Obama voiced dissatisfaction with the current format of the debate, claiming that the moderator focused on trivial issues for far too long. He had a valid point: In the most recent outing, the moderator claimed that the economy was the number one issue on peoples’ minds, yet didn’t frame a question about it until nearly an hour in.
Here’s the thing: Never identify a problem without posing a solution. Obama made the mistake of doing just that, and Clinton–hewing to her claim of being a problem solver–immediately presented one. She suggested a free-form, no-moderator debate, similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Obama turned down the notion in short order. No surprise there: A front-runner, generally speaking, has nothing to gain from a debate and everything to lose. Unfortunately, it brings a truth into focus: There’s going to be any number of times when a world leader is in a challenging face-to-face and there’s no play book to follow. Obama puts forward the notion that he can win over ferocious opponents of the United States or bridge the gap between parties with his oratory and personal charm, but he balks at facing Clinton in a free-for-all?
Interestingly, the “West Wing” comparisons continue. In the seventh season debate episode, Santos faced Vinick in a debate and that time it was Vinick who suggested that debate rules be tossed aside. In that situation, Santos took him up on it. He welcomed it. As Obama should have.
PAD
• 
Respectfully, I must disagree, PAD. His complaint, if I’m not mistaken was: “After 20+ debates, these are the questions you’re going to ask us? Flag pins?” So, I think Obama wasn’t yelling for better debates in the future, it was more a critique of the process and asking newspeople to get their act together.
I am for Obama, but I am NOT anti-Clinton. It seems it’s like a Yankees vs Mets or Pacino vs DeNiro debate; you can only like one. But I don’t feel that way. For me, no more debates. My mind’s set. I’d rather hear what they have to say on issues opposed to hearing them throw mud at each other.
The West Wing was a liberal fantasy, to use it as an example of anything other than that is silly, PAD, I thought everyone understood that.
For the record, if the Clinton’s get their way in this, and she wins, McCain will be president.
Either way, this is their last pathetic gasp, and it’s fun to watch them self immolate.
I think it’s very likely that Hillary will be remembered as the one who lost the 2008 election. Even if she isn’t the candidate, she’ll be the one that split the Democratic party even after she had no real chance of winning the nomination.
Not that it is entirely her fault. The politicians in Florida and Michigan (some of them being Republicans) have done a masterful job of shifting the blame to the DNC. The incredible bit is when they say that the DNC better recognize their delegates, because no candidate can win without those states in November. Think about that threat for a minute. They’re saying that because their votes didn’t count in the primary, they *refuse* to vote in the fall. So after not getting a vote they get revenge by… not voting! It’s like they’re so pìššëd that the doctor didn’t keep them from getting diabetes that they’re going to switch to an all-sugar diet.
Michigan and Florida state politicians are actually telling their people to be disenfranchised. That’s a great way to keep the voters from noticing that it was their state governments’ faults that this happened. Too bad it’s working.
Obama refuses to debate Clinton because deep down he knows she’ll win. The Wright controveries (you know, G-D America, and his support for Hamas and Louis Farrakhan), Obama lying that he never knew Wright to preach anything controversial (later recounting that fact), and the fact that he has not specified what ‘change’ he intends to bring to Washington (the exception being when he says he and Clinton are not dissimilar in approach to issues) have damaged Obama considerably, and he has no clear answer, just more PC B.S. spin. Do we need another untested man in the White House? We’ve been there, done that with Bush and look where we are now. I am for another debate or two. Great television and a true test of character for potential candidates. Anyone else sick to dámņ death of the word ‘change’ yet?
With regard to the late Madeline Kara Neumann, about whom you posted in March:
The parents have been indicted for 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide.
If convicted, they face up to 25 years in state prison.
Posted by Sasha:
Have you guys checked out Obama’s website? There is a copious amount of substance and policy to be found there.
No one ever checks out the website.
I remember I had a discussion I had back in ’04 about the election, and my Republican friend, among many, many other talking-points, said that Kerry “didn’t have a plan,” but Bush did. I asked him what it was. He said he didn’t know, but was confident it existed.
