The Commander In Chief Question

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:23:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

On a Media conference call, Clinton advisors were really touting the 3AM ad and arguing that it is working -- that voters are now focusing on the who is ready to be Commander in Chief question. One assumes they have polling that we do not.

In addition, they hammered the NAFTA question and the Obama advisor Goolsbee meeting with the Canadian consulate in Chicago. Howard Wolfson referred to it as NAFTA-Gate. In essence, Wolfson accused the Obama campaign of saying one thing in public in Ohio and something differently in private. Wolfson also stressed the dissembling from the Obama camp on the meeting. He pointed out that the Obama camp denied the meeting, then denied that even if there was a meeting, a discussion of NAFTA was denied. In essence, Wolfson is calling them dishonest. Me, I call them politicians and political operatives. That is what they ALL do.

MORE . . .

Wolfson tied this episode to the theme that Obama is a lot of talk but little action. His phrase "Obama's talk on NAFTA is nothing more than rhetoric."

Then throwing the kitchen sink at Obama, Wolfson goes after Obama on Rezko. This remains a non-issue in my opinion. Wolfson has a list of questions for Obama. Sorry, I think them irrelevant.

The call is ongoing and I will update with anything interesting.

Update [2008-3-3 11:28:25 by Big Tent Democrat]: Wolfson makes a point that might resonate - Obama not only had a fair playing field in Texas and Ohio, he has outspent Clinton by more than 2-1. Obama's not winning one or both of them would definitely be a warning sign.

Update [2008-3-3 11:41:31 by Big Tent Democrat]: Wolfson is asked about Richardson's statement. Wolfson responds "enormous respect for Gov Richardson" [I have ZERO respect for Gov. Richardson] but the race will continue despite Richardson admonition. Talks about not dismissing the voters in Pennsylvania and other states.

< SUSA: Clinton Widens Ohio Lead To 10 | The Last TV Ads >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Commander In Chief Question | 74 comments (74 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Of course ... (5.00 / 8) (#1)
by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST

Obama acting like "just another politician" undercuts one of the main themes of his campaign and a good part of his appeal.

: You are (none / 0) (#104)
by Andy08 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST

Exactly right; what makes him in my eyes a hypocrite. It is not whether they are all politicians it's about Obama basing the rationale for his campaign on the claim that he is
better and different and that that's why he will bring change. Once you see he is just anothe politician his whole raison d'etre is moot.

What's amazing is that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by NJDem on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST

the conference call with the nearly 30 officers for HRC didn't get more press (not that I'm surprised...) LINK

: Meh (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:38:30 AM EST

I did not think it post-worthy myself.

: It wasn't new (none / 0) (#106)
by catfish on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST

so maybe that's why it didn't make the "new"s. It was impressive though. Thought they might turn it into an ad but maybe not.

Gotta go (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST

But this is looking like a good day so far. Sounds like the Clinton camp has some confidence, which I haven't felt for a long time. Other bloggers have settled down a bit too. Something's in the air. Be back later today with my fingers crossed.

Sure, all politicians lie (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by dk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST

but not all politicians get caught.

I'm waiting for the left blogosphere to write about what a dumb move this was by the Obama campaign...oh wait, Obama rules. I almost forgot.

"30 flag officers" that is (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by NJDem on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:37:20 AM EST

and she should tout the fact that she was the only member of Congress personally asked by the Pentagon to spearhead it's committee to modernize it--let me see if I can find a link to be more clear.

List of Hypocrisies ? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Saul on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST

Any one got a list of Obama campaign rhetoric and examples of how he has not lived up to or broken his own beliefs that he preaches on. Like, when he says he does not take money from registered lobbyist is there an example that he has broken that rule maybe like splitting hairs on what a registered lobbyist is.

So I read this post (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Polkan on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:41:30 AM EST

again, this time replacing Obama with Clinton and Wolfson with Axelrod. Imagine the reaction that would generate... ("will say anything to win" perhaps??)...

