Today on Blogcritics
Home » A New President, A New Precedent

A New President, A New Precedent

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

How can I possibly find something new to say after these last few days? It's virtually impossible, now that everyone has had a chance to put their spin on events of the last days, so maybe just a few of my own words on how I feel about everything. And how we finally got here in one piece.

I had written a blog some months back saying I was disappointed in Oprah Winfrey for putting her support behind Barack Obama. That post was gravely misunderstood and I immediately regretted not being clearer in what I was trying to say. I had been questioning how quickly Oprah backed Obama after so many years of saying we needed female representation in Washington and women should vote for a woman, given the opportunity. The opportunity arose, and Oprah didn't do what she'd been asking others to do because the woman candidate, Hillary Clinton, had an opponent who was an African American man. Oprah dropped everything she'd been advocating over the years and put her support behind him. For one reason – he was black.

I felt she was setting a terrible example for others, especially in lieu of what she'd been preaching to her hordes, and because the very last reason a person should vote for an individual is because of his or her color.

I eventually changed my thinking on the issue because I realized that it was just as bad for her to ask someone to vote for a woman based solely on that one fact as well. We hopefully choose people for what they stand for; what they can bring to bear and how well we think they will do in a position of leadership. Not gender – not skin color.

However, I do not want to rehash that old post. It's past – it's done, for whatever reasons Oprah gives for it now. She's a happy woman. I'm a happy woman.

I am thrilled that Barack Obama is our 44th president of the United States.
It's not that I think Hillary would have been a bad president – I backed her initially and I don't doubt her capability if she'd stayed in and gone on to be president. After all, she would have Bill's experience as president to draw on, as well as his wealth of knowledge from those years.

But I love what has happened now! I love that history was made. I love that I stood for over two hours in the pouring rain to help make it happen. I love that we have dared to take the first tiny step over racial lines, thumbing our noses at racism and recognizing a person who is ideal for our time. The world looked on and rejoiced along with us. Did we regain our respect around the world? I would say we did, quite a bit. The world also recognized what we were trying to achieve and now it's up to us to prove this wasn't just a fluke, a lapse from the same old inbred politics of the past. It looks like America may have finally grown up. No more bogeymen under the bed. No more running scared because a candidate says we'll all die if we don't get him into office post haste.

And the YouTube propaganda couldn't put a dent in the move to make this happen. Fear mongering, while still rattling some, didn't work this time. People wanted change and they weren't buying into the threats of "we're all gonna die," or that Obama was the Antichrist. Or even that he was evil incarnate number one, because he happens to have the middle name Hussein.

When I hear these kinds of things being said, I have a better understanding of how we ended up having eight years of George W. Bush. Stupidity prevails no matter how hard we try to educate.  One example: using names as a measure of good or evil. Well then, it's certainly good we didn't end up with John McCain. For all those fearful prophets reading doom into the name Hussein, let me give you bigger things we could have worried about! John!!! Yes, John McCain. You want stupid logic? Here's a bunch! According to this thought pattern, a man named John would have certainly brought our nation to utter ruin. I mean just look at history, it's all right there. There was John Wayne Gacey. And John Wilkes Booth, John Gotti, John Dillinger, John George Haigh known as the 'Acid Bath Murderer' in the UK.

About This End Up

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I, too, am quite happy with the election results. While I was generally cautious with predictions prior to election day, I had a sense or a feeling that it could turn into a landslide. In the end it did and yet, it didn’t.

    Certainly, the electoral results were stunning. But, while the popular vote results were definitive, McCain still managed 46% of it in a year when one might have expected a clean sweep by the Democrats. (It is interesting that there are now no GOP members of Congress from any of the northeastern states.)

    Credit must be given to McCain, in spite of his tortured and fractured organization and the ghastly legacy of the Bush years from which he could not wholly separate himself.

    Certainly, race was an issue for some considering that some of McCain’s strongest showings were in the old south. Happily, this was partly broken by the results in Virginia – the home of the Confederacy, North Carolina and Florida.

