|
Post by hoosier on Jan 8, 2008 19:34:43 GMT -5
I usually don't talk politics but they are thinking of changing Indiana's primary from May to February. I don't see what difference it will make because no one comes here to really campaign. They stop by to get money and press the flesh of the faithful. Since the state hasn't gone Democratic since LBJ, they don't think its worth the time or the trouble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2008 22:33:21 GMT -5
Hilary Clinton is the projected winner in NH.
|
|
|
Post by matilda on Jan 8, 2008 22:37:13 GMT -5
This is a very interesting thread and like Matilda I like to have an alternative coverage of the 2008 election. If I were American I would probably be a Democrat. Right now I wouldn't know who to vote for, Hillary or Obama. At the same time I find McCain and Guiliano appealing - probably a good thing I don't get to vote!!! ;D I saw Hillary on the news yesterday almost crying. I really don't know what to think about that. I think it's likeable that she shows emotion publicly instead of appearing as if she was carved in stone. On the other hand, she was almost crying??? Because campaigning is hard??? What do you think, is it going to hurt her? Or emphasize the fact that she is strong enough to show her vulnerability, making her more likeable? - Chris Well I'd definitely be a Democrat and I reckon I'd be as undecided as I always am. But hey - I saw H crying too, but it wasn't the tears that upset me it was how incredibly tired she looked, bless.
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Jan 9, 2008 10:27:31 GMT -5
Well you go Hillary! WOW! I am really surprised she won and even more surprised that my man John came in a distant third.
I think that Obama has a better chance of winning than Hillary does, so right now I am wanting him to get the nomination. Hilary just has entirely too much baggage. If there is anyone who can motivate conservatives to get out and vote it is Hilary Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 9, 2008 11:55:07 GMT -5
Well . . . there's also positive "baggage," in that there are millions of people in this country who remember the Clinton Years fondly -- probably because the economy was ticking along like a little Swiss watch. As stunning and interesting as last night was, it's still one very small and very white state. It'll be interesting to see how South Carolina plays out, especially since that's Edwards territory. And how nice to see Mitt the Automaton laid low, and in his own back yard! ;D
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jan 9, 2008 13:35:07 GMT -5
I had to miss the fun as it was happening because I was working a twenty-hour hospital shift with an extremely demanding Deaf patient and I was just able to peak at the TV from time to time to see what was going on. And they didn't have my favorite news channel, MSNBC, so that blew. I did catch the speeches in their entirety--twice--later on in the night after the patient went to sleep.
Still...as disappointed as I am in Obama's loss, I am strangely happy for Hillary. She did really well, despite the hell she has been going through in the press for the last five days. Now I agree that anything can happen.
Hillary and Bill have always had this very odd unwinnable dynamic going on. When Bill was running, all I ever heard was that it would really be Hillary running things (remember the Impeach Clinton and HER Husband bumper stickers?). That followed them throughout his presidency. And now all we ever hear is that if she wins, Bill will really be pulling the strings. I do feel for them because there's no way to beat that perception.
Here's my Hillary thing. I do have very fond memories of the nineties and the first Clinton presidency. A lot went right and it was a good time. I adored Bill and supported him no matter what he did and I thought Hillary was an excellent first lady. Bill was the last president (or presidential candidate) to inspire me in any way. He got the majority of the people behind him most of the time (63% approval during his impeachment hearing?) and was able to get so much done because people naturally wanted to follow him.
Hillary used to seem candid and personable back then and I've been hearing in recent months from her staffers who insist that the robotic figure we see on TV isn't the REAL Hillary so...it's hard to know what the real Hillary is these days. All I know is that the Dems got into a weird habit after Bill. Al Gore, who we now know to be a fiery and dynamic speaker, barely changed expression the entire time he was running for office. I saw him live when he was campaigning in Los Angeles and his speech was dull and he wasn't responsible for most of the excitement rippling through the crowd (consisting mostly of people who DIDN'T want a Bush in office). When he woke up after the election and we saw his true personality again, I kept hearing, "Why couldn't we have voted for THAT guy? Where was HE during the elections?"