Huffington Post today has a headline "Obama calls Clinton desperate". Buried in the same page: "Obama maybe called as a witness by Rezko's defense". Again, imagine it was Clinton.

If Obama invited me to their calls (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:42:16 AM EST

I would report on them.


If Obama invited me (none / 0) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST

pfft
dood
I wouldnt hold my breath.


They have never returned (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST

a single communication I have made to them ever.


if they did (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:48:43 AM EST

I am quite sure it would include a packet of kookaid.


Hahahahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST

They know that you do not have the 'fever'. More a liability that a plus, for sure.


Doubt that's you. . . (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:29 AM EST

I think Obama has a (healthy) disdain for the blogosphere as a whole.


: I dont think so (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST

I have been on other koolaid drinking blogs who said directly or otherwise that they were pretty much in daily contact with the campaign.
constantly reporting a "response" to some question or another.

Well, if you're not with them... (none / 0) (#42)
by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:59:46 AM EST

you know the rest.


The problem for Obama is... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:46:41 AM EST

Huffington Post today has a headline "Obama calls Clinton desperate".

Texans don't like to see a man who's just been shown to be a liar attack a lady with "desperate", even if that lady's Hillary Clinton.


The Obama camp always telegraphs its fears (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Jim J on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST

Whether it's the Hussein thing, the patriotism attacks, or the phone call ad, you can easily gauge what the Obama campaign thinks his vulnerabilities are by what they choose to scream "unfair" about.

Underneath the campaign's bravado is actually a lot of insecurity, I've discovered. I think most of Obama's supporters are banking on the media to successfully get him through the primaries.

They seem to realize, without quite saying as much, that fair scrutiny will spell the end of his candidacy.

And yet they want Hillary to bow out... (none / 0) (#84)
by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST

...for the good of the party?


: Obama's electoral victories have mostly (none / 0) (#95)
by jawbone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:20:23 PM EST

been achieved by the wiping out the competition (challenges to knock out his state senator competitors for first run) or the competition getting wiped out (two divorce judgements made public, one the Dem primary opponent and one the Rep candidate) before the voting.
So, I can see how wanting her to get out of the way would be the right thing for them.
Then again, would she be calling for the same thing were she leading?

Maybe (none / 0) (#87)
by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST

But we know for sure Hillary can't withstand any significant scrutiny....There is a reason more than half the country dislikes her....

She won't release her tax returns (from prior years, so no excuses); Bill has recently done deals with dictators and uranium miners, and has a very lucrative partnership with the ruler of Dubai of port fame....

If apears Hillary supporters want to get into the mud....If they are successful in pro-longing this campaign, then let the all the dirt fly....McCain wins...


outspent Clinton by more than 2-1 (5.00 / 3) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM EST

could I just ask why, when Florida is brought up, that no one points out that Obama was the only one to run ads there?
the only one to campaign there by running ads. and then saying it was the "ad buy" they could not control.
why is this never mentioned?

Tuesday will be a very interesting day (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Joike on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:49:08 AM EST

If Clinton wins Ohio by close to 10 points or more, she will certainly feel justified in continuing the race regardless of what happens in Texas.

Pennsylvania is the next big state and could produce a similar result to Ohio.

You just have to flat out ignore Zogby.

judging from the direction of the polls it looks like a repeat of Super Tuesday where Obama and Clinton each get to have a victory speech.

A lot in Ohio depends on how much impact the union endorsements and volunteers will help Obama.

I'm sure turnout will be off the charts. I hope the states have taken steps to prepare for it.

for the defense? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM EST

Well, that would be interesting! For those of you who say Rezko bought that land and made all of those donations because he was a good friend and didn't expect anything in return...well, now is Obama's time to defend that!

One of the reasons (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST

Why some of us might be less objective about what means something and what doesn't is that we've spent the last 18 years supporting someone who can't order a pizza without some pundit saying it means something, how divisive that pizza is, or some (I have to be nice) very passionate blogger saying she was pandering to the cheese lobby.