There’s the thing. Plans, proposals, experience… somehow, their actual existence has no bearing one whether they’re perceived to exist. That’s how Bush could’ve had economic policies that literally didn’t add up, but it was Gore who was using “fuzzy math.” That’s how Barack Obama can have four years more experience in elected office than Hillary Clinton, but is the green political newbie. That’s how she can get away with saying that all he offers are empty words when he’s got a website full of proposals, two books, and a healthy chunk of advisors that include several experts that worked for her husband.
Obama refuses to debate Clinton because deep down he knows she’ll win.
Obama has won debates against Hillary so I wouldn’t automatically assume that.
The Wright controveries (you know, G-D America, and his support for Hamas and Louis Farrakhan), Obama lying that he never knew Wright to preach anything controversial (later recounting that fact), and the fact that he has not specified what ‘change’ he intends to bring to Washington (the exception being when he says he and Clinton are not dissimilar in approach to issues) have damaged Obama considerably, and he has no clear answer, just more PC B.S. spin.
The Wright flap is much ado about nothing IMHO. How much or little it will hurt him has yet to be determined. (I’m guessing not too much.) The change hoped for is as much one of attitude which would be a welcome relief to the silliness currently on display in DC. And the amount of B.S. spin the Clinton campaign currently plays to argue that they really winning could fill several election cycles to bursting.
Do we need another untested man in the White House? We’ve been there, done that with Bush and look where we are now.
You prefer an untested woman? Hillary doesn’t have much real experience either and would get trounced by old timer McCain on that score.
And Obama isn’t Bush. There are clear and pronounced differences between the two — not the least of which seems to be higher brain functions.
I am for another debate or two. Great television and a true test of character for potential candidates.
I wouldn’t mind more debates, but I must confess to being sick of them right now — especially after the bûllšhìŧ “debate” from ABC. Perhaps after the May 6 primaries.
Anyone else sick to dámņ death of the word ‘change’ yet?
No.
Two of Obama’s other caucus wins came in states which went to the GOP in 2004 (Colorado and Iowa, 16 combined Electoral Votes)
Both are pretty much “blue states” right now: they have Democrats in the governor’s office and Democrats controlling the state Congress.
Sasha, I thought the Wright flap was winding down as well but Wright himself seems to be determined to keep it going…I doubt that Obama is thrilled with the way his Wright is “helping”.
Then again, maybe he can take advantage of it–explicitly denounce some of the worst things coming out of Wright’s mouth (his not terribly scientific explanation of Black vs White brain differences would be a good place to start.)
I think withholding your vote for Obama’s association with Wright is fine as long as you are consistent and withhold your vote from McCain for his association with Ðìçk Cheney. In between Bush administrations, Ðìçk Cheney took $73M from Saddam Hussein for quadrupling his oil revenues. McCain is staffing his campaign with Bush/Cheney 2004 staffers, and he was the candidate going into Iowa Bush & Cheney’s secrets are safest with.
Even if the tie is more convolution, the proportional outrage you’ve demonstrated for Obama’s association with Wright, for the candidate as closely associated to Cheney as McCain, is one that would have one institutionally committed.
Susan saID: 00″Yes, Hillary can come across as a bully (and I won’t dispute she’s a natural ***ch), but I think she needs to. ”
That’s fine…except as soon as anyone takes so much as a harsh tone about her, she has her stooge Ferraro come out and claim misogeny. Or she’ll go on an interview and start crying about how rough it’s been.
“Sasha, I thought the Wright flap was winding down as well but Wright himself seems to be determined to keep it going…”
He has a book to sell. He’s in it for himself now.
Obama is going to implode by election day. He was very much an empty suit with charisma on his best days and the more he has the chance to stick his foot in his mouth and make missteps the worse it’ll get for him. By January of next year, we’ll all be bemoaning the state of the nation as we watch the swearing in of President John McCain.
