TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2024
...it was fatuous all the way down: Let the word go forth to the nations:
There was a time when that bromide about the "Labor Day kickoff" actually made basic sense.
Long ago and far away, our presidential campaigns worked on a tighter time scale. Consider the now-iconic 1960 White House campaign:
Dear God! As of 1960, the surprisingly youngish Senator John F. Kennedy wasn't extremely well known. Despite that fact, he didn't announce that we would seek his party's nomination for president until January 2—until January 2 of that very year!
Somehow, the Democratic Party managed to complete its nomination process by the time of its national convention, which concluded on July 15. From there, it was a short hop to Labor Day—to the apocryphal start of the general election campaign.
(Starting on September 26 of that year, Kennedy and Nixon held their very famous four (4) debates. In the present day, journalists traditionally repeat a famous inaccurate claim about the first of those four debates. By now, the repetition of the famous misstatement is an upper-end press corps tradition!)
Somehow, it seems that we were able to move things along just a bit faster back then. In a boon for New Hampshire motel owners, modern-day candidates routinely announce their candidacy several years in advance.
The campaigns go on and on and on, and then they go on some more. And what's the result of this long TV show?
By the time we finally vote in November, very few voters have any idea what the two nominees have proposed!
This year's campaign is quite different. Due to the incumbent president's withdrawal from the race, the Democratic nominee didn't launch her campaign until late July—until July 21 of this very year!
From that day forward, a cry has gone up from the Fox News Channel, with mainstream voices eventually joining in. Many voices reciting as one have brought the anguished cry forward at Fox:
When will she hold her first sit-down interview? Also, where is her policy platform?
There's nothing "wrong" with asking those questions. Indeed, it's as we noted yesterday:
Judged by traditional norms, Candidate Harris surely does have a whole lot of splainin' to do.
Judged by traditional norms, she needs to explain some of her own past statements—especially those she advanced when she sought her party's nomination for president back in 2019.
(She announced her candidacy in January of that year—in January 2019, almost two years out. So it goes with the expanded time frame for these quadrennial battles.)
Judge by traditional norms, Candidate Harris also needs to define her policy platform. And as part of the traditional game which constantly baffles our mainstream journalists, she will almost surely have to explain her role in various actions which were taken by President Biden.
This last requirement is based on a fact which is universally known at the Fox News Channel:
If you're vice president of the U.S., that means that you established all the policies of the administration.
No, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But any time a sitting vice president seeks to succeed an outgoing president. our mainstream journalists insist on leading us through that that deeply puzzling swamp.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but our nation's mainstream political journalism is often baldly fatuous. Consider what happened last week when CBS News was afforded the opportunity to interview Candidate Trump.
In yesterday afternoon's report, we offered a bit of background. At the New York Times, Bret Stephens listed the various questions he would pose to Candidate Harris if only she was willing to submit to an interview.
For the record, there's nothing wrong with Bret Stephens' smarts. As we showed you yesterday, his weekly exchange with Gail Collins went in part like this:
Kamala Harris Has Left the Building
[...]
Bret: Voters will want to figure out whether [Candidate Harris is] a pragmatist (good), an opportunist (not good) or a phony (doubleplusungood). One way to find out is to insist that she sit down for some serious journalistic interviews and answer a few difficult questions. I can think of some.
Gail: Can’t argue with you about the interviews. Harris isn’t even doing press conferences and that’s just wrong. Hope she’ll make a turn now that she’s the official nominee.
[...]
Gail: If you were her questioner, what would you ask?
Bret: In no particular order: If grocery stores, whose profit margins hover between 1 and 3 percent, are price gouging, what do you say about Apple, whose margins are above 25 percent? Do you believe, as you signaled in 2019, that illegal immigrants should be entitled to free health care? Is the phrase “from the river to the sea” antisemitic? Will you use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? If the record of the Biden-Harris administration is so strong, why do a plurality of Americans describe the current state of the economy as bad or very bad?
Gail: The economy is not bad! But go on.
Bret: What causes inflation? Have you witnessed any instances when President Biden’s mental faculties appeared diminished and were you worried about his ability to serve out a second term? Would you send American military forces to fight for Taiwan if it were attacked by China? Name one liberal position with which you disagree and why. How will a Harris-Walz administration differ in policies from a Biden-Harris one?