    All of us who have relished the last couple of days should now get over our giddyness and settle in to see how our new president carries out his duties. The proof will ultimately be in the pudding.

    What will the pundits in the media or even the bloggers here and elsewhere on the net be saying in 6 months; in a year?

    Of course there are those who hate Obama simply because he’s drawing breath. Nothing he could do short of proving beyond a doubt that he is the ‘second coming’ could assuage those feelings.

    I am in hopes, and actually, I believe that Obama will surprise many. The right wingers publishing here believe that Obama will attempt to govern from the far left, that we will all be obliged to read Mao’s Red Book and wear gray pajamas to work in the collective in the coming months.

    I don’t. I believe that Obama will do much as Clinton did and govern much closer to the center. That is, IMO, the only manner in which he can hope to govern.

    Such a move will disappoint, even anger some with a more leftist agenda who expect Obama to carry their interests to Washington. I don’t expect him to abandon the left altogether, but he will prove to be far from the Marxist many have warned about.

    I believe Obama will be far superior to Clinton owing to his personal discipline, his ability to focus, to demand and receive respect and loyalty. I truly doubt that Obama will fall victim to any of the, uh, distractions in which Clinton indulged himself. Perhaps much to the chagrin of those who continually lambasted Obama regarding his lack of “executive” experience, he will in fact prove to be an excellent and adroit chief executive – certainly superior to Ms. Palin, who I understand is even now making plans to visit the “country” of Africa.

    But again. This is all yet to be seen. Undoubtedly, Obama will not live up to all (or perhaps even most) of the expectations many have for him. He will disappoint. He will anger. He will at times screw up. Just how badly, and to what effect we are yet to witness. But, on balance, I expect him to perform at a high level. All I can say is, that I’m glad it’s him and not me.

    In the mean time, life goes on.

    B

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I frankly am tired of commenting about racism and having everyone act like I am a martian, or one of the two Americans who 1) either voted for Obama and likes him or 2) thinks there still remains racism in this country. I refer them to the 52 million other Americans who also voted for Obama, for whatever reason and stand by my earlier articles where my points art crystal clear. And ask them to occasionally view Jon Stewart to see what I am well within “normal” range for an American on this election:)

  • Ginger Haycox

    Baritone – you’ve pretty much said the other things I was going to include or had to edit from my blog to keep it from growing into a tome. Yes, much credit to McCain for accomplishing as much as he did, in spite of his campaign money on the brink of 0 & the media having him already dead in the water over a month ago. But especially for overcoming his erroneous choice of Sarah Palin, which I believe backfired on him the most.

    He completely missed the reason why most Clinton supporters were there, assumed it to be because she was female, so selected a ‘gender’ for his running mate. From a thinking females standpoint, this was the single thing had I been considering him would have turned me away within a week. Also, if this was an example of what his choice making abilities were, then what sort of choices would he make once elected to office? I’m sure you wouldn’t want George W to be a spokesperson for you any more than I wanted Sarah Palin to speak on my behalf.

    And the thought of an aging president with a inept VP in the White House just scared the bejeezes out of me!

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Baritone -

    I believe Obama will be far superior to Clinton owing to his personal discipline, his ability to focus, to demand and receive respect and loyalty.

    I agree. He strongly reminds me of the best captains under whom I served in the Navy – they were approachable…but their bearing was such that the respect they received went beyond the uniform they wore. Some captains were obeyed because they HAD to be obeyed…but the best were obeyed because the crew knew that he was honorable, courageous, highly competent, and truly held the crew’s safety and welfare to be more important than his own.

    There were two such captains like this that I knew. One was CAPT Tony Davis of the Ranger, who went on to be the first black admiral, and the other was CAPT J.J. Quinn of the Abraham Lincoln, who as an LT carried the ‘football’ for Reagan. He ultimately got his admiralty and went on to be Dick Cheney’s personal liaison to the JCS.

    In other words, political dogma has nothing to do with real leadership.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    My “praise” of John McCain above is relative to the situation he faced.

