McCain Surrogate Condemning Attacks On His Military Record Was In Swift Boat Vet Ads Against Kerry
Oh, this is fun. Today the McCain campaign held a conference call unveiling a new "truth squad" Web site designed to defend McCain from attacks on his military record.
This was in response to Wes Clark's claim yesterday that McCain lacks the necessary experience to be President, which wasn't an attack on McCain's military record at all.
Be that as it may, on the call, the McCain camp rolled out a leading surrogate named Bud Day -- who was described merely as a fellow POW of McCain -- who blasted such attacks. "John was slandered and reviled in the 2000 campaign in a way that denigrated his service enormously...it was absolutely important to face this issue right off the bat."
But guess what -- it turns out that this very same Bud Day was featured in the Swift Boat Vets ads attacking John Kerry in 2004!
To make matters even better, recall that McCain himself condemned the Swift Boat Vets. Yet now the McCain campaign is cheerfully enlisting someone who did what McCain claimed to decry -- attacks on Kerry's credentials -- and using him to defend McCain against the same sort of attacks.
That's a good one.
Late Update: As Ben Smith notes, on the call Day defended his Swift Boat Vets work as being "about laying out the truth."
Late Update: Here's the audio from the conference call:
Do the McCain campaign people ever meet in the same room? It doesn't seem as though one hand knows what the other is doing.
June 30, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
this one is pretty comical, agreed
June 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance you guys will run the story of McCain trying to take credit for the GI Bill?
June 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded!
June 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark didn't attack McCain's War Record. He said getting shot down in a fighter plane isn't a qualification to be President.
June 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Bob Schieffer practically put those words into Wes Clark's mouth.
The exchange starts at about 2:30 into the vid...
June 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh damn you, stop putting things in context, it totally ruins a good sound bite.
June 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fairness, Mr. Day is only being consistent.
Since 2004, he's been committed to suppressing the truth about candidates' military credentials.
June 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So? The irony of this will be completely lost in the coverage, and, I'm willing to bet that the role that ol' Bud played in the Swift Boats won't even be mentioned outside of TPM.
June 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Sullivan has a post up attacking Clark's "revolting..personal attack" on McCain.
What the fuck is he talking about?!?!
June 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's attributing a bunch of online conspiracy theories to Clark. It's a grotesque, personal attack unto itself...
June 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what you get when you ever take Sully seriously.
I'm amazed at the tolerance for Sully around here - y'all know he is a gay Roman Catholic Republican, right? Think about that for awhile.
June 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i sent him an email pointing that out.
maybe he'll publish it as a "dissent of the day" or "a reader writes".
but then if he does, no one will know because he never gives his readers any credit when they write in...
June 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote in too.
I honestly have no idea where he's getting that from. He's usually far more level-headed than that.
June 30, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like he misread Ben Smith's misleading Politico piece.
June 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just imagine what a McCain cabinet would look like.
June 30, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Niicceee.
Oh yeah, when is the media going to start mentioning that McCain crashed his plane not once, not twice, not thrice, not...fource....but FIVE F-ING TIMES!!?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964536/posts
June 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry guys, I think this has to be deliberate. The GOP is not above the obvious irony of their attacks... in fact they thrive on that as part of their messaging. It is Rovian politics in action. Doesn't a swift-boater decrying what's fair and not give some credence rather than ridicule?
They can't be that stupid.... I think something else is going on here.
June 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who believes that McLame really and truly meant it when he condemned the Swift Boaters?
Sorry little piece of shit is a two-faced weasel on top of everything else. In other words, a Repuglican.
This is why I really despise the fuckers - what's left of the GOP - they are down to the wormiest, sleeziest, stupidest people who were ever in the GOP. Every one else has bailed.
June 30, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the 50% of the voters who voted for them -- they're even more stupid, which is what Rove can always count on.
June 30, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why we need people like Clark out there saying it like it is.
The GOP brand is so tarnished that the majority of the republican party is looking for somewhere to go if we can be a little more empathetic.
A good place to start that is by not bashing mainstream republicans for being duped by neocons.
June 30, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
O please.
Where is that 50% now? It's down to about 20%.
Jesus. Please let up on the "Americans are stupid" line - please.
June 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going by the Bush vs. Kerry result. Bush won something just over 50%. Those Americans are stupid. Period.