But not all of it is based on some irrational expectation of fairness.

To NJDem (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by pavaoh on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST

Here is a site that mentions the committee.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/1/211548/6377

Seeing the list of officers and listening to what they had to say about her did impress me. After years of hearing the military did not respect or like either of the Clintons, it was good to see that she had that respect.

: Please link properly (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:58:47 AM EST

Politicians (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by wasabi on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:58:58 AM EST

I am not suprised that the Obama camp has been caught in a lie regarding NAFTA. After all, he is a politician.
I am suprised that so many people seem to feel that he is something other than a politician.
Wierd.

I'd like to respond (none / 0) (#67)
by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:36:54 AM EST

This is a common meme, which borders on a strawman. My point is this: many Obama supporters think he is better than the average politician, not that he is perfect.

Let me give a few quick examples.

Richardson tells the story that during one of the nationally televised debates, Richardson didn't hear the question, and Obama whispered it to him, essentially bailing Richardson out. (Full story is here)
Many, perhaps most, Dem politicians, when attacked on stupid crap, like "lapel pins" start doing equally stupid defensive stuff, like going to flag factories, or making a big deal of saying the pledge of allegiance. Obama, instead, attacked the notion that patriotism can be defined by a flag lapel pin. He refused to get drawn into silliness, and tried to raise the level of discourse by bringing in a concept (patriotism) rather than silly actions (wearing a pin)
On the Obama web site it says, "I'm asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington, I'm asking you to believe in yours." He is trying to connect with the cynics who think that nothing can get done and/or at least reduce their cynicism. This is combined with an easiy accessible web site, and anyone can be up and running and finding volunteer opportunities within minutes. It's an empowering message combined with at least some degree of actual empowerment.

The above snippets are a refreshing change from the 2004 campaign. Does it mean he's perfect? No. Does it mean we all believe in kumbaya? No. Does it mean he's above all politicians? No. But it does mean he's trying to be better than most.

So, yeah, he does some politician stuff (like NAFTA) -- but it's a strawman to suggest that his followers believe he is perfect and immune to all political pressures.


: Nice try... (none / 0) (#108)
by Camorrista on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:46:45 PM EST

...many Obama supporters think he is better than the average politician, not that he is perfect...
This sounds reasonable enough, but it smells like just another device Obama admirers employ to prevent anybody from criticizing their man. The translation is: sure he's a pol, but he's a superior pol. And if you don't admit that, you're being untrue and unfair (and possibly you-know-what).
The point, which Obama admirers demonstrate over and over (even on this civilized blog) is that criticism of him, no matter how well-supported, no matter how mild, no matter where from, is always rebutted, often ferociously. It's never acknowledged. (Except as above....'Yeah, he does some politician stuff...', meaning, but it doesn't count when he does it.)
Pick an arena--his thin resume, his relationship with Rezko, his 'present' votes, his Iraq-funding votes, his health-insurance proposal, his exploitation of a black homophobe, his repeated invocation of GOP tropes, his use of 527s while denouncing them, his hedging on public-financing, his disingenuous willingness to encourage the most ugly media sexism against Clinton, his blatant hints to his supporters to not vote for her should she beat him--ask a skeptical question, and stand back to avoid the avalanche of patronizing explanations, feeble rationalizations, and, eventually, fiery accusations of old-style smearming, or (the last arrow in the quiver) racism.
No, his followers don't believe Obama's perfect; they just believe the rest of us should shut up and accept him for the great, eloquent, empowering (if imperfect) colossus that he is.

Wow (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by Jgarza on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST

now we get direct regurgitations of Clinton's conference calls. If only the press were this "fair."

Heh (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST

You don;t have to read my post if you don't want.

Some folks, I thought, would be interested in the Clinton spin.


: Understatement Of The Year (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST

Some folks, I thought, would be interested in the Clinton spin.
Hilarious

But we have been... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:06:23 AM EST

Getting pretty much the Obama campaign calls in the entire press. Isn't that enough? I mean this is just one site compared to the entire MSM...