    I found him to be obnoxious and short sighted. His decision making ability was seriously thrown into question with the choice of Palin. She was, though, simply the most glaring and obvious problem the McCain campaign faced. Overall, the campaign was poorly handled. They never really established a “message” other than blasting Obama and Biden. There was little of a positive nature coming out of their campaign. As I said on another thread, Obama campaigned on a message of hope. McCain only promised a fight.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    My adjective for McCain 2008 would be ‘smarmy’, which I guess is marginally more positive than ‘obnoxious’.

    But from Obama what I mainly see is a well-practiced sincerity which could mask almost any reality.

    It seems unlikely he’d be a better president overall than Clinton. He seems much more ideologically driven than Clinton was.

    Our best hope is that he has a falling out with Pelosi – who may drive him away with her arrogance and condescension.

    Dave

  • Ginger Haycox

    “Our best hope is that he has a falling out with Pelosi – who may drive him away with her arrogance and condescension.”

    …or a backbone to stay his own course which I have faith that he will.

    My “praise” of John McCain above is relative to the situation he faced.

    “I found him to be obnoxious and short sighted. His decision making ability was seriously thrown into question with the choice of Palin. She was, though, simply the most glaring and obvious problem the McCain campaign faced. Overall, the campaign was poorly handled. They never really established a “message” other than blasting Obama and Biden. There was little of a positive nature coming out of their campaign. As I said on another thread, Obama campaigned on a message of hope. McCain only promised a fight.”

    Agreeing again on all points, gentlemen.

    B, he exhausted a good part of his valuable time trying to find & fit in things to smear Obama instead of looking at it as an opportunity to present…well, anything he was going to do, other than schmooze Mr. Everyman, Joe the Plumber.
    Who also turned out to be not-so-everyman. I don’t personally have one friend who is signing deals with publicists & hiring agents.
    Joe turned out to be joke with the k dropped!

  • bliffle

    Readers are advised to remember the hysterical rantings about ‘socialist’ from Dave, Clavos, Archie, etc., when time proves that Obama is a centrist.

    Obama will probably be a better State Centrist than Clinton. Clinton will be eclipsed.

    In fact, he’ll be more of a real conservative (of the kind that DaveCo seems to always pine for) than Bush could ever dream of.

    None of which will inhibit him from being successful. He will succeed because he is smart, has a thirst for knowledge and understanding, and he makes good decisions. He’s a good student.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, he’s still a socialist. But we’re all socialists now, right? Well, you’re some sort of communist, but that’s okay now. Communist is the new progressive. Socialist is the new centrist and Conservatives don’t even exist.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    nah, dave. obama’s no socialist. but you know that. and conservatives exist, but they (at least for the next two years) don’t really count all that much. saying that strictly by the numbers.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Zing, my point was that you can rename things and redefine them and they don’t actually become something different. Obama was a socialist and is a socialist, but the question is how far he is willing to go in the service of ideology and how much his beliefs will be tempered with pragmatism.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    i’m not sure if that’s true, dave. if obama was a socialist, he would act like one, as that would make him a socialist. if you’re a socialist, but don’t believe in it enough to actually act like one, are you still a socialist? it’s like saying “that guy’s a homophobe, but he doesn’t actually act on it.” does that make the guy a homophobe? in your opinion, yes… but where the actual homophobic behavior? it’s not there.

    if obama doesn’t act like a socialist, what do you care? some amount of socialism would be good for this country, and, in fact, there already is plenty of socialism in this country. a little more (if it even comes) isn’t going to tip us into full-scale socialism.

    it truly doesn’t matter what you think of him, or what you call him. until he actual becomes a socialist, he isn’t one. and do you see him actually trying to become a socialist american president? or do you see him wanting another four years? he’s smarter than you’re giving him credit for.

  • zingzing

    hrm. on a personal scale, i get what you’re saying, dave. you think he’s a socialist, and you believe that if he were given free reign, he’d go for it.

    but, on a political scale, it’s an impossibility. that’s my point. he CAN’T go whole hog into socialism, so he won’t. and at that point, it doesn’t matter what he believes in his heart of hearts. it’s like if he were actually a muslim. the u.s. wouldn’t suddenly become a muslim country. it’s just not in the cards.

    but i still don’t think he’s a socialist. he’s got too much money for that. he’s got some ideas that drift towards socialism, and i agree with those ideas. but i’ve got ideas that some days i would like to live in the mountains and raise chickens. doesn’t make me a different person, as i’m a little more complex than that.

  • Ginger Haycox

    My first question is, “How does a socialist act?” I lived in Canada for a lot of years & I still can’t answer that one. Unless it’s like McCain. =)

    Did you guys watch Chris Wallace of Fox News on Sunday night when he spoke to McCain about his charges against Obama?

    Wallace implied McCain may be as much or more of a socialist as the rest of us.
    Here’s their exchange.

    WALLACE: But, Senator, you voted for the $700-billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism?

    MCCAIN: That is reacting to a crisis that’s due to greed and excess in Washington. And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home. They’re bailing out the banks. They’re bailing out these institutions.

    WALLACE: But you voted for that.

    MCCAIN: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank…. That’s the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can’t help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what’s necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn’t Main Street America that caused this. It was Washington and Wall Street.

    So let me see if I got this right. It’s okay to ‘act socialist’ sometimes, but only when ya gotta help yer buds out?

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Zing, my point was that you can rename things and redefine them and they don’t actually become something different. Obama was a socialist and is a socialist, but the question is how far he is willing to go in the service of ideology and how much his beliefs will be tempered with pragmatism.

    Dave,

    You are saying that meanings of words don’t change? This contradicts reality. It’s called semantic drift in linguistics. We have a whole field, historical linguistics, devoted to the study of practically this single thing.

    But, that aside could you elaborate on your definition of socialism? Maybe even liberal and conservative, if you get the chance or are interested?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I just watched Obama’s first new conference. It was relatively short and of course, not a lot of substance came out of either his bried opening statement or via the questions coming from the gathered press.

    Obama is apparently still intent upon another economic stimulus package coming out of Congress preferably before he takes office. Failing that, he stated that it would be his first priority after the inauguration.

    Little else of substance was laid out which was to be expected. Mainly, I believe that he wanted to introduce his economic advisory staff and describe some of the issues under consideration.

    He also laid out the strategy for selecting the White House puppy.

    I just have a sense that our new president will confound everybody who believed they had him pegged into one idealogical hole or another. As I have noted, I think Obama will be much more of a centrist than most would have imagined. Contrary to Dave’s predictions, I do believe that he will eclipse Clinton in most regards.

    Clinton was and is a brilliant man in many respects, but his ego and sexual apetites got in his way. Obama certainly has a large ego. He wouldn’t be where he is if he didn’t. But personal discipline is, I believe, a greater part of his persona than with Clinton.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Was it just me, or were the questions from the reporters impossible to understand?

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Cindy

    re: “But, that aside could you elaborate on your definition of socialism? Maybe even liberal and conservative, if you get the chance or are interested?”

    Good luck with that.

    That would be the starting point, you’d think but t’aint gonna happen. He just likes sayi’n stuff. You actually care about your integrity as a thinking person and cogent contributor, especially on such a forum. It shocks me that Dave doesn’t seem to care that he contradicts himself post after post substantiating the charges of his being disingenuous. He doesn’t seem to mind that he comes off as really dense and block headed. He enjoys minutia and will elaborate on details that are inconsequential but misses the big picture all together, consistanty.

    When you get his definitions of socialism, conservative and liberal, look for me all over BC’s political section and tell me to come see. It will be quite the day!

    What I suspect will happen is that he’ll turn everything around on you to dodge the request or give you some wacky definition that is too vague to decipher than spend the rest of the threat going off topic to evade a pin down. Wager?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle


    You are saying that meanings of words don’t change? This contradicts reality. It’s called semantic drift in linguistics. We have a whole field, historical linguistics, devoted to the study of practically this single thing.

    I’m saying that the definitions of ideologies and philosophies do not change, even if how the terminology is misused fluctuates.