There's nothing "wrong" with the questions Stephens proposed. Some of those questions make perfect sense—and as we noted yesterday, Journalists Collins and Stephens agreed:
Candidate Harris should do some serious interviews, during which she'll be forced to answer difficult questions.
There's nothing "wrong" with that prescription—but we offered an obvious question:
When will Candidate Trump be asked to sit down for some serious interviews—for "serious journalistic interviews" during which he'll be forced to answer "difficult questions?"
When will that demand be voiced? Due to the normalization of Candidate Trump, it didn't occur to Stephens to state that demand, and it didn't occur to Collins.
We offer the following question:
When was the last time Candidate Trump sat down for a serious interview? When was the last time Candidate Trump engaged in something that can be described as a real news conference—a real news conference where's he was required to answer difficult questions?
We'd say that it's been a long, long time since any such sessions occurred. But due to the normalization of Trump's extremely strange behaviors, such questions keep going unasked.
When will Trump be forced to answer real questions as part of a serious interview? We'll guess the answer is never. As an example of what we mean, consider what happened last Monday, when CBS News was granted the opportunity of speaking with this contender.
It fell to Caitlin Huey-Burns to conduct the interview with Trump. Concerning the interview itself—and concerning the way it was reported—we would have to say this:
The journalism was fatuous all the way down.
Huey-Burns seems like the world's nicest person. That said, her performance this day journeyed into the realm of the fatuous, and then it just kept going.
As a general matter, her questions were an embarrassment. In response to those fatuous questions, the candidate routinely offered his usual rambling non-answer answers.
His rambling filibusters were often built on claims which were baldly inaccurate—but Huey-Burns never piped up. She offered no challenge, no protest.
The interview itself was a joke, but so was the way the interview was reported by CBS News:
Muckety-mucks at this upper-end org praised Huey-Burns for her brilliant performance. In fact, her performance was D-minus all the way down. So was the way the interview was packaged by her superiors.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but in the present day, our high-end journalism is routinely amazingly poor.
Tomorrow, we'll walk you through this latest stone-cold example. As boo-birds scream for Harris to speak, this pseudo-interview with Candidate Trump was fatuous all the way down.
Harris has had one month to prepare. Candidate Trump has had years.
The boo-birds are calling for Harris to speak. By way of contrast, Trump's endless refusals to make basic sense have been normalized all the way down.
Tomorrow: "Caitlin's excellent interview," the network's Costa said
Rick Perstein explains why Democrats are doing better this year:
ReplyDeletehttps://prospect.org/politics/2024-08-26-say-it-to-my-face-democrats-truth/
"How Democrats learned to tell the plain truth and like it"
DeleteTo who? They refuse to give even one interview to anyone.
First question to Harris.
DeleteDid you release your tax returns, because you didn't know you were going to be a Presidential nominee from one of our two major parties?
Harris has released her tax returns. Trump has not. What is your point @10:20?
Delete"Vice President Kamala Harris has released 20 years of personal tax returns, stretching back to the earliest days of her political career.
While running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, she disclosed 15 returns — more than any of her rivals except President Biden, who has been releasing tax returns over the course of his long political career. Since her election as vice president, Harris has released another five returns in tandem with Biden’s annual disclosures."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnotes/2024/07/29/no-surprises-in-kamala-harriss-20-years-of-tax-returns/
My point is that if Harris didn't release her tax returns, it would be a negative talking point the media wouldn't let a day pass without discussing.
DeleteLike when an old guy ran for President, as a Democrat, this past Summer.
But she has, so what is the point of this? Were they trying to confuse voters into thinking she hadn't and was hiding them?
DeleteObviously, no major party Presidential candidate could get away with not releasing their tax returns, because it would be the only thing the media would be discussing, so it's a moot point.
Delete@3:01 - Trump hasn't and the media gives that fact one big yawn.
DeleteLooks like the Twitter Files were a something-burger after all. Zuckerberg has admitted the Biden administration pressured Meta in 2021 to censor COVID-19 content and that the FBI's warning about potential Russian disinformation in 2020 was illegitimate.
ReplyDeleteHe regrets going along with this partisan government censorship on the behalf of the Biden administration and the craven Democrats.