The Lincoln-Douglas wasn’t so much a debate as each candidate making really long speeches at each other and the audience. The only part that made it a debate of any sort was that there was a certain time alotted for speech one, speech two (slightly longer), and then rebuttal (very short, comparatively). Not a question-and-answer session. Does Clinton really want to get into a speechifying contest with Obama? That’s a losing game for her…
Of course, this presumes that she knows how those “debates” went in the first place. I’m betting she’s just using an half-assed historical allusion and hoping everyone else knows as little about it as she seems to.
How much of a challenge could this present to Obama when audiences asking Wright if he’s a patriot or if he hates America are applauding his responses for 30 seconds at a time?
The guy graduated first in his class of Vietnam-era marines — which of course republicans spin at their discretion as a disqualification for any executive responsibility. He was a medic for LBJ. He’s not a Rev Al, making a career of being the angry black guy who doesn’t get shot. He seems like good people.
Well, he’s not a scientist, and if Obama is asked, he can simply say so. Baseball fans seem to take George Carlin’s baseball vs football without needing to point out he has no sports journalism background.
Just Because I think this needs to be repeated…
Obama: Had a bad angry black pastor.
Clinton: Voted and supported the worst screw up in U.S. foreign policy since Vietnam. Oh, and she’s already embellished a foreign visit into dodging sniper fire.
Excuse me if I laugh boldly in the face of anyone who brings up this Wright crap like it’s a big deal. It’s not. especially if you want to go digging up skeletons.
“Of course, this presumes that she knows how those “debates” went in the first place. I’m betting she’s just using an half-assed historical allusion and hoping everyone else knows as little about it as she seems to.”
Pretty much. What Clinton is suggesting bares very little resemblance to the LD debates. The only significant commonality is the lack of moderators.
Hillary suggested that they take turns asking each other questions. Each response gets 2 minutes. The next question can be a new topic or a follow up to the last one, so they can talk about one subject for 6 minutes or 60 if they like. Overall, I like the idea of it. Maybe someday.
I’m really hoping that by 2012 the Daily Show will have enough clout that they’ll be able to host a debate. I can just imagine how they would have handled a Clinton/Obama match if they’d gotten the chance.
Question 1: Senator Obama, why are you so awesome?
Question 2: Senator Clinton, exactly how do the tears of orphans taste?
Question 3: Senator Obama, you recently disputed the usefulness of the proposed gas tax holiday. you said that the tax provided necessary funds for road maintenance, yet the suspension of those taxes would provide minimal relief to motorists. However, Senator Clinton suggests making up the deficit with a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies. So my question to you is, why you gotta be all çøçk blockin’ the American people at the pump when we’re tryin’ to get our fill-up on?
Nivek, it doesn’t matter if it isn’t the most important issue as long as it’s an issue that voters care about. And I think a lot of them do. Not the Obama supporters but they are only a bare majority of the Democrats, which is not a number you can win with.
I disagree with jerry and a number of other people who think that the Wright issue gives us much insight into Obama’s mind. Nothing I’ve seen from Obama would make me think that he shares Wright’s kooky theories. So far Obama has tried hard not to be too tough on the guy, out of respect for what he has meant to him, which I think is a very decent thing to do and contrasts nicely with the Clinton MO of thowing friends overboard when they outlive their usefulness. But then again, the Clintons have been successful in part because of their ruthlessness. Obama is trying hard not to hurt an old friend but as it now begins to appear that Wright is determined to undermine him with ever increasing displays of ugliness that may be out of his hands.
The good news, from perusing both the right and left blogosphere today, is that I don’t think he will pay a very high price for Sister Souljaing Wright, if he chooses to.
Joe Klein–…Wright’s purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself–the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton–and destroy Barack Obama.
marc Ambinder–…Wright is not content for the world to see him as a surrogate for Barack Obama, whom he regularly and repeatedly minimizes as a “politician.” A paradox: when Wright’s sermons first saw the bandwith of air on ABC News and elsewhere, Obama allies and Wright supporters begged reporters to broadcast and publish the full sermons and to provide relevant context. Well, now the cable networks are content to let Wright talk for as long as he desires; CNN seemed to jettison their entire schedule last night in order to broadcast Wright’s entire speech to the NAACP. Everyone wanted Wright’s full context: now they have him.