Then, learning nothing from that, the Dems nominated John Kerry, who is naturally the persona Gore adopted during his own failed bid. We let Howard Dean and Wesley Clark slip through our fingers and went with the non-smiling robot who couldn't connect with people and who could only answer yes/no questions in long and meandering sentences that grew increasingly difficult to follow (kind of like this one…sorry…). I'm a good Democrat and I supported him because he was still better than the alternative, but...geez. He even turned the otherwise charismatic John Edwards into that same person, which is something I still can't entirely forgive.
Then Hillary the Politician emerged and talk began of her presidency but...she had turned into that same character, speaking in a strident but ineffective voice and saying the same old crap as the last two. I didn't see a bit of difference. I suspected that she had turned into that weird Democratic Presidential Clone that had taken over the bodies of the last two nominees and I didn't want to deal with that even if she could win.
Here's where I credit Obama. Whether or not anyone believes he's experienced enough (or wise enough) to lead (and I wholeheartedly believe he is), everyone believes he can give a straight answer and can connect with people and inspire them and make them believe in something again. Once that element has entered the race, it brings out a new openness in the other candidates. Hillary had no choice but to allow herself to be human again in New Hampshire. It was a last-ditch effort born of true desperation, when she finally stayed and answered questions candidly and was more open with the media. Her true personality snuck out and, however much that change seems calculated to me, it also rings true. My BS detector didn't go off nearly as often as she spoke and I was finally able to see someone human and rather nice, who really did have a personality in there somewhere. Oh, and someone has finally convinced her to speak in a more natural tone and that hair-on-end strident semi-shout has been gone for nearly a week now and I can bear to listen to her speak.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I would say Obama had a lot to do with it because he brought humanity back to the race and made Hillary break out of that weird persona she's been using for so long. She was driven to it. That robotic version of herself could never have beaten him.
Her speech was good but Obama’s was, once again, phenomenal. I heard several people say this morning that it was the best political speech they had ever heard. The whole “Yes we can!” aspect was very moving. I still think he has a really good shot but isn’t this all fun, now that there isn’t any inevitability left?
I firmly believe that if Edwards were to drop out now, most of his votes would go to Obama. If he stays in, Hillary might win. He seems to have too much of an ego to drop things now. He’s nearly out of money, but insists he’ll be in it until the convention. I find this all more fascinating than ever, although I would have had more fun had Obama swept the thing like everyone thought he was going to do.
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jan 9, 2008 13:42:39 GMT -5
PS: An Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. But...they don't seem to like each other very much.
|
|
|
Post by mlm828 on Jan 9, 2008 18:22:44 GMT -5
Speaking as a resident of a large state which holds its primary on February 5, I am relieved the Democratic nomination hasn't already been decided by the voters in two small states, before the rest of us have a chance to cast our votes. All I know is that the Dems got into a weird habit after Bill. Al Gore, who we now know to be a fiery and dynamic speaker, barely changed expression the entire time he was running for office. I saw him live when he was campaigning in Los Angeles and his speech was dull and he wasn't responsible for most of the excitement rippling through the crowd (consisting mostly of people who DIDN'T want a Bush in office). When he woke up after the election and we saw his true personality again, I kept hearing, "Why couldn't we have voted for THAT guy? Where was HE during the elections?" Then, learning nothing from that, the Dems nominated John Kerry, who is naturally the persona Gore adopted during his own failed bid. We let Howard Dean and Wesley Clark slip through our fingers and went with the non-smiling robot who couldn't connect with people and who could only answer yes/no questions in long and meandering sentences that grew increasingly difficult to follow (kind of like this one…sorry…). I'm a good Democrat and I supported him because he was still better than the alternative, but...geez. He even turned the otherwise charismatic John Edwards into that same person, which is something I still can't entirely forgive. Then Hillary the Politician emerged and talk began of her presidency but...she had turned into that same character, speaking in a strident but ineffective voice and saying the same old crap as the last two. I didn't see a bit of difference. I suspected that she had turned into that weird Democratic Presidential Clone that had taken over the bodies of the last two nominees and I didn't want to deal with that even if she could win. You nailed it, shmeep. I would just add that, in addition to not turning into "that weird Democratic Presidential Clone," the 2008 nominee must be more effective in dealing with the GOP smear campaigns we know are coming, regardless of who the nominee is. He or she simply cannot come across as weak, ineffectual, or defensive. For example, Kerry admitted, after the fact, that he had not been strong enough in dealing with the "Swiftboat" attacks. We simply cannot let them get away with that kind of thing, this time. I am still seriously conflicted about the choice