But hey, they are better than Trump and our only choice. Hell of a "democracy" we have here.
Turns out Zuckerberg is even weaker than Trump.
DeleteWho knew?
"censor COVID-19 content" refers to the disinformation that caused unnecessary deaths (in retrospect) by preventing people from taking precautions and being vaccinated. Free speech does not protect harmful speech.
Delete10:04 unlike what you predicted, the (Trump) Supreme Court disagrees.
DeleteTaibbi is a hack, the “Twitter Files” case was a nothingburger, you keep being proven wrong but are struggling with coping with that.
I keep being proved wrong? I am struggling to cope with being proved wrong? That makes me feel unsure of what is real and what isn’t. I guess I need to question what I know to be true. Do you think I should doubt my own memory and perception? Maybe that would be a good idea. After all, Supreme Court disagrees. With what you don't say exactly but they disagree nonetheless. And I am struggling coping with all the proof.
DeleteThanks for setting the record straight.
"The campaigns go on and on and on, and then they go on some more. And what's the result of this long TV show?
ReplyDeleteBy the time we finally vote in November, very few voters have any idea what the two nominees have proposed!"
Somerby has and offers no evidence that this is true. Our last two elections have been between Trump and first Clinton, then Biden. People had a great deal of information about Clinton and Trump but disinformation, lying, leaking and press manipulation characterized the Trump campaign. Comey's statement had nothing to do with Clinton's plans for governing and Trump overturned normal campaigning by telling blatant lies about the state of our country. The lying with impunity was new to campaigning and Hillary's high road against Trump's tactics might have worked without Russian interference, Wikileaks and a decades long campaign against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. But claiming that voters had no information after a long campaign season bears no resemblance to the reality of that campaign.
When Trump ran for reelection, he was a known quantity because nearly everything he did ignored a tradition, outraged the left, or made headlines for ignorance and stupidity. We all knew who Trump was by then. Biden was also a known quantity, a veteran campaigner and senator who united the left in opposition to another Trump term. There was not the widespread voter ignorance Somerby is claiming then either. And Biden won because reelecting Trump was unacceptable to most people.
That is the situation now. In 2020 Trump had no platform because the Republicans agreed that whatever Trump said or did or wanted was their plan for the future. But we knew who Trump was. Now Trump has been co-opted by The Heritage Foundation, white supremacists, evangelicals and his usual foreign sponsors (Putin, the Saudis). The voters may not know about that, but they see his performances at his rallies and there is nothing to reassure them that he is fit to lead. Harris has been VP for nearly four years, was a senator before that and is NOT an unknown to Democrats. If she is less familiar to Republicans, that will soon be fixed as she campaigns energetically in the next few months. But Trump is well known, even if he is changing his views daily as he is bought by new donors. If Trump's views are changing, that is not because of the duration of the campaign but because of his financial needs.
So this claim about the length of the election cycles is the fatuous idea of the day. Somerby has no evidence, nothing to support this idea, and it makes no sense in historical context.
Harris can handle the press. Somerby's faux concern about the time left for her to campaign makes no sense. Today, her campaign released info about her plans to address housing needs. Somerby could be pointing that out, perhaps discussing it, but instead he is trying to pretend she is unknown to voters.
https://nlihc.org/resource/harris-campaign-releases-plans-lower-housing-costs
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-puts-housing-center-economic-pitch-us-voters-2024-08-26/
Meanwhile Somerby joins the right wing noise machine in claiming that Harris is giving too few interviews. That is what he means when he claims the voters don't know anything about her. This is more disinformation intended to support a right wing talking point emanating from the Trump campaign.
Reading comprehension, please.
DeleteSomerby is making the case that Trump needs to sit-down for a two-hour interview about his tax returns.
I agree with Bob. The public should know exactly how much money Trump doesn't have.
What do you think you would learn from Trump's returns that you don't already know from his business fraud trial?
DeleteIt is driving corporate media nuts that Harris is succeeding largely without their control or influence.
DeleteHarris is continuing the successful strategies Dems have been using since 2018, strategies Somerby has been railing against but now he has to equivocate on.
Exactly. When the press has shown it is not your friend, why give it the opportunity to damage your campaign?