Dana Milbank–The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, explaining this morning why he had waited so long before breaking his silence about his incendiary sermons, offered a paraphrase from Proverbs: “It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
Barack Obama’s pastor would have been wise to continue to heed that wisdom.
Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro at MSNBC–At this point, no matter one’s political inexperience, Wright has to know he’s not helping his friend; his decision to go public and defend his reputation at this point in the campaign is doing nothing to help Obama, if anything, it’s leading some to believe he’s actually trying to sabotage him. He’s hurting him and hurting him very badly. Frankly, it’s as selfish of a move as we’ve seen in some time.
Eric Deggans–His dismissive attitude toward the moderator’s questions — which basically articulate the concerns many white voters have about Wright’s public statements and positions — are playing well in the room, but will likely stoke anger among the assembled press and probably among some white viewers.
The Today Show this morning featured a clip from Sunday’s speech where Wright took aim at John F. Kennedy’s accent (he was noting that people rarely criticize the way the Kennedys mangle English the way some black people do). But I think his more controversial comments came when he maintained the black people learn differently than white people because of the way their brains work — something a lot of people, black and white, will find more objectionable.
…Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama’s pro-black pastor was the one who kept Democrats from presenting the party’s first black nominee for president?
I’ll give Wright one bit of credit–his cowardly refusal to directly answer the question on his statement about AIDS being a USA created plot introduced me to the work of Leonard G. Horowitz who may now have set a new standard for me on pseudo-science nuttiness. Check out his webpage–this guy is a creationist/anti-vaccine/Da Vinci Code/harmonic healing…oh there’s just so much. Wright apparently eats this stuff up with a spoon. Barnum was right.
Obama had a brief press conferance today where he again distanced himself from Wright and emphasized the “former” in “former pastor” (and I wish the media would keep that in mind). I don’t think that will be enough. If Wright isn’t deliberately trying to hurt Obama’s chances he’s doing a great impersonation of what that would look like.
Mike: Do we need another untested man in the White House? We’ve been there, done that with Bush and look where we are now.
Luigi Novi: We didn’t get where we are now simply because Bush is “untested”. We got where we are now because Bush is a completely unqualified person with no leadership abilities, lacks any intellectual curiosity, is a right-wing religious zealot who opposes science that doesn’t dovetail with his ideologies, is a crony-monger who places similarly unqualified persons in important positions of power, has no understanding of foreign policy or history, fought a war for reasons that had nothing to do with the alleged provocation for it, doesn’t care about how many of his citizens die in that bungled war, and is incapable of admitting that he’s wrong on any matter of profound importance.
I think it requires one to ignore any level of detail to say that everything in the past seven years happened simply because Bush was merely “untested”, and that by extension, an Obama presidency could possibly be anywhere near disastrous.
Luigi Novi – We didn’t get where we are now simply because Bush is “untested”. We got where we are now because Bush…
You know, I think it’s more a matter of we got where we are because after 9/11 the administration was able to play to the American public’s fears about security and the possibility of more instances of terrorism occuring within the borders of the US.
That and the fact that during the entire 8 years of his presidency, no one from either side of the aisle has been able to muster the strength of will and consensus to stand up the wrongheaded decisions of the current administration.
There’s an old saw I can’t quite recall about, ‘getting the government one deserves.’
Posted by ElCoyote at April 28, 2008 02:18 PM
“The West Wing was a liberal fantasy, to use it as an example of anything other than that is silly, PAD, I thought everyone understood that”
Try telling that to Obama’s VP Candidate 🙂
BTW, who are the VP candidates?
Cheers.
There aren’t any yet. There probably won’t be until the conventions.
I guess I have to ask: Would questions about personal lives be out of bounds? In otehr words, does Hillary get to spend her time asking Rev. Wright questions while Obama only askes quetions about issues?
Peter, I have to disagree with you, after 20 some odd debates, we don’t need another one. We know where they stand and it’s clear that Hillary prefers the debate formate because she can use it to tear him down. Obama has tried to be civil, but this is wearing him down.