: Balance (none / 0) (#55)
by Athena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST

A very necessary corrective.

Speculation by (2.00 / 1) (#39)
by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:58:44 AM EST

a legal commentator not connected to the case. It was not a statement by either the prosecution or defense. There is no suggestion that Obama is on anyone's witness list.....

This is just passing along meaningless gossip....

It is an interesting line of attack: Obama is almost as dishonest as Hillary....

Not almost as he's the same as. (none / 0) (#70)
by rebecca on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:39:24 AM EST

He's a politician the same as other politicians. Their is no transcending being done here. That's the point.

The Rezko affair is something to keep an eye on because the Republicans will not let this go in the GE. They will use this just as they did Whitewater back in the 90's. There could be no mention of this at all and the Republicans would bring it up. It's what they do. The big question isn't if they will bring it up it's whether Obama will retain his favored media status if he ends up being the one running against the long time media favorite McCain.


What a figleaf justification (none / 0) (#90)
by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST

We need to slime Obama first before the Republicans do it?


: What a figleaf (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by rebecca on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM EST

Do we have to slime Hillary first before the Republicans do? It's not as if the Obama side hasn't been doing way past their share of sliming.
Obama is a blank slate. The Republicans can and will write on it what they will. No matter what is said here the Republicans will take and make up whatever they want to slime our candidate. Rezko will be used in that even if no one on our side mentioned it. I'm not worried about blog stories and comments being used against our candidate. If Obama becomes that candidate the Republicans won't source TalkLeft they will source the Chicago papers that have been covering this story.

The NAFTA memo is dispiriting (none / 0) (#6)
by magster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST

not feeling too motivated to phone bank for Obama right now.

I do just want this nomination process to be over with, though.

why do want the nomination process over? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:35:45 AM EST

seriously. I dont get this. half the country has not voted yet.


Because the Republicans have finished voting (none / 0) (#16)
by cannondaddy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST

Limbaugh is going wall to wall urging people to vote for Hillary to keep this going.


good for Limpbaugh (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST

: He just wants to make it seem like he has influenc (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST

actually (none / 0) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:53:58 AM EST

I think this illustrates nothing but the rights morbid fear of democracy.
screw Limpbaugh. who cares what he says.


magster (none / 0) (#45)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:02:15 AM EST

you know that I support Clinton, but listen to BTD. Obama is a politician. If you were working for him because you thought he wasn't, then that's one thing, but this is just how the game is played. I would love it for you not to phone bank (did you know Terminator is on tonight???), but if this is the reason you are staying home, think about it again.


: I'll phone bank (none / 0) (#57)
by magster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM EST

and I'm not voting for Obama becuse of his claim of transcending politics. Still, when you're supporting someone who ends up doing something you're opposed to, it's dispiriting.

Please link properly (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:57:36 AM EST

Link to ABC Story (none / 0) (#44)
by Athena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:01:53 AM EST

Links (none / 0) (#46)
by Athena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM EST

Any tips on doing this right would be appreciated...


: There (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM EST

is a chain link icon just above the comment box.
Use that.

: Try This (none / 0) (#62)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST

Straight Shooters (none / 0) (#53)
by Sunshine on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM EST

If we end up with Obama as the nominee, we'll have 2 straight shooters going up against each other... Looks like both straight shooters have fired a few crooked shots....

Plot-Gate? (none / 0) (#54)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST

Wow you are really on to something there. Sounds big.

Maybe Jimmy Hoffa is buried there.

Looks like the next C in C (none / 0) (#58)
by tnthorpe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST

will have vastly expanded surveillance authority as the House prepares to cave yet again.

Greenwald

TPM on the imminent collapse, with links there to WaPo, CNN, LA Times

How about ads that argue for adherence to the Constitution by the C in C rather than soft focus kiddie-terror porn? Aww, but then that would mean the Dems actually stand for something.