Or are you postulating that they suddenly had an infusion of intelligence over time? Because, if memory serves, that's about the same percentage who voted for Bush over Gore. Sorry, but the IQ trend doesn't look like an upward slope to me.
June 30, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. You know how many people actually voted for Bush in that election?
7.
July 1, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily Sen. Obama doesn't have to disavow you, sweetie. Your big ole nasty ass would require a lot of covering. Why don't you take a xanax and a nice stroll down to the plaza? Wanna meet at Ogelvies?
June 30, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAMMIT, Obama!
Why did you apologize for Clark's comments!?
June 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'd like a little more toughness here as well.
June 30, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is taking the high road and doesn't need to attack McCain on this since there is so many issues he can attack McCain on.
June 30, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart move. He had no choice. I agree with clark's comments, but the low information voter won't. They will see it as obama attacking mcbush's sacrafice for the us and won't like it. Smart move again on obama's part. He can't win the election with 20% of the electorate. That's why he always praises mccain's service and says that he's a hero, it defuses the issue. The guy really is a smart politician.
June 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably for the same reason Bush rejected a lot of the attacks on Kerry (or at least said, "Well, I don't know about that")... the nominee stays above the fray and chats about energy policy. The surrogates get down and dirty.
June 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, he's not General Obama, so unlike Clark, he would look like an ass trying to make this argument.
June 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is true.
And you're right about the game - surrogates get the idea out there, you back off from them. Rinse, repeat.
June 30, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stroszek,
During a Presidential campaign Bush once said; (paraphrase) You may not agree with me but you will know where I stand.
That comment showed strength (even though he's a coward) and in my opinion, it won him many votes.
Obama showed strength in the primary, after he won, he's shown nothing but flip flops. Is this what will beat McCain, fear of offending some right wing red neck down in the Mississippi bayou?
June 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
hyper,
when I first read Josh's post on how the media is handling CLark's comment, I thought to myself; If the Obama camp or Clark apologize for the comment I'll not send another nickle to the Democrats.
Imagine my surprise when I returned not long after and read the Obama camp's comment on Clark.
Obama is as spineless as the rest of them. Ever since he won the primary he's been a major disappointment with his turn to the right. The intensity of my support for Obama has dropped by 50%.
June 30, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'll be seriously pissed if the Obama camp doesn't jump all over this, loudly and publicly.
I'm becoming a touch worried about the Obama camp's responses so far. The only attacks that are seeming to carry are the ones made against Obama, or the ones that supposedly cross the line like the "lost his bearings" comment. I'm not sure why Obama's responses have seemed so muted, but that needs to stop now.
Over the weekend, Lieberman transforms full-fledged into Rumsfeld, yet the only thing we're hearing is pundits poo-pooing about Clark. McCain's been tripping all over himself, but members of the media are actively engaged in covering his ass until he can get up to speed, and run effectively. In the meantime, they're happy to reverberate attacks on Obama.
The Democrats need to unmuzzle themselves, and start blasting back in a way that forces their message to get out. This type of hypocrisy from McCain is the PERFECT opportunity to do so.
June 30, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I getting worried about Obama's campaign? A gnawing sound in the back of my head keeps saying "Hillary would be tougher."
June 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How? Hillary already said that John McCain "has passed the Commander in Chief threshold". It would be hard for her to then attack him for not having the proper qualifications. Nice try on your part though. Too bad, some people actually remember that she was kissing McCain's arse for a long time, instead of showing some of that toughness that you are now fantasying about.
June 30, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nice try on your part though."
I'm not a Hillary supporter if that's what you're saying.
I think Obama is playing the GE way too cautious, and not just on this. If he doesn't get more aggressive he could lose.
June 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any candidate can lose, one of the two always does.
Hillary might also have lost, and in fact she just did to a relatively unknown. Was she not tough enough then or too tough. Obama is the nominee. It is between him and McCain. Hillary was defeated in the semi-final bout.
June 30, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Obama or Clinton should lose to McCain. If Obama loses to McCain it's just more Democratic incompetence that we've gotten used to in the past decade.
June 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the good news is he's not losing. And doomsday pronouncements made in June just make everyone look silly.
Relax a bit. There's room for improvement in my eyes, but why start with the, "Democratic incompetence" talk? The sky isn't falling yet.
