values.
And that’s what this is really about. The media’s going to toss all sorts of things up for the public to consider. And since closing in on 90% of the mainstream media vote Democrat, the things they think are ghastly will be, naturally, often not-so-ghastly at all for conservatives.
Matt, above, is doing the classic bait and switch — since that’s all liberals have right now. “You have an association — well we have an association right here!” implying all the while that all associations and past actions and affiliations are equal and that therefore “it all pans out.”
But it’s pointless to get into “how many bad things we can find about Obama/Palin” in an argument with a guy who doesn’t share the same values . . . because what each side thinks of as “bad” often isn’t “bad” to the other side.
Very soon now, you’re going to hear this from the media and from Democratic leaders: “Let’s just live and let live here. You don’t bring up any of what you think is Obama’s “bad stuff”, and we promise not to bring up any of Palin’s! We’ll count it all as ‘personal’ family matters. So let’s all stop digging now, okay?”
What this is really about is 1) the media wanting to declare off-limits some topics, but 2) carrying on about their own topics of “value” while 3) being appalled that conservatives don’t care about their own topics of value that they keep bringing up, and 4) being greatly vexed that conservatives keep bringing up what ought to be [because the media has declared it so] “off limits.”
I say air it all out. The mainstream media will do their thing and trumpet their values, simply by bleating about what Americans *should* be shocked and appalled over . . . and the rest of the new media will trumpet their values with their own version of what Americans should be shocked and appalled over.
And Americans will decide what they are shocked and appalled over . . . and my prediction based on many many years of watching this is that . . . it ain’t gonna be what the MSM is shocked and appalled over and it [i]will be[/i] what the MSM hopes doesn’t come out.
On the one hand, I suspect we’ll see the same yawns amongst conservatives as we did when the media “exposed” the ghastly truth that Palin’s daughter had sex outside of marriage. ; > )
Because the mainstream media has no clue as to what concerns conservatives and what doesn’t.
So to repeat . . . I’m all for the media doing what they consider is their “public vetting.” Go for it.
In fact, maybe they could suggest that the reason why the new baby was born with Downs was because Palin drank and smoked and drugged during the pregnancy. [i]That[/i] would be a nice angle.
This is serious business — and the MSM needs to light on something that will cause Americans to sit up and take notice. After all . . . it’s the future of This Great Country that they’re concerned about. And they’ve got a race to run, and a candidate to elect. ; > )
Matt, Obama’s stated pupose was to give $1000 to families to off set energy costs. That is redistribution of wealth. You state above “misguidedly thinking that they can take the profits away and do what the oil companies are currently failing to do in the national interest”. Oil companies exist to serve customers, generate profits so investors and owners can gain wealth. Who are you or the government to decide they exist to serve national interests? The Execs and board of directors decide that not Obama!!
There are many, many more companies and corporations that make much higher profit margins than ‘big oil’. What makes oil so ‘big and bad’ compared to the others?
RE: “My original interest in this thread was to point out that there are some concerns about Sarah Palin that aren’t sourced in venality or payback.”
Right — and that’s not an “issue of fact” at all — it is mere speculation about motive. And then you pointed out what was an “issue of concern” — for you, that is — and then it turned out that nobody conservative cared.
So no, your entering this thread wasn’t about “issues of fact”, it was about your pointing out *important* “concerns” that you thought weren’t being brought up out of venality or payback.
It’s fine for you to speculate about motives or the lack thereof, of course.
RE: “you’re throwing up one of your own when you say that this is all about the media’s values . . .”
No — rhetorical slight of hands are designed to win an argument, while pretending to stay on the topic, by slightly shifting what you are saying that your antagonist said.
I blatanly and openly pointed out what I believed was the real issue. I didn’t do that trying to win an argument — after all, I wasn’t in one. I didn’t pretend to stay on the topic. Nor did I change what my antagonist’s words said in order to supply the illusion of successfully combatting what the antagonist said.
That would be what *you* did — and repeatedly on this thread, I might add.
I then pointed out that I *agreed* with this statement of yours right here: “I think the complaints about poor media treatment of Gov. Palin are, forgive me, naive. She is being vetted now, by the press, and in full view of the public.”
And I then explained my opinion — which I suspect that you know is correct, and that is . . . . the values of what “the press” thinks important are not, in fact, what conservatives think are important.
RE: “So your rhetorical shift has led us to the following position: no one cares what anyone else thinks ‘cause we all have different values . . . ”
Not at all. Conservatives have different values from liberals — as this thread nicely demonstrates. So . . . it’s going to far to say “no one cares what anyone else thinks” . . . I’m sure that Jefferts Schori cares, for instance, about what Steinem said today. And I laughed and skyped some choice quotes to my conservative friends. ; > )
RE: “If you want to join in that, that’s good by me.”
Thanks — I’ve pointed out just exactly what I wanted to, however.
I think that most commenters can quite easily go back through the thread and point out your other rhetorical shifts . . . and also recognize that the big communication gap over the coming sixty days will be between conservatives and liberals over what precisely they value and what they don’t.
And the differences will prove stark and compelling.
Matt, I found an interesting post on a blog. Not my favorite source but it does cover a lot of the garbage left out of the main stream heavy breathing. http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/ – 203k The investigation I was refering to was the one Palin requested. My talking about Biden was not to change the subject but to point out that Palin was being painted in a very harsh light with little fairness. Biden made two big gaffs, Biden stated that Obama’s administration is considering criminal charges against Georgia Bush (Telegraph.co.uk) note the source is British. Biden also called Palin the Lt. Gov, again there is little in our press about Biden’s thought impediments. Trooper gate will turn out to be nothing.
Sorry here is better link to Biden’s statment.
(Bidenwww.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.joebiden -). I would think that the U. S. press would be very interested in this. I think Obama should be asked about this.