among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I would vote for any of them as the nominee, but I just can't decide yet which would be the strongest candidate. I agree Hillary seems to be getting away from that strident, unappealing persona of recent months. I happened to see her on CNN a week or ten days ago, talking to voters in a diner. She was delightful – funny and genuine. She needs to present more of that to the public. Still, I wonder, as one woman in New Hampshire pointed out, whether she has accumulated too many political debts which will have to be paid back if she wins the White House. And I am still concerned that gender bias is the most deep-seated, intractable form of prejudice. Anyone remember the fate of the Equal Rights Amendment? I still need to see more of Obama before I make up my mind about him. He does have the capacity to uplift and inspire. At one point during his speech last night, I heard echoes of King. We may need someone like him in order to turn this country in a different direction if he makes it to the White House. But does he have the political savvy and skills to get there and make things happen, once he does? I have always liked John Edwards' message, going back to his talking about the "Two Americas" in the 2004 campaign. Of all the candidates, I think he is the most likely to take on the corporate interests and stop the country from backsliding (any more than it already has) to the 19th century era of the "robber barons." One candidate I will be sorry to see leave the race (if he does) is Bill Richardson. Any time I have heard him talk about the issues, he has always made sense to me. I hope he will be part of the next Democratic administration in some capacity – Vice President or Secretary of State, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 9, 2008 19:43:32 GMT -5
Quickly -- and kudos for your great posts, Shmeep and mlm -- the Democrats will do whatever it takes to wrest the White House out of Republican (Polite Fench for disastrous) hands. JFK and LBJ loathed each other but knew that together they were unstoppable . . . which is why I'm not eschewing the notion of a Clinton/Obama ticket. All that blindingly brilliant and uplifting rhetoric, combined with a practical outlook and years in the trenches. Works for me.
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Jan 10, 2008 8:27:48 GMT -5
You nailed it, shmeep. I would just add that, in addition to not turning into "that weird Democratic Presidential Clone," the 2008 nominee must be more effective in dealing with the GOP smear campaigns we know are coming, regardless of who the nominee is. He or she simply cannot come across as weak, ineffectual, or defensive. For example, Kerry admitted, after the fact, that he had not been strong enough in dealing with the "Swiftboat" attacks. We simply cannot let them get away with that kind of thing, this time. This is what concerns me most about a Clinton ticket. The conservative pundits are going to tear her to shreds. We are going to hear it all from Monica Lewinsky, to Whitewater, to the "vast right wing conspiracy." People buy that crap hook, line, and sinker. It was shown that the swift boat garbage was just that, garbage, but people still believe it is true. You hammer away long enough on a point, no matter how ridiculous it may be, people start believing it. I know this will happen to anyone on the ticket, but if it is Hillary we are just spoon-feeding Rush and Roger and all those freaks all that they want. I am still seriously conflicted about the choice among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I would vote for any of them as the nominee, but I just can't decide yet which would be the strongest candidate. I agree Hillary seems to be getting away from that strident, unappealing persona of recent months. I happened to see her on CNN a week or ten days ago, talking to voters in a diner. She was delightful – funny and genuine. She needs to present more of that to the public. Still, I wonder, as one woman in New Hampshire pointed out, whether she has accumulated too many political debts which will have to be paid back if she wins the White House. And I am still concerned that gender bias is the most deep-seated, intractable form of prejudice. Anyone remember the fate of the Equal Rights Amendment? I heard that woman on CNN too, and I agree that she made a great point. That is one thing that makes Obama and Edwards all the more appealing to me. I still need to see more of Obama before I make up my mind about him. He does have the capacity to uplift and inspire. At one point during his speech last night, I heard echoes of King. We may need someone like him in order to turn this country in a different direction if he makes it to the White House. But does he have the political savvy and skills to get there and make things happen, once he does? You described my feelings about Obama perfectly. I have always liked John Edwards' message, going back to his talking about the "Two Americas" in the 2004 campaign. Of all the candidates, I think he is the most likely to take on the corporate interests and stop the country from backsliding (any more than it already has) to the 19th century era of the "robber barons." You described my feelings about Edwards perfectly as well. One candidate I will be sorry to see leave the race (if he does) is Bill Richardson. Any time I have heard him talk about the issues, he has always made sense to me. I hope he will be part of the next Democratic administration in some capacity – Vice President or Secretary of State, perhaps? I'm with you here too. Richardson is smart, logical and experienced and I like that. I was sorry to see Biden leave the race, and Dodd for that matter. A lot of experience was there for the taking and because they didn't have the exposure they are gone. It would be nice to see Richardson as the VP.