DeleteThis Anon is an obsessive who spends all day posting rants.
ReplyDeleteAnon's Right-wing talking points are more bat shit crazy than even the ones Somerby repeats.
DeleteYou don't have the skill to rant, so you hang around all day criticizing other commenters with one-liners like this one.
DeleteTwo or so weeks ago Somerby was defending Harris from criticism over not doing press conferences and interviewers. He thought the Harris campaign needed time to work on a platform. Anonymices quickly accused Bob of lying because presumably everyone ALREADY knew her and her positions.
DeleteNow Bob is saying it’s time for Harris to start talking to the press and an anonymouse accuses him of working with the right wing in advocating that.
It’s the same craziness daily. Anonymices are here night and day in order to keep a guy they’ve called an “obscure blogger” from propagandizing the earth, while they simultaneously disparage Bob for noting that the media ignores what he considers to be propaganda coming from a network that has millions of viewers.
You couldn’t make these people up. They don’t have the common sense it takes to come out of the rain, and they think regular people are the dopes.
PP is unappreciated here.
DeleteRightfully so.
Cecelia, I see you standing, standing on your own. It’s such a lonely place for you to be. If you need a shoulder, or you need a friend, I’ll be here standing until the bitter end.
DeleteNo one needs the sorrow, no one needs the pain. I hate to see you walking out there, out in the rain. So don’t chastise me, or think I mean you harm.
Don’t ever leave me, say you’ll always be there. All I ever wanted was for you to know that I care.
Somerby IS working with the right wing when he pressures Harris to do press interviews. The left isn't calling for the -- just the right.
DeleteIf Somerby would come clean about his politics there would be no need to counter his disinformation. Instead, he labels himself liberal which will confuse unwary or low information readers. Somerby is still listed on other people's blogrolls so he gets some traffic. But we are also here discussing topics with each other and enjoying the comments as readers ourselves. YOU are the flies in the ointment, Cecelia and PP. What have you said here today that is useful to anyone? Nada.
typo correction: calling for that --
DeleteIs it conceivable that a person can think Harris should do more interviews, yet still support her? Or is every issue or question a matter of shirts v. skins?
DeleteAnonymouse 12:05pm, no, Somerby sees this as a line of attack that is getting stronger . It is and to my thinking SHOULD be. You see it in the tunnel vision way you saw the Biden controversy until your own demigods convinced/pushed him not to run.
DeleteThat’s turned out to be in your favor as everyone with any sense told you it would. You screeched and called Bob the usual stuff per your occupation until you saw he was right and now you reframe past events.
Harris needs to do an interview. She needs to talk about policy,. Odds are more than average that it would go well for her and she would put that issue to bed and take a lot of pressure and critical focus off her during any debate.
In that case, you’ll rewrite the history of what you’re saying now.
Yeah, I know… it’s a living..,
We anonymice sometimes disagree with each other, Cecelia. But I think most of us agree on this: we’d like to zhuzh your butt.
DeleteThe line of attack is coming from the media, right and left. They create the scandal or the “problem”. That shouldn’t be their function, but that is how they act nowadays. Candidates shouldn’t turn themselves into performing seals to satisfy the media. Trump calls them the enemy of the people and threatens them (or sues them) for libel. Everyone just shrugs.
Delete...and she would put that issue to bed ...
DeleteJust like Hillary put the email issue to bed by apologizing a couple dozen times and giving multiple press conferences explaining. That really helped Andrea Mitchell straighten out her panties.
Anonymouse 12:41pm, oh well.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:24pm, Clinton was dealing with a scandal that was being investigated by the feds. Harris is being asked to get in front of a tv camera and do an interview. That’s not something that should be difficult for her and it shouldn’t be something that she refuses to do without any push back from media or the public.
DeleteThe media deserve to be trolled by the candidates.
DeleteAnonymouse 3:08pm, the media surely does.
DeleteThe public not so much.
Cecelia, from March to July she was hammered day after day by the liberal media. The FBI probe did not begin until the end of July 2015, and it was predicated on a bullshit premise. The point was not matter how many times she answered every question put to her and apologized multiple times to the public, the press didn't ever back off. They wanted her scalp and they got it.