Also about the gas tax holiday, it’s up to CONGRESS to pass and make taxes, not the president. Obama already knows that he would get booged down by the lobbiests on capital hill if he tried that! We need to get off oil and gas for good, not create stop-gap messures.
Obama is going to implode by election day. He was very much an empty suit with charisma on his best days and the more he has the chance to stick his foot in his mouth and make missteps the worse it’ll get for him. By January of next year, we’ll all be bemoaning the state of the nation as we watch the swearing in of President John McCain.
I never got the impression of Obama being an empty suit. Why do you feel that he is?
And don’t forget that McCain has just as much time to shoot himself in the foot as well.
As the reviews for Wright pour in–and many on the left and right agree he has hurt Obama, maybe badly–one begns to wonder if that was his goal all along.
Now, someone has actually speculated on something I hadn’t considered–could Hillary or at least her supporters be behind his sudden media tour (Jerry, as far as I know he doesn’t have new book out.)
check out http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn’t have done more damage to Barack Obama’s campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that’s just what one friend of Wright wanted.
…I don’t know if Reynolds’ eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton – my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren’t returned yesterday – but it’s safe to say she didn’t see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.
If Hillary is behind this, wow. Still, Obama can emerge from this stronger than ever…if he is willing to make the hard choice. If he waits things will either get better or get worse and if they get worse he will have to disavow Wright and still not get any credit for it–worst of both worlds.
Screwed up the formatting–all of the following are the words of Errol Louis:
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn’t have done more damage to Barack Obama’s campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that’s just what one friend of Wright wanted.
…I don’t know if Reynolds’ eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton – my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren’t returned yesterday – but it’s safe to say she didn’t see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton.
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question.
BTW, who are the VP candidates?
Just rumors…
For Clinton: Evan Bayh.
For Obama: Kathleen Sebelius.
And don’t forget that McCain has just as much time to shoot himself in the foot as well.
I wish he’d hurry up and do so.
And don’t forget that McCain has just as much time to shoot himself in the foot as well.
I wish he’d hurry up and do so.
He has, actually. Fortunately for him, the media keep jumping in front of the bullet and saving him.
Bill,
It’s not out yet and I don’t believe it’s from a mainstream publisher. He’s plugged it in a couple of speeches in the last week or so (I heard him mention it during part of the taped Detroit NAACP dinner speech he gave a few days ago) and I’ve seen mention of it by columnists on Huffington and whatnot.
Ah, you’re right Jerry. Just found that out.
And kudos to Obama for denouncing Wright today. He’s much, much smarter than some of his supporters who tried to spin Wright’s comments as no big deal. Good for him.
This will probably make Wright very angry but it’s hard to imagine anyone of consequence caring. Any day you have both this clown and Sharpton mad at you is a good day to feel proud about yourself.
I see a lot of people (not just here) lately asking “Why won’t Hillary concede, so we can focus on campaigning against McCain?”
Um. Maybe because there are still enough delegates in play in the remaining states for her to conceivably win the nomination? If she’s not mathematically eliminated yet, why should she quit? We don’t tell the team that’s down 7-5 in the last inning of the fourth game of the World Series that they should just forfeit and let the other side have the championship, do we? Do we tell the guy running second in the Daytona 500 with three laps to go that he should be happy with second and just let the leader win?
Now, if the DNC would agree to accept the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries, and those results gave one or the other of them an insurmountable lead, that would be another thing…and I did write to the DNC and point out that, after the 2000 debacle, perhaps the Democratic Party disenfranchising Florida Democrats itself wasn’t the smartest move they could have made.
Oh, and I voted for Obama in the Maryland primary. Just so it’s clear I’m not in the “It must be Hillary!” camp.
Um. Maybe because there are still enough delegates in play in the remaining states for her to conceivably win the nomination? If she’s not mathematically eliminated yet, why should she quit? We don’t tell the team that’s down 7-5 in the last inning of the fourth game of the World Series that they should just forfeit and let the other side have the championship, do we? Do we tell the guy running second in the Daytona 500 with three laps to go that he should be happy with second and just let the leader win?