Matt thank you. Threatened prosecution of a sitting president for actions as president by those seeking the office of president is unprecendented and raises many constitutional issues. I think pursuing this is more news worthy than Bristol’s boyfriend!! Why isn’t the press covering it? Any bias? Is Biden having aneurysm problems (in all seriousness)? I guess the press want’s us to find out if Obama wins the election!
RE: “So far, your comments have only led to the notion that you don’t have to listen to facts when you don’t like them . . . ”
Nope. In fact, we’ve agreed on several facts.
One of them was that Sarah Palin’s husband was in the separatist party.
But then . . . I pointed out it didn’t bother me that her husband was in the separatist party . . . . which brings me to the issue that you don’t like my pointing out: conservatives and liberals do not share the same values, and the MSM, try as it might, won’t be able to change that, no matter how many things they point out that they think are appalling.
RE: “it’s something I see from you, Sarah, in particular, over and over and over again. . . . ”
What you see from me, Matt, over and over and over again, is my pointing out that there are two different value sets in America and indeed in the Episcopal Church. The different value sets are mutually opposing and antithetical.
I pointed out your rhetorical shifts, and then proceeded to point out where I agreed with you, and why.
The real question is . . . why does it bother you so much, why does it anger you so much when I point out that there are two mutually opposing value sets that preclude there being a meeting of the minds on so many many many things?
Is it that you wish to remain in denial about that?
That you fancy that really there isn’t so much difference?
Or that you know it, but you’d rather just obscure the difference by continually bringing up things that you know quite well conservatives don’t care about?
It’s a mystery.
RE: “And you’re really, really good at it.”
Thank you. I try.
RE: “. . . but I UTTERLY disagree with you that the existence of multiple value sets “precludes a meeting of the minds†across those sets.”
Well there you are. At least we know another thing we disagree about.
RE: “And, of course, instead of influencing my thinking, which you have the power to do, you turn me off.”
I’m okay with that, Matt. I don’t make attempts on these comment threads to “influence” people’s thinking. On public forums in comment threads, where there is a mixed audience, I merely work to articulate my opinions and beliefs. I aspire to nothing more.
RE: “I remember being absolutely flummoxed by how quickly you shut down the discussion . . . But I think we would all benefit if we didn’t use disagreement as a means to silence debate.”
There you give me too much credit — I’m not able to “shut down discussion” on a thread. Nor have I “silenced” debate. But I *have* pointed out that the disagreements on this thread are largely not about facts — that’s just the shield or the haze — but about values which are utterly disparate and mutually opposing. And my bet is that much of any remaining thread that’s listening in on this has recognized that as well.
Take, for instance, your shot at DaveB, with this line: “Again, the reason Palin’s getting so much attention right now is because McCain didn’t really vet her before picking her.”
That’s not a “fact” — that’s Matt deciding something is a “fact” because he still cannot and does not wish to grasp the values difference.
I’ll state a countering “non-fact” impression — since neither you nor I actually are in the hands and minds of McCain’s vetters — and point out that I think [i]every single thing that’s come out about Palin or her family, the McCain team knew[/i]. . . . and they shrugged their shoulders and said “heh — our side and even the vast majority of middle America isn’t going to care that Palin’s husband was in a separatist party — in fact, a lot of them will admire it. Only the real left — the ones that don’t share our values [i]and never will[/i] — will care. Let’s move ahead, boys!”
Yet another example, Matt, of the different values with which you are stating your impressions and I’m stating mine.
And yet . . . you simply cannot afford to engage that issue. Why, I haven’t figured out. Fear, anger, loathing, denial . . . it beats me. But the issues on this thread aren’t about “facts”, Matt, but values and foundational worldviews.
And instead of engaging on that issue, Matt, you’ve chosen to simply make it personal — [i]yet another example of trying to obscure the issue that I raised, because you simply don’t like that issue[/i]. That’s fine — but I’m not going to debate you on whether I’m lazy or not, nor does it trouble me that you think I am.
Regarding Rove, Spears, Kaine, et al . . . all I work on is being consistent myself.
It doesn’t trouble me at all when public figures have their family issues brought out — neither Sarah Palin nor Jamie Lynn Spears. And both are public figures, although I expect that Spears is more of a public figure because of her “pinheadness”. ; > )
But my suspicion is that it’s not Rove or O’Reilly’s thoughts that bother you, it’s the suspicion that conservatives in general judge people they like on the basis of double standards. I’m sure that all humans do that to some extent, but I think more likely is that they’re not going to adequately express the *real values* on which they are judging people.
I spoke to the pregnancy issue here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/15846/#272675
And as you’ll see, I note that it is right to acknowledge that the Palin family receive the unpleasant attention that it has due to the daughter’s pregnancy. The actions of a family member do redound to the discredity of the entire family — that’s the nature of being a family.
But remember, Matt . . . I’m just fine with the media giving attention and imagining that they are “publicly vetting” Palin. It does not trouble me at all . . . I don’t think it’s “immoral” or wrong in any way for the media to go after Palin and try to get their candidate elected. And based on what they’ve turned up so far, I think it will ultimately redound to the good of Palin’s candidacy, and the continued decline in respect of the MSM, as their political bias-while-claiming-to-be-objective continues to be revealed to the watching Americans.
I expect that it’s that latter sentence that bugs you. Because I’m suspecting that you’re already guessed that yourself.
On you tube there is a vidio of Biden saying he will pursue charges against George Bush, this is the title of the vidio, I couldn’t link it.”Joe Biden Will Pursue Charges Against Bush” Today when asked about it here is a link to his comment I hope. nypost.com … Is Biden crazy?
[i] This thread has gone way off topic. It’s an appropriate place to end the exchange. [/i]
-Elf Lady