: Has either one talked to Senate supporters (none / 0) (#100)
by jawbone on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST

to back them up on their stand against immunity for telcos (and BushCo, of course)??
We have their statements--what about their leadership of those notoriously difficult to lead senators, the ones endorsing them?

I question the source (none / 0) (#61)
by MKS on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:19:10 AM EST

MyDD is not exactly sympathetic to Obama--and the MyDD article does not link to anything to suggest that Obama is the one referred to in the indictment.....It is pure MyDD speculation.

It has been made clear that the Governor of Illinois was referred to in the indictiment.

For Hillary supporters to revel in harmful gossip is quite ironic....I thought you guys didn't like that stuff.....

: The Source Of MyDD Post Was The Times (none / 0) (#81)
by MO Blue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST

Here is the link to the original article and the link was very clearly available in their post. This was not something that My DD made up. Maybe you need to be more careful of accusing someone else of making stuff up.

ugh (none / 0) (#66)
by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM EST

Obama not only had a fair playing field in Texas and Ohio, he has outspent Clinton by more than 2-1. Obama's not winning one or both of them would definitely be a warning sign.

What a terrible argument. Did anyone follow up with a question about how Obama has closed gaps that were, just a couple of weeks ago, 15+%?

And would be the warning sign? That Clinton has lost huge leads in both states, and is now just hanging on?

Wouldn't that be a huge warning sign for the Clinton camp? That her leads are evaporating?

he has outspent (none / 0) (#72)
by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:41:07 AM EST

because he has out-collected.

Being able to raise a lot of money, particularly for a Democrat, and even more so that 99% of his money is from individual donors, over a million of them in 2 months, seems quite the opposite of a "warning sign"


and yet at the end of the day (none / 0) (#77)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST

all that will matter is who wins.


Absolutely. (none / 0) (#80)
by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:48:49 AM EST

The win matters.

But I think it is foolish spin from the Clinton camp to claim that if Obama doesn't win Ohio and TX, then that means there are serious warning signs.

Again - Obama has closed huge poll deficits. There has been about a 15% swing in each state over a period of two weeks. That is significant.

The Clinton camp would obviously like people to be unaware of those 15% swings.


: Just As I Understand (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST

why Obama folks get tired of listening to Clinton folks say why it doesn't matter that she lost State X, plesae try to understand why it's very tiring to constantly hear that it doesn't matter that Obama couldn't win the big states because he closed a huge gap and came really, really close. He presumably knows when the election will be held, so it doesn't really matter that he could overtake her next week.

Seem to be stretching now (none / 0) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST

Spin is spin.


Who is stretching? N/T (none / 0) (#78)
by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST

: Everybody I'd say (none / 0) (#92)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST

He is tearing himself down (none / 0) (#79)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:46:51 AM EST

we are but bystanders to the political parade.

Actually (none / 0) (#96)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:20:31 PM EST

I voted for HRC but am dismayed at the irrational love for and hate against, from one note jonnies and janes commenting here of late. Compared to the GOP OHB and HRC are saints.

And yes it was snark, everyone knows that Hoffa is buried in the end-zone at the Meadowlands Stadium.

Heh (none / 0) (#102)
by rebecca on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST

You're balancing BTD out on his tepid support for Obama then.


: In A Way (none / 0) (#109)
by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM EST

But being just a lowly commenter, unlike BTD, I have the luxury of being able to call out nonsense from BHO fanboys too.

Maybe (none / 0) (#105)
by tek on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:42:00 PM EST

it is just politics, although I haven't gotten quite that jaded yet. Even so, Obama has shown that he can't play the game as well as the leader of the free world should because he got caught out and looks like just another lying pol.

Thread being cleaned (none / 0) (#107)
by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:22:12 PM EST

This is a thread about Obama being Commander in Chief. Rezko related comments are being deleted, as are screeds against the candidates.

Reader MSK is a chatterer and limited to four comments a day, see the comment rules. Additional comments today by MSK will be deleted.