June 30, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush "rejected" plenty of attacks from his surrogates in both 2000 and 2004.
This is SOP.
The surrogate attacks, the nominee expresses regret and distances himself from the attack, the surrogate attacks again. Rinse. Repeat.
June 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, on account of Tuzla, Hillary is damaged goods when it comes to criticizing exaggerated military experience.
June 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If McCain is running on a platform of being more experienced to be commander in chief,then it is fair to examine that claim.
June 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this and I think the response to Clark is disingenous, but I will add that Clark was inartful. This is one of those situations that remind me that Clark, as much as I like him, is not a good politician. He let Bob Schieffer (Bob f'n Schieffer!) bait him into a tidy, self-contained soundbyte that puts his argument in the worst light possible. It was a blunder, and Clark needs to keep in mind that this argument has to be made by pointing out negatives, not denigrating positives.
The correct answer to Schieffer's question was:
"I respect and honor Senator McCain's service as a pilot, but I'm talking about executive experience and military command experience. The plain fact of the matter is that he has none and his claims to the contrary are exaggerations."
Again, point out what he lacks, don't belittle what he has.
June 30, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Savvy! Like your way of thinking.
I saw Morning Joe this a.m. when Mika and others were going "tut - tut - tut" over Clark's poor taste, rudeness, whatever. Yet when he'd said essentially the same thing TO Mika on Morning Joe a while ago, it was not offisive in fact, was not noted as offensive by her, and didn't make a wave. (Except here on TPM where a few of us thought he'd done a fine job.)
It IS a valid point to make and Clark is a good one to make it. Haven't yet seen Face the Nation. Was his wording that brusque? that different from the first time he made these comments?
The things I wonder about (but will probably never know):
---- Was Clark asked by the campaign to act as Obama's surrogate on FTN? (If so, they had to know that he'd be making the argument, if not in what precise fashion.) (I'd love to see a YouTube of Clark on Morning Joe and then on FTN - was it so different?)
---- Did Obama speak with Clark before that "rejecting" statement went out from the campaign today?
Both unimportant in the grand scheme, I suppose, but things I wonder about.
June 30, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting Shot down in your War Plane qualifies one to be President of the USA, just like being in a head on car collision qualifies one to be Secretary of Transportation.
June 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we still trying to win this election? WTF Obama?! Grow a pair!!
June 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just Obama. They're responding to attack, but the responses are getting muted by the same media sources that are willing to reverberate the attacks against him.
I'm pretty sure that the pundits are actively trying to make a point that "a civil campaign is a boring campaign". Boring doesn't sell, so either do something interesting, or get to the dirt. Since McCain is both down and disorganized, he's the one lobbing the bulk of the attacks. The media, which has already heavily invested in their McCain narrative as it is, is more than willing to give air time to his attacks as it's something to report.
Obama's got to recognize these dynamics (which I'm sure they have) and come up with an effective strategy to not just answer attacks, but do it in a way that forces the response to get as much press as the attack, and to no be afraid to lob their share of legitimate attacks. Hell, last week, we heard "Tan Kerry" "countryclub womanizer" and "fake Christian" in the span of 72 hours. It's time to see a bit of righteous indignation on the part of Obama to keep the refs honest.
June 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's exasperating to see how the media is unwilling to allow McCain to be vetted. It's a disservice to American voters.
June 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is with the media who will take up the wingnut egregious misinterpretation of what Clark said.
This is their history; the right wing makes spurious charges, offers warped interpretations of what their political opposites say or do, and the mainstream media picks them up and runs with them. Watch Wolf Blitzer on CNN tonight and you will see what to expect. I caught it at 6:00am today on MSNBC. Clark attacks McCain's military service.
One way to handle this BS by people like Schieffer is for Clark to go after Scheifer while there on national TV and force him to explain why being a POW or pilot qualifies McCain to be President. It doesn't. This is what all Dems should do on TV when confronted by the BS they're asked about.
Then too, its up to the Blogs to go after the reporters and TV hosts who act as stenographers for right wing crazies and their BS, and go after them by name.
Oh, by the way Bob; I'm a WWII vet, parachute infantry, ETO....Hm, I may run for President.
June 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. If this does not change it is extremely damaging to our candidate.