True, but if the frontrunner is so far ahead that the only realistically way for #2 to win is to hope that the guy up front suddenly drops dead from a congenital heart defect, there’s merit to the argument.
Mathematically, unless Clinton manages to win every other primary by huge margins, she’s not going to win either the pledged delegate or popular vote count. (Admittedly, nor will Obama, but being ahead in every other category suggests that he should receive the superdelegates’ blessing.)
Personally, I think Clinton and Obama should complete the primary cycle and the superdelegates should make their intentions known in June, preventing a convention floor çlûšŧërfûçk.
Now, if the DNC would agree to accept the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries, and those results gave one or the other of them an insurmountable lead, that would be another thing…and I did write to the DNC and point out that, after the 2000 debacle, perhaps the Democratic Party disenfranchising Florida Democrats itself wasn’t the smartest move they could have made.
Both the FL and MI Democratic parties knew what they were doing and were warned well ahead of time what would happen if they broke the rules. They did it anyway. If the state parties knew the primary would turn out to be a squeeker election, they wouldn’t have tried to push their primary sooner. They didn’t and it’s disingenous to plead out now. Seating the FL/MI delegates as-is with full voting privileges is unacceptable.
And for the record, I’m one of those “disenfranchised” voters.
Hillary staying in the race would be no problem if the race was staying positive. If both Democratic candidates would spend their time talking about issues and arguing against the Republican opponent, then the extra media attention from the race would be a benefit instead of a detriment.
But they aren’t. That’s why people think Hillary should drop out. Yes, there is a mathematical possibility that she could win. The possibility that this competition is hurting her own party is much greater. The possibility that she is hurting her own career gets a little stronger with every attack on Obama.
So even though Hillary has the right to stay in the race, other people have the right to ask her to leave.
I make it a rule to reserve my vote for the smarter candidate. I see only disadvantages in doing otherwise.
Maybe I missed it, but no one has apparently mentioned exactly what the Lincoln-Douglass debates of 1858 were like. It wasn’t a free-for-all with 2 debaters going back and forth, 5 minutes for one, 3 minutes to reply, etc. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were extremely well organized and precise.
In their first debate, Douglas spoke for an hour, then Lincoln responded for 90 minutes, then Douglas finished up with a 30 minutes response. In the second debate it was reversed with Lincoln beginning, in the third debate it was Douglas that began, and so on for 7 total debates. That was it.
Douglas was the frontrunner going into these debates. Hence the reason he began the first one. So if she wants that type of debate, she’s going to have to allow Obama to lead with an hour and the end with 30 minutes. Douglas also won. So I don’t think that’s the kind of debate Clinton really wants.
More info here if you’re curious: http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debates.htm
“Douglas also won. So I don’t think that’s the kind of debate Clinton really wants.”
Actually, Douglas won, but Lincoln got more votes. That’s *exactly* the kind of results that Clinton wants!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=162953&title=allen-guelzo
That would probably have been clearer if I’d written, “Douglas won *even though* Lincoln got more votes.”
“True, but if the frontrunner is so far ahead that the only realistically way for #2 to win is to hope that the guy up front suddenly drops dead from a congenital heart defect, there’s merit to the argument.”
Stephen Bradbury, Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olypmics, Men’s Short Track 1000 mtr race.
“Stephen Bradbury, Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olypmics, Men’s Short Track 1000 mtr race.”
Yeah, but he used up all the available luck for the rest of the century.
Posted by Kevin at April 29, 2008 10:09 AM
“BTW, who are the VP candidates?
Just rumors…
For Clinton: Evan Bayh.
For Obama: Kathleen Sebelius.”
Evan Bayh? As in E. Bayh?
Hëll’s teeth, there’s a man who deserves the sympathy vote if nothing else!
Cheers.
“Bayh” is pronounced “bye,” not “bay.”
As in:
” ‘Ee, by gum”…?
Posted by Paul1963 at April 30, 2008 09:52 AM
“Bayh” is pronounced “bye,” not “bay.”
Yep. That’s what I’d tell people too! 🙂
“Fronkensteen.. it’s pronounced Fronkensteen!!”
Cheers!