    But, that aside could you elaborate on your definition of socialism? Maybe even liberal and conservative, if you get the chance or are interested?

    Really simple definitions as I see them.

    At its most basic socialism is a system which allocates wealth to people according to their needs rather than their efforts. In more general application it is the practice of providing for the welfare of large groups or the population as a whole without consideration of the preferences or rights of individuals.

    Liberalism is the belief in a society founded on respect for the rights of individuals, particularly the rights to life, liberty and property. Liberal government is one founded on rights and designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities against the actions of other individuals or groups, including the majority.

    Conservatism is the belief that radical change is undesirable and that traditional values and practices should be preserved. IMO it is only barely a political ideology. It’s more like a methodology.

    I think that because the US was founded on principles of liberalism, it is inherently conservative to be a liberal, so the way those terms are used is totally misleading. I prefer the term ‘progressive’ as the opposite of ‘conservative.’

    So there you are for what it’s worth.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    I knew it would work.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I wrote my comment before yours was posted, Zedd. So tell me what’s wrong with my definitions? They’re within a reasonable margin of standard definitions, even dictionary definitions.

    Dave

  • Franco

    #16 — Baritone

    Baritone,

    I have to say I am impressed with everything you say in this post, and I concur.

    The only thing I would dispute is your reference to Clinton being a brilliant man in many respects. I know he was astute, but its worth noting that he never got 50 percent of the vote in 1992 or 1996, lost both houses of Congress during his tenure and was impeached. Just because the media repeatedly calls someone brilliant, doesn’t make it so.

    Slink Willy brilliant, na, just very politically astute. I don’t like to belittle those truly brilliant by confusing it with someone slick. JMO.

  • bliffle

    The accusation “socialist!” has lost it’s sting since the demise of russian communism 20 years ago.

  • Zedd

    Thanks again biffle!

    Boy did you eat your Wheaties this morning? Your on it. Short and to the point.

  • Cindy D

    Thanks Dave,

    I will respond to that post later as I’ll be AFK for awhile.

    But, for now, I just wanted to say, whatever you name your new party, you’ll want to make sure it doesn’t appeal to this guy.

    HA! That is one of my favorite photos. HILARIOUS!

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    Sure you did…. Good start though.

    Your definition of socialism is small and it could be loaded. I need to clarify some things. Would you consider having a fiscal policy to be a form of socialism? Would you consider balancing the budget to be a form of socialism?

    Your definitions of liberal and conservative are spot on. Your Daving of them is classic. But you did good.

    Now

    Do you think progressives dislike the notion of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

    Is it possible to be liberal and not change to accommodate the changing ideals of the people?

    Is it possible to be conservative and change to ensure the liberty and pursuits of the people?

    Have at it.

  • http://insightupdate.blogspot.com JCMorgan

    I know that this is a historic election for African Americans, but I think there is too much emphasis put on the race issue. I like Obama because he seems like he will make a positive impact on polictics, the American economy and the World. He stands for ideologies that are different than the past eitht years and I think he can be one of the best Presidents this country has had. Unlike the last eight years, when he gets up to speak publically and adlib answers to questions, I think I can feel proud to be an American again.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    This election represented many things to many people. While people will long refer to it as such, I don’t believe that Obama’s chief accomplishment will, in the end, be that he was the first black president. That will be incidental.

    But looking at this through the eyes of Black Americans and many non-blacks as well, Obama’s win is momentous. While it hardly represents the end of racism or racial issues in this country, it is a definitive turning of the page. It is emblematic of the distance this nation has moved since the beginnings of the civil rights movement or the murder of Dr. King 40 years ago.

    Not all bridges have been crossed, but a major chasm has been traversed. The tears in the eyes of many of the hundreds of thousands who made it to Grant Park in Chicago, or Greenpoint in Brooklyn, or even Rock Center in Manhattan Tuesday evening was testament to what Obama’s victory means to them.

    The political ramifications to the Democrats and the Republicans are another matter. People will likely argue otherwise, but I don’t see how this election was NOT a mandate for Democrats and a harsh rebuke against Republicans. I don’t believe it has so much to do with ideology, but rather simply performance. Republicans have performed badly – very badly – over the past 8 years. Voters don’t take well to that. Now it’s payback.