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 12, 2008 10:42:45 GMT -5
What, dead silence? That is so unlike us! I see that the Kerry bashing has stopped around here now that he's endorsed Obama. Seriously, some of the comments in this thread about Kerry's candidacy really point up -- at least to me -- the major flaw at the heart of the way in which we elect our presidents, or have since JFK. If you don't come across on television you're doomed. Period. So a man whose record was perfect in terms of a Democratic candidate, but who wasn't a facile off-the-cuff speaker, and whose reaction to an insane smear campaign was to rise above it and not get down in the mud himself is perceived as dull and therefor unelectable. Well, as Housemouse said, look at Richardson, Dodd, and Biden dropping out. Able and admirable, and all could have served well and with distinction -- but they're not "exciting" candidates in front of a crowd, plus they've been around long enough for people to know all they want to about them. There's no surprise element, as there still is with Obama. Oh, my God! It's High School! That's it -- it's High School and who's gonna be Class presedent! Whose clothes are the coolest, who has the catchiest slogan, and whose Mom made the best bribe-brownies!!! Okay, I was being silly (who, me?) but the point is that the run for the presidency is essentially a popularity contest in which, at some point, merit goes out the window. And that's a shame.
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jan 12, 2008 21:33:08 GMT -5
What, dead silence? That is so unlike us! Indeed it is! I read your post with a mixture of feelings and it took me a while to be in a frame of mind to respond because you brought up so many points—many of which are—ahem!—rather insulting to someone who may have been perceived as being a huge (high school) cheerleader for a certain charismatic candidate who looks pretty on TV. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t mean it like that. But that doesn’t mean I won’t respond, now that certain things have been brought up. First of all, I’ve just had a busy week so I haven’t been on the board much. If I had been, I probably would have said it’s been a rather slow week on the campaign trail (comparatively). The woman who made Hillary cry went on to vote for Obama because she thought Hillary was being disingenuous. Kerry supported Obama (which I thought was great). Kucinich and someone else have called for a New Hampshire recount because the results in the areas with computer ballots seem out of whack, so that should prove to be interesting. Fred Thomson did well in a debate. Um…I’m trying to think what else is going on…oh, Giuliani is strapped and some of his workers are going without pay this month…yeah. Fairly quiet. Bill Clinton has insulted African Americans by referring to Obama’s campaign as a “fairy tale,” but it was obvious in context he wasn’t referring to race at all. Hillary insulted the African American community by commenting that Martin Luther King Jr.’s pretty words wouldn’t have had any effect had LBJ not backed him up with policy. This may make South Carolina a bit dicey for Hillary. Oh, and the food worker’s union in Nevada has endorsed Obama so Hillary has been going door to door in Nevada and trying to pick away at their support from the ground up (which is also something she’s been trying to do with the delegates, by the way—trying to get them to go for her at the convention even if the state has chosen Obama). So…slow but rather interesting week, I guess. I just didn’t have time to write about it. I see that the Kerry bashing has stopped around here now that he's endorsed Obama. I was actually very supportive of Kerry’s candidacy and I don’t think I was really bashing him here when I said he was robotic. I was talking more about how unnatural he appeared than about his merits. He appeared to be over handled and his already stiff demeanor was not improved by being careful to the point of seeming to never give a straight answer or to even stand for anything. He was a good man and a decent candidate and I was happy when he got the nomination, despite my fondness for Dean and Clark. I fluctuated between the three from the start so Kerry’s surprise win was great. But…he did run an idiotic campaign and threw away his chance. Seriously, some of the comments in this thread about Kerry's candidacy really point up -- at least to me -- the major flaw at the heart of the way in which we elect our presidents, or have since JFK. If you don't come across on television you're doomed. Period. So a man whose record was perfect in terms of a Democratic candidate, but who wasn't a facile off-the-cuff speaker, and whose reaction to an insane smear campaign was to rise above it and not get down in the mud himself is perceived as dull and therefor unelectable. You’re bringing on a