DeleteI don't believe Harris has said she refuses to be interviewed by the press. She has been saying she will do it when she is ready. It appears now she will be interviewed by CNN and Dana Bash.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:09pm, you still don’t see the fatuousness in your comparison between Hillary being interrogated by the press over a legal issue with Comma La being hounded by the press to do a simple interview.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:31pm, with the condition that Walz is with her.
DeleteWho doesn't see that the legal matter was important, and the egos of the press aren't?
DeleteCecelia,
DeleteSave a tear for the members of the public who are getting their votes suppressed by Republican politicians.
Anonymouse 8:08pm, anonymices are floating in their own tears. Generally angry ones. You don’t need mine.
DeleteAgain, no empathy. Typical Republican.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:22pm, anonymices beg for empathy in the way a three-year-old begs for leniency and their own way.
DeleteLike I said, typical MAGA.
Delete@7:31 PM: which is unfortunate if true. Bash might've been CNN's first "both-sider" hire.
DeleteWe don't need Cecelia's crocodile tears for the public. We already have commenters at TDH who write things they actually believe.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:48pm, anonymices do not need anyone’s tears and I’d wager that they don’t have them for each other, only for themselves.
DeleteSomerby keeps saying there is nothing wrong with demanding that Harris answer the questions raised by her opposition, expressed by Fox News (which is not an independent source but a propaganda outlet for the right wing). He does nothing to support Harris by explaining that she already has a platform, adopted at the recent Democratic convention, has issued an economic policy plan, and continues to issue other policy statements via her campaign. Trump has nothing equivalent, except the Project 2025 Plan which he has disavowed while reassuring his supporters he will still implement if elected.
ReplyDeleteHarris is not a blank slate, not an enigma, not an unknown quantity. She has a track record and she has made public statements about her plans for office. She has made responding to a press that kicked out Biden a lesser priority than her other campaign activities as she ramps up an unexpected candidacy at the last minute (as Somerby has noted). I support her in that. I despise what the press did to Biden and I am pleased to see Harris exert strength by refusing to talk to the press on THEIR schedule, in response to right wing demands.
Somerby essay today is ludicrous in its obvious partisanship for the right, as he joins the chorus demanding that Harris jump to their commands. What self-respecting candidate would do that, as if Harris were Trump jumping to Putin's whistles?
Harris is conducting her own campaign according to her own needs and understanding of how best to win this election. More power to her!
"Trump's extremely strange behaviors"
Delete"[Trump] routinely offered his usual rambling non-answer answers"
"Trump's endless refusals to make basic sense"
This is the evidence for the commenter's conclusion that "Somerby's essay today is ludicrous in its obvious partisanship for the right."
Again, focused on the adjectives instead of the meaning of the essay itself. Somerby pretends that Trump is crazy while using his essays to advance the right wing talking point of the day. Today it is that Harris has been avoiding the press and refusing to answer questions because she doesn't want to explain why she doesn't hold the same positions today as in 2019, and the subtext is that she is phony, an extremist radical Communist pretending to be moderate (while also being controlled by Obama).
DeleteSomerby has not explained why Harris owes the press anything, especially after what they did to Biden.
Are you really this stupid?
Yes.
DeleteThis is what actual criticism of Trump looks like, not PP's list of silly adjectives Somerby uses to make himself seem liberal:
Delete"Former Trump national security adviser H.R. McMaster has written a new book filled with disparaging stories about his former boss, and the New York Times reports that it even features of a story of the former president being blatantly manipulated by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The incident in question came during a visit to China in November of 2017 in which McMaster tried to warn Trump against letting Xi make him stray from his prepared talking points.
Trump, however, had other ideas.
"In the Great Hall of the People, the president strayed from his talking points," according to the Times's report. "He agreed with Xi that military exercises in South Korea were 'provocative' and a 'waste of money' and suggested that China might have a legitimate claim to Japan’s Senkaku Islands. McMaster, his stomach sinking, passed a note to Gen. John Kelly, the chief of staff: Xi 'ate our lunch,' it read."
McMaster also says that foreign leaders treated Trump like a "chump" and quickly discovered they could manipulate him by boosting his ego.
"Flattery and pomp from leaders like Xi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Russian president Vladimir V. Putin seem to have been all that was required to get in Trump’s good graces," writes the Times.
"In 2018, McMaster found Trump in the Oval Office scrawling a cheerful note to Putin across a New York Post article reporting that the Russian president had denigrated the American political system but called Trump a good listener. Like a child with his Christmas wish list, the leader of the free world asked McMaster to send it to the Kremlin."
Looking forward, writes the Times, McMaster questions whether the 78-year-old Trump is still able to "perform well the sometimes grueling job of president" and he notes that Trump seven years ago became "tired" by a 13-day trip to Asia."
"(She announced her candidacy in January of that year—in January 2019, almost two years out..."
ReplyDeleteTrump has been saying that Harris was the first to drop out of the nomination race, not even making it to the Iowa primary (Feb 3, 2020). That is untrue. She dropped out two months before the caucus, but was far from the first. She left the race due to lack of funds. That has not been her problem in today's race.
Somerby says she must answer for some of her positions during that race, but her positions shifted to be more like Biden's as the race went on:
"Amid a crowded field filled with both moderate and progressive candidates, Harris struggled to carve out her own policy lane. She shifted positions several times on a defining issue for Democrats: health care. Harris initially backed the total elimination of private health insurance, only to later roll out a health care plan that allowed private plans as long as they met government standards.
Harris backtracked in several other high-profile moments, including her criticism of Biden's anti-busing stances as a senator. She later admitted that her views of the federal government's role in setting local policies was essentially the same as Biden's."
Somerby seems to be echoing the right wing talking point that Harris is an extreme progressive holding radical positions. That wasn't true even during the 2019 race as she became more moderate in opposition to Warren, Sanders and more progressive candidates. The right is attempting to portray her as an extremist but her campaign has taken no such positions in this race. Note that Biden himself is a progressive and Harris is continuing in that vein with her desire to help families and advance working people.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/03/784443227/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-presidential-race
2019 was 5 years ago. It is OK for a candidate to change their positions across time. Harris was obviously trying to find her feet as a national candidate back in 2019. Trump has been changing his positions almost daily. But suddenly Harris's views are enormously important in ways the right wing keeps yelling about and no Democrat seems to care about.
What is up with Trump lately? He is just mumbling, and slurring, and glitching his way through low energy sparsely attended rallies, while his lies get more outrageous and outlandish.
ReplyDeleteOooooh the polls. And Harris. And her campaign strategy.
Good on Somerby for admitting he was wrong about electoral strategy, although it’s craftily masked.
Somerby is a weak blogger.
DeleteYou're not exactly Hercules as a commenter.
DeleteHercules was not famous for his comments.
DeleteNeither are you.
DeleteTrump plans to name RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard honorary co-chairs of his transition team.
ReplyDeleteand then back the bus over them. LOL
DeleteWormhead and the unofficial Mrs. Assad are the best Putin can come up with?
DeleteWho's next? Taibbi and Tracey?
Harris’s biggest strength is that she is not Donald Trump. That’s enough to get her elected. From her POV, why mess that up with additional facts?
ReplyDeleteThat is entirely Trump's fault, Dickhead.
DeleteOr appearances?
DeleteHarris supporters are not the ones calling for her to be interviewed by a potentially hostile press. We know what she is about, who she is and what she will do as president.
DeleteTrump is having a lot of trouble finding criticism that will stick for Harris/Walz. Republicans are hoping that if she is interviewed the press will come up with something they can use to knock her down. She is smart not to give them that opportunity. But why should the press be doing Trump's dirty work for him?
David will vote for Kamala.
ReplyDeleteJournalists don’t think they are on Harris’s team, so they are not boo birds.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 5:39pm. I don’t think David has difficulty seeing that Comma La is a combination of New Age fatuousness and self-serving Mean Girl bravado.
ReplyDeleteIt gives me great pleasure that she will soon be your new president.
DeleteDear Cecelia and David,
DeleteCry harder.
Thanks,
Your friends at TDH
Anonymouse 10:20pm, I just got accused of not being sympathetic enough to ever cry.
DeleteStick with that notion.
I’m here to comfort you, Cecelia.
DeleteWhen you’re down and troubled and you need some lovin’ care and nothin’ nothin’ is goin’ right, close your eyes and think of me and soon I will be there to brighten up even your darkest night.
Delete