    The Dems were on the shit end of the same stick during the Clinton years when the Reps took over Congress spouting their so called “contract with America.” They have moved the country toward the right ever since. In so doing, they outwitted themselves through their own hubris and mismanagement.

    Democrats have a golden opportunity not only to put forward their agenda, but to “get it right” for this country. If managed properly, the Dems could oversee an overhaul of our country’s political system, its economy and its foreign relations. Great things could come during the next 4 to 8 years. I have hopes.

    Sadly, human nature being what it is, I expect that eventually, the Dems will do much the same as the Reps have done. They will come to believe that they can do about anything and get away with it. Memories are short. The cycle will begin anew. Can Obama and company avoid those pitfalls? We’ll see.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But, for now, I just wanted to say, whatever you name your new party, you’ll want to make sure it doesn’t appeal to this guy.

    I believe your friend with the signs was expressing his racial hatred of the Irish clan of Morans.

    Your definition of socialism is small and it could be loaded. I need to clarify some things. Would you consider having a fiscal policy to be a form of socialism? Would you consider balancing the budget to be a form of socialism?

    No and no, because a fiscal policy can be almost anything from just coining money to massive wealth redistribution. By the same measure, there are lots of ways to balance a budget. Some might be socialistic, others not.

    Do you think progressives dislike the notion of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

    IMO progressivism can be liberal in nature, so probably not. On the other hand, progressivism can also be socialist, in which case their liberty and happiness would be obtained on a mass level rather than an individual level and would likely come at the cost of suffering for one group to benefit another.

    Is it possible to be liberal and not change to accommodate the changing ideals of the people?

    Definitely, because the basic values of liberalism are part of human nature and natural law, not subject to political fashion.

    Is it possible to be conservative and change to ensure the liberty and pursuits of the people?

    If the country has drifted away from its liberal roots then it would be conservative to promote change back to those roots. Change which restores traditional values might be considered counter-change and it is certainly conservative.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    Rahm Emanuel and his siblings are very interesting. In fact, the whole family is interesting.

    Charlie Rose interviewed the 3 brothers a couple months ago. You can probably find the interview on Rose’s website. He also replayed it on his PBS program.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    You’d better check with Ruvy on this. He probably has information that Emanuel is a closet muslim who secretly sneaks into Palestine where he is serviced by his harem. In consideration that Jews are always the victim, it cannot be assumed that anyone – including many Jews – actually support them.

    B

  • Cindy D

    RE: picture @ #25

    comment @ #29

    I believe your friend with the signs was expressing his racial hatred of the Irish clan of Morans.

    Dave, Ha! That is a good one.

  • Zedd

    Dave,

    You didn’t answer my questions. You kinda made whatever point that you wanted to make regardless of my question. Lets try this again.

    “ZEDD: Is it possible to be liberal and not change to accommodate the changing ideals of the people?

    DAVE: Definitely, because the basic values of liberalism are part of human nature and natural law, not subject to political fashion.”

    I’d rather we stay away from the premise that there is a natural code that all humans live by. I think that we have discussed this before. The notion of natural law is an arbitrary one. The only things that most humans agree upon is that incest is bad and telling a lie is bad (I think there has only been one tribe somewhere that rewarded lying). I don’t think there is such a thing as natural law really.

    The question was not pertaining to political fashion but to individuals’ ideals and their wants and pursuits? What makes people happy changes. Not voting and getting equal pay for equal pay was fine with many women in the past. Many were happy with their position. Off course today, that would be unthinkable; a quick way to make a woman “unhappy”. Also, societies change. The items that we monitor in order to keep

  • Zedd

    Not sure what happened to the rest of my comment. Darn it, it was BRILLIANT! :o)

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    It seems you forgot to include the rest of your comment, Zedd. Try again.

  • Ginger Haycox

    LOL Zedd! I hate it when genius becomes truncated. We wait with bated breath. =)