All right, all right, kids -- Go ahead. Mock us for predicting that Hillary Clinton would lose or not win big enough last night to justify staying in the race. Point your fingers at Moose's vaunted gut, source of so many of her judgments and decisions, and laugh hysterically at how far off base she was. Make your jokes about eating crow, even if Moose, technically, beat you to that in a comment she left here earlier today. Indeed, she even spent part of her busy afternoon on campus looking up crow recipes (oh, lord, we love the internets, don't we?), because, by golly, she'd be willing to tuck into a dish of the much maligned bird as a penance for her wildly off-target predictions. Assuming Goose would let her wash it down with a really nice bottle of something red. How about a bite or two of this simple yet hearty-sounding dish?
CROW CASSEROLEMoose loves sauerkraut. It's all that German blood coursing in her veins. Would it be pathetic of her to point out that she was right about "Falling Slowly" from Once winning the Oscar for Best Song? She also had a hand in our prediction that Clinton would take California on Super Tuesday. Please, people, let the poor woman have some shred of dignity!
12 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (6 crows)
2 quart sauerkraut
6 slices of bacon
1/3 cup of chopped onions
Brown the crow breasts in a skillet with butter or oil. When browned, place them in a casserole dish on 1/2 inch layer of sauerkraut. Lay a 1/2 strip of bacon on each 1/2 breast and sprinkle the onion on them. Next, add another layer of sauerkraut and some of the juice. Bake at 350 degrees for 2 hours. Makes 2 servings.
Seriously, folks, as you can imagine, we're pretty happy here at the Emily Litella School of Punditry and Prognostication to be saying a big, fat, loud, "Never mind," today. We smashed all the crystal balls in Roxie's World at about 1 o'clock this morning and are thinking of sending Moose to a doctor to have her gut checked, but seldom have we found ourselves so utterly delighted to have been publicly exposed as absolutely, positively, 100% spectacularly wrong. (That was a nice post, though, wasn't it? I bet anything more than one of you got choked up while reading it.)
By "we," of course, I mean me and Moose. Goose is exempt from this state of wrongness and public embarrassment, having been, as y'all well know and as she has reminded us several times today, confident that Clinton would do well enough in Texas and Ohio to continue her fight for the nomination. Indeed, she has a new name here in Roxie's World to honor her confidence and her dedication to the cause. (She made a bunch of phone calls for Senator Clinton while spending many long hours in the Dallas airport the other day, before finally stumbling in the door here at nearly 4 a.m.) We now humbly refer to her as the Girl Who Saved Texas. She had a little help in this endeavor, by the way. Goose's 88-year-old blind mother caucused for Hillary last night with her yellow-dog Dem pal Miriam. They and another friend were the first three people in line at their precinct for the caucus, and the precinct chairman thanked them, saying that his mother had desperately wanted to see Hillary Clinton become president but that she had died before she could cast a vote. Each of the women was born in the year women got the right to vote, and Goose's mom said she cried when she signed in at the precinct. Go on. Shed another little tear over that poignant detail. We won't tell anyone.
But enough about us and our rightness or wrongness, our bad guts and our busted crystal balls. What's the take-away from yesterday? What did we learn, and where do we go from here? We'll keep this short, because we've been burning the candle at both ends in Roxie's World this week, but here are some Rumsfeldian "snowflakes" on the current state of the Democratic primary race:
- Note to the Clinton campaign: That fighter thing? It works for you. Want to win Pennsylvania? You take your girl to the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum posthaste, put a couple of boxing gloves on her, and start marketing her as Rocky with brains, boobs, and a health-care plan. Why? It's a good counter to Obama's speechifying. When she shows that she's got the fire in her belly, as she did this week, she's offering not dull prose to his poetry but a passion for action. Hillary the fighter also adds a pleasing coherence to a life narrative that some have found marked by moments of inconsistency (unlike everybody else's perfectly consistent life narratives???): She fought for kids for decades as a lawyer and first lady of Arkansas, fought for her marriage, fought for New York post-9/11, and will fight for all of us as president.
- Note to the Obama campaign: Hurts, doesn't it, this losing thing? Too bad, but we want you to know that we've picked up on the fact that your post-partisan, above-the-fray campaign has adopted the bare-knuckle tactics of Bush and Rove in Florida 2000, arguing before the race is over and the votes have been counted that the nomination is somehow yours and the only way Clinton can get it is to steal it. We are incensed that so far the supine media seem to be accepting your framing of the situation, but that could shift if Clinton kicks your ass in Pennsylvania, which we sincerely hope she will do. Sorry, Your Hopeness, but we are less impressed with you every day. And you know what? We thought in your non-concession speech last night you sounded a lot like an Ivy League lawyer trying really, really hard to imitate a black Southern Baptist minister. And I bet we're not the only listeners who are starting to feel that way.
- Note to Howard Dean: Sorry, gov, but your "let's close our eyes and hope that Ohio and Texas resolve the nomination battle before we have to figure out what to do about the Michigan and Florida problem" strategy didn't work out. You are going to have to do something that will assure voters that the race has been run fairly and settled squarely. Even a do-over won't be entirely fair, because we'll never know how Michigan and Florida would have played out if the candidates had campaigned there and everybody's names had been on the ballots the first time around, but at this point anything other than a do-over (and as primaries, not caucuses) will look like an effort to advantage one candidate or another. Joan Walsh makes a case for re-voting in Salon. Roger Simon lays out the options for solving the problem in Politico. It concludes with a comment from unaligned Dem Tad Devine that both campaigns might want to keep in mind: “The nomination is only worth having if it strengthens you,” he said. “If it tears the party apart, the nomination is not worth it.”
- Note to the Clintonistas of Roxie's World: Write to the Democratic party and tell them you'll never give them another dime if they don't enfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. Remind them we have suffered through eight years of a disastrous presidency brought about by flawed election procedures and a whole bunch of legalistic chicanery that denied voters their rights. Why all of a sudden has the Democratic party gone wobbly on the principle of counting every vote? Bear in mind that if the votes of Michigan and Florida were being added into popular vote totals in the primary races, Clinton would be leading Obama by 40,000 votes.
Oh, children, my typist is so tired that her head is falling over into the lap that holds the laptop. I feel the pressure of your collective desires for my wisdom on the subject of yesterday, and so I shall order her to press "publish" and get herself to bed before today is tomorrow and yesterday's news is too old to matter. Ah, my sweets, the tyranny of time in the blogosphere. How strange that even in this unreal (though lovely) world time waits for no man -- or dog. Peace out, beloveds. Sleep well. And heed your dreams.
If a baseball game is rained out, and one team shows up anyway and hits a few practice balls out of the park, does the other team have to forfeit the game? Does it go in the record books? Does the team that didn't listen to the decision of Major League Baseball get to claim it as a win when it comes time for the playoffs?ReplyDelete
And is marching around demanding that the results of a canceled election be counted any different from defending, say, the electoral process of pre-war Iraq or Cuba, where sham elections featuring the president-for-life and -- maybe -- a straw man candidate, end up with massive victories for the "incumbent"? Give me a break. Propping up the results of -- let's face it -- a puppet election like Michigan where voters weren't even given the chance to vote for Edwards or Obama is disenfranchisement on par with not counting the results in the first place. Dean made his ultimatum. You think he doesn't have the best interests of the party in mind? Tough cookies.
You just can't change the rules in the middle of the game, no matter how much the rules work against your candidate. The Clintons didn't object to the "disenfranchisement" of FL and MI, or to the relative weight of caucuses, before the campaign started. As with any contract, you go into the binding period knowing the rules absolutely apply to you. If they don't work out, tough.
--A student within your academic universe.
Hey I happen to BE one of those disenfranchised Florida voters and frankly I RESENT THAT!!!!ReplyDelete
I didn't make the changes, my REPUBLICAN legislature did. I pay my taxes, I contribute to my favorite candidates and I vote in every election. Heck, I even give a couple of my elderly neighbors rides on election day so they can vote (and half of them are Republican).
Why SHOULDN'T my vote count? I had no hand in any of this. BLAMELESS + VOTELESS = UNJUSTIFIABLE.
Don't think us 1.5 million disenfranchised Florida voters have NOT been complaining.
After election 2000 when my beautiful county of Palm Beach Florida was disenfranchised we had a whole country full of Democrats demanding that our votes be counted. Heck everybody was down here leading marches and holding rallies. I know, I was at them.
I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT.
You make a fair case from the standpoint of the pissing contest (if you'll pardon the expression)that occurred between the state and national parties, but that is less compelling to me than the standpoint of the voters of Florida and Michigan, as expressed so clearly above by Buster's Mom, who knows a little something about disenfranchisement. You (meaning "one") can go all legalistic and howl about changing the rules in the middle of the game, but the fact remains that millions of people voted in two states crucial to Dems in the general election, and it just doesn't look or feel fair not to count those votes, especially in such a closely contested race. I thought Dean's ultimatum was a bad idea from the get-go, and it looks a lot worse now that it is setting us up for a situation likely to make nearly half of Democratic voters feel that the nomination is tainted no matter who gets it. A do-over is not an ideal solution, but that's better than telling voters their participation doesn't count.
Dear Student & all,ReplyDelete
Yes, let’s talk about changing the rules and who wants to change them. Let’s take your analogy of a baseball game. When teams agree that players should play for themselves—not as designated hitters playing for someone else—shouldn’t those agreements remain intact? Barack Obama agreed last year and as recently as in the fall that superdelegates should vote according to their own preferences. Yet recently he and his campaign has been arguing that they should vote as designated hitters, binding their vote to those of the constituencies from the states they represent. . .or at least some should do that. Because he and his campaign do not argue that all superdelegates should do that. When asked if Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick should change their votes for him to votes for Clinton since their state OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Clinton, he said no because no one was asking them to do that. So he’s argued that John Lewis should vote as a designated hitter but not these others. Why? Because Lewis’s change is a change to him and the others would have to change to Clinton. So he wants to change the rules, but only when it would work to his advantage. He doesn’t want to change the rules to allow the voters of Florida and Michigan to be heard. Mmm. . .that sounds an awful lot like George W. Bush to me, who wanted to enforce only certain rules when counting the votes in Florida in 2000 and wanted to ignore other rules that disadvantaged him. That doesn’t sound like a fairly played baseball game to me.
Also, he promised as recently as in the fall to take public financing for the general election and is now reneging on that promise. Why? And why won’t he convene the subcommittee he chairs to talk about Afghanistan, which he has said is a crucial part of the world, a part on which we should focus. I don’t get it.
This primary season has underscored for me how crucial is insuring one-person-one-vote. Many precincts in Texas that went for Clinton went for Obama in the caucuses. Now you may say the Obama voters had the energy to get out and go to the caucus. But what about the young mother who is working a second job or feeding her children between jobs and during caucus time? What about the elderly and handicapped who are not so easily mobile? My 88 yr old blind mother and her friends got to the caucus but they are women of means and privilege – others don’t have the resources they do. Caucuses are terrible ways to determine presidential candidates, as they are vestiges of the elite minority devising ways to control and override the will of the majority. Why does Obama seem afraid to counting the individual voters of Florida and Michigan? He could have remained on the ballot in Michigan but chose not to do so. He did run a write-in campaign there that didn’t work. He also promised not to campaign in Florida but ran an ad via CNN (Clinton did no campaigning there). Breaking that promise didn’t work for him either. If this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we all need to work to make sure that each voice is heard and each vote registered. I’ve been saddened to see the Obama campaign sound like the Bush campaign in 2000, getting all legalistic and blowing off 1,000s and 1,000s and 1,000s of votes. Is that a way to unite us, to bring us all together?
I for one think that Buster’s Mom’s vote SHOULD BE COUNTED.
On the superdelegate matter, it's imperative to keep in mind that there is no legal binding action for superdelegates to follow. So while a campaign might state one thing when they're up and another when they're down (and don't think the Clinton campaign hasn't done the same), ultimately it's just spin. And spin isn't illegal. It might be irresponsible, sure, and I have no qualms about calling several things from both campaigns completely irresponsible. So while the Obama campaign seeks to define the SDs one way, you have to recognize that it's their right to do so. Check out www.delegatehub.com for the latest example in how the Clinton campaign is seeking to define the delegate situation, going so far as to rename them "automatic delegates," etc. Many of the claims they assert on the site are absolutely true, but their political math is bolstered by the belief that these superdelegates will automatically think that Clinton is the most qualified to be president. So, once again, spin is spin. Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns understand that at the end of the day, the superdelegates earned their vote and will make their choice like any other voter -- something privately decided based on close inspection, the pledged delegate count, who their constituents like, who is more likely to beat McCain, etc.ReplyDelete
And if you were a superdelegate in Maryland -- say, Ben Cardin -- how would you feel if you heard the Clinton camp assert, as they did:
"Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”
Now, that was stated AFTER the Chesapeake Primary. So while you quibble about who said what and when about votes that "count" and votes that "don't count," keep in mind that it is the EXPRESSED POSITION of the Clinton campaign that Maryland is not a "significant state." Why? Because Obama won it. Handily. If Clinton had won