rant, Mags. Here I go. I respect that Kerry rose above the smear tactics, but every candidate will be attacked and they all need to know how to defend themselves. There is a difference between attacking back and having a defense. Bill Clinton was attacked mercilessly during his campaigns and his strategy was to always have a strong response and an explanation immediately. He didn’t allow anything to fester out there. He attacked back when necessary, but he also knew how to explain himself (until he was in office and seemed to be stumped by the word “is,” but that’s a whole other thing…) and his quick response to smears kept him in the game. He was good at turning things around and making his attackers look bad for saying such things. Kerry just left the rumors out there and allowed them to pick up momentum and to dominate the news cycles until there was nothing he could do to combat them and that was not smart. That, more than his lack of charisma, cost him the trust of a lot of people who may otherwise have voted for him, had they heard his side of the story. My main frustration with him was that he couldn’t seem to answer anything directly and his answers were very confusing and he often seemed to be trying to say several things at once. This also made him lose the trust of a lot of people who thought he didn’t have a clear plan for his presidency. I am still on John Kerry’s mailing list (because I gave money to his campaign) and I respect the guy. I just don’t think he ran a good campaign and I stand by that. His lack of response gave us four more years of Bush, so that does make me a bit angry with him. Well, as Housemouse said, look at Richardson, Dodd, and Biden dropping out. Able and admirable, and all could have served well and with distinction -- but they're not "exciting" candidates in front of a crowd, plus they've been around long enough for people to know all they want to about them. There's no surprise element, as there still is with Obama. I like all three of them, particularly Biden. It’s too bad they didn’t get more of a chance. I’m not a huge fan of Dodd, but Richardson has a lot of good ideas and Biden is admirable in many ways. I love that he still lives in his home state and commutes from Delaware to DC. He stays in touch with his constituents and he serves them well. I think these three knew they were long shots from the start but they got into the race to get their ideas out there to change the tone of the campaign and to possibly get positions in the cabinet of whomever is eventually elected. They’ll do just fine. Oh, my God! It's High School! That's it -- it's High School and who's gonna be Class presedent! Whose clothes are the coolest, who has the catchiest slogan, and whose Mom made the best bribe-brownies!!! When someone like John Kerry thinks that Obama is the one, that says something to me. And I’m not going through this with a high school mentality. I think we have/had a lot of strong candidates this time and the idea of how well any one of them had the potential to do has been exciting for me to watch. I’m a political junkie and I listen to their stump speeches on CSPAN Radio and I catch whatever I can about them along the way and I give it a lot of thought. My thinking is that they all stand for basically the same thing, so I’m looking at the one who would be able to win over the most people. Obama has an amazing ability to move his audiences and a lot of people support him who won’t support any other Democrat so if I want the agenda represented by all the candidates to have the best chance of actually happening, Obama is the best bet. He’s a brilliant man with an impressive resume and he would be an excellent leader. Has television made it harder for some worthy people to get elected? Of course it has. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Our president is someone who will represent us to the world for the next four-eight years and I want him/her to be able to make us proud and to get us back on track with other countries. Admit it. Whenever you saw a Bush/Blair press conference, didn’t you cringe whenever Bush spoke but kind of think that Tony Blair had a few good points? Didn’t you respect Blair a bit more because of his eloquence, even though he was acting as Bush’s puppet? I know I did—before I could stop myself. Okay, I was being silly (who, me?) but the point is that the run for the presidency is essentially a popularity contest in which, at some point, merit goes out the window. And that's a shame. I wouldn’t say that merit goes out the window. I think it’s a combination of popularity (which also equals power) and merit and all the remaining candidates have plenty of merit AND can connect with people so I think we’re set no matter how this goes. But supporting Obama doesn’t make me a sycophantic fangirl. I feel the need to say that for some reason. I really believe in the guy. When I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic Convention (read the speech and you’ll see why Kerry backed him), I was mesmerized and found myself wishing deeply that this man could be our next president. Back to the original point here, I apologize for the Kerry bashing because I believe he’s a good man. My point wasn’t about him personally. It was about how every Democratic nominee since Clinton (Bill) has allowed him/herself to be handled to the point of losing all personality and individuality and that’s quite possibly what cost both Gore and Kerry the elections. I heard that after Iowa, Hillary let her handlers have it and broke free and decided to be more herself and look what happened! I still think it was a bit calculated, but she finally showed that she knew how to connect and that there’s an actual human woman in there and it served her well. My point was that Obama is who is forcing these other wooden candidates to allow people to see who they really are. They have to if they are going to be able to compete with his charisma. If he has been able to cure the Democrats of their overly-careful wishy-washiness, how can that be a bad thing? I think that even if he loses the nomination to Hillary, the Hillary who has emerged because of her competition with Obama will be a Hillary who has a better chance of defeating the Republicans than the Hillary we were seeing before. Are we all shallow? Perhaps. But…if it works, I won’t complain. For the record, I can’t for the life of me get my own husband to see things my way when it comes to Obama. He’s a Hillary supporter. Oh well. [/end rant]
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 12, 2008 23:28:34 GMT -5
Shmeep, I haven't even read your whole post yet -- which of course I will do and properly (or improperly) respond. I just saw the last line and started giggling. Tell your charming and intelligent husband he can come stay at my house through election season. ;D Oh, and I'm sorry if I was being insulting in the least -- I was trying for humor and I guess it backfired. Again. I love this open dialogue we have here, and I know that whatever happens on the campaign trail, you and I will be of like minds come election day. BTW, what wicked fairy has been messin' with my karma? Last I remember it was 253.
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Jan 12, 2008 23:36:26 GMT -5
Shmeep, I haven't even read your whole post yet -- which of course I will do and properly (or improperly) respond. I just saw the last line and started giggling. Tell your charming and intelligent husband he can come stay at my house through election season. ;D Hee. I was in serious rant mode, wasn't I? I hope I didn't overdo it...but if we're going to allow ourselves to delve into political discourse, we have to be able to accept that a lot of strong opinions will come into play. So far, I think we've all been handling it very well. Yay us! And I didn't touch the karma. A Mouse must have done it. As for my charming and intelligent husband...I don't want to encourage him. Oh, and I'm sorry if I was being insulting in the least -- I was trying for humor and I guess it backfired. Again. I love this open dialogue we have here, and I know that whatever happens on the campaign trail, you and I will be of like minds come election day. Amen, my sister.
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Jan 13, 2008 0:05:27 GMT -5
Hey! I love that we're talking and going around the corners and getting all hot under the collar. If I did anything to spark a good old Shmeep rant, than I'm happy -- nothing makes me happier than an impassioned and reasoned Shmeep rant. ;D Here's my prediction, and you may all feel free to laugh and throw this back in my face in the months to come. I think that what's going to happen is that Hillary and Barak are both going to roll into the Democratic convention with a roughly equal number of votes. And since the rules have been changed (dammit!) so an open convention is no longer possible (Ah, how Jeff Greenfield and I still long for that drama!) they will be locked into those numbers. Obama gets Illinois, Clinton gets California, etc., etc., etc. Which will mean only one thing if they want to beat the Republicans: a deal. A compromise in which whoever has the highest numbers gets the presidential nomination, and the runner-up gets the vice-presidential nod. The ultimate example of strange bedfellows. As I said, JFK and LBJ cordially loathed each other; as did FDR and John Nance Garner, FDR and Truman, and, for that matter, Eisenhower and Nixon. It's all about doing whatever you have to, to beat the other team. So, yeah, I'm predicting a Clinton/Obama ticket, which will give Obama the four -- hopefully eight -- years in which to earn his chops, after which he can go on to the presidency. And I still want to know who's been messing' with my karma!
|
|