June 30, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It works both ways. Trent Lott slapped Strom Thurmond on the back at his 100th birthday party and said too bad you didn't win when you ran for president and the left turned that into a call for segragation and a resurgence of the klan and tried to run him out of office. Both side will twist what they can into an advantage.
June 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is for you Sarge:
A whole Lott of Race Baitin' Goin' On.(With apologies to The Killer)
O he wished he were in a Strom led land,
Where non-white rights were forever banned;
Lynch Away, Lynch Away, Lynch Away,
Dixiecrat.
June 30, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's a perfect example.
June 30, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time for you to learn your history. Strom Thurmond ran as a Racist Dixiecrat, and Trent Lott said that the country would have been a lot better off if Strom had become President. What part of that do you not understand, or is it the fact that you understand it all to well, and you actually agreed with Trent.
June 30, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain: he puts the 'crotch' in 'crotchety'.
June 30, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are we all excited that McCain picked a swiftboater as his defender? The truth is General Wes Clark's comment was totally accurate. Being a fighter-bomber pilot doesn't qualify anybody to be President. I guess by distracting us with the bright shiny swiftboater the McCain campaign is moving our attention from the message to the messenger.
June 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point. What Clark said was true. It wasn't a character attack, although that's what it's being turned into. It was a true statement that being shot down doesn't qualify you to become President.
Meanwhile, Day was trafficking in lies. Spurious and character debasing falsehoods. So to put a Swiftboater out there to defend the honor of a veteran is hypocrisy to it's fullest.
I know that they did it on purpose with the intent that this would reintroduce the term Swiftboating to the campaign where they could use it for themselves, but they're playing with fire. Obama needs to make them pay for what they did to Kerry, and not just smugly try to reap the befits of public sympathy 4 years after shamelessly smearing a Vietnam veteran for political gain.
June 30, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking back at this comment, I thought I should clarify. It's McCain who's attempting to sit back smugly and reap sympathy votes off of John Kerry getting ripped and Swiftboated by the same people that McCain currently has working for him. That cannot be allowed.
They way my original comment read, it wasn't real clear whether I mean it was McCain or Obama who was smug. Definitely McCain, although I'd implore Obama to not take a back seat on framing this issue. It could become poison.
June 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama rejects Clark statement.
Rightwing:1
Democrats:0
June 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me; or do the tenor of the Obama camp's responses seem to have become more wimpy since acquiring some of Hillary's personnel? General Clark said absolutely nothing wrong. The American people respond well to a man who stands up for the truth, and those who speak it on his behalf. I am also not in favor of Senator Obama caving on the FISA bill. I sure hope he's not taking advice from people who just lost the election to him. The Republicans are just waiting to define him as an expedient politician.
June 30, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
do the tenor of the Obama camp's responses seem to have become more wimpy since acquiring some of Hillary's personnel?
No. It's Obama's (misguided) rationale that moving to the "center" will help him win.
June 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it's not. It's the media playing a little game, and trying to keep things competitive while McCain's floundering around to set up a legitimate campaign. You haven't heard a policy position from McCain since he inadvertently admitted that drilling would only have a "psychological" impact on gas prices.
Since then, it's been all McCain surrogates attacking all the time. It's a mini-kitchensink to distract from what was a couple bad stumbles by both Black and McCain. Obama has to break through this now, because he can't afford to be drowned out when the real kitchensink drops in October.
It has nothing to do with moving to the center, which as much as it might pain you is necessary. However it is up to them to make sure that this doesn't happen at key times during this campaign, or else, they'll lose no matter how many new states are potentially in play.
June 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please be more careful in your word selection. You wrote, "Yet now the McCain campaign is cheerfully enlisting someone who did what McCain claimed to decry -- attacks on Kerry's credentials -- and using him to defend McCain against the same sort of attacks."
THIS IS FALSE!!! Wes Clark's statement was not an attack on McCain's service record. It is not even in the same ballpark as the lying smear tactics of the Swiftboat Liars for Bush. Clark did not question McCain's war record. He merely said getting shot down was not a qualification for the presidency. That shold be abundantly commonsensical if we lived in a healthy non-authoritarian society, but since 9/11, we have adopted the attitudes that leaders know best, that military experience breeds wisdom and that questioning those we like is dangerous.
where has America gone that the simple common sense statement that getting shot down does not equal presidential wisdom and experience is suddenly controversial.
June 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Clark is doing is terrific. In a way that I think is absolutely accurate and valid, he is applying the Rove-tested principle of campaigning: Go after the opponents STRENGTH. The weaknesses are typically fairly obvious and illustrated in many ways. If you can damage the opponents STRENGTH then you're getting into mortal blow territory. Remember John Kerry, remember John Kerry.
In contrast to the swiftboaters, General Clark is being respectfully critical.
McCain has been getting a free ride, as we all know. The media is not going to stop doing that unless they are forced to. He's played up his POW experience for years, while being, as is documented, both an achievement-less Senator, and a Senator mixed up in various scandals. The POW thing keeps him afloat. If we go around tip-toeing about it and considering it taboo, we are playing into his hands.
Getting shot down does not qualify a person to be President. Every Democrat across the land should be saying that, over and over. That's how concepts BECOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM. Once they become conventional wisdom, the media will pick it up and repeat it ad nauseum.
Those of you who feel fearful of making this point, what conventional wisdom about McCain would you prefer?
June 30, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what Clark actually said. It's the PERCEPTION of what he said that's important. The Rightwingers are master of spreading perception deception and when the Dems then buy into the false perception (as Obama just did by "rejecting" Clark's statements) it's just the icing on the cake for them. Mission complete.
June 30, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad I didn't bother watching the Sunday gasbag shows. The TPM rundown is good enough for me. Between Bob Schaeffer saying Barack Obama is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama and Wesley Clark making the case that the only living Americans qualified to be president are apparently George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton it's enough to make you throw up.
The Republicans are desperate to keep McCain's hair trigger temper and foul mouth under wraps. Was that borne of 7 years in captivity in North Vietnam? That's Karl Rove put out there in 2000. That's what this all about.
The fact is flying jets for the Navy isn't a sign of character, brains or judgment. Ask the tailhook clowns or Duke Cunningham. Christ, the Duke is so stupid I'm surprised the Navy let him pilot a mop let alone a F-4 Phantom.
June 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on -- where is the mainstream media on this appalling bit of hypocrisy?
June 30, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't all those pilots who managed to not get shot down have a far stronger case for competence that John McCain. Once he got shot down, the other pilots had to carry the extra load.
June 30, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for the MSM to stop kissing McCain's wrinkly ass. Gen. Clark was right on the mark.
June 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any reason why General Clark should not be on Senator Obama's short list for vice president? He's obviously intelligent and articulate. You do not earned four stars, without proven executive ability. He remained quite poised in face of Bob Schleifer's incredulity of his inability to genuflect in front of St. John McCain's ability to walk away from five airplane crashes. It appears that he would lend gravitas to the perceived callowness of the Democratic slate.
That being said, I have to admit that I know very little else about the man. Am I missing something here? What was his class rank at West Point (I only assume he went there because he carried four stars on his shoulder)?
June 30, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
From personal experience, McCain knows:
Torture Works, because he told the VC everything he knew
-OR-
Torture Doesn't Work, but he's willing to base America's security on it.
Either way, he's proven he shouldn't be president.
There, wasn't that easy? Next.
June 30, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: How does being a bad pilot make someone a good president?
June 30, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting... according to the swiftboater, McCain showed courage by not accepting an early release. Isn't this technically a form of desertion and treason to not escape the enemy and repatriate?
June 30, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking as a veteran, no. I'm sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
Not to defend the Swiftboater, but we're better off if attacks against McCain are based in legitimacy. Clark's attacks were legitimate, and look what the talking heads are doing to it.
Stay away from the spurious attacks, please.
June 30, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. There was an agreement among the Vietnam POWs that they should be repatriated in the same order that they were captured (this may have been the official US military policy, but I'm not sure about that).
McCain was offered an early release because he was the son of an admiral and the North Vietnamese thought they could get some sort of edge by releasing him early. McCain did the honorable thing be refusing the early release.
June 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUD DAY: "I'm shocked, shockedto find that Swiftboating is going on in the 2008 Presidential campaign."
LOBBYIST: (sotto voce) "Mr. Day, your residual payments from 2004." (hands him envelope)
BUD DAY: "Oh, thank you." (puts envelope in pocket)
June 30, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to the comments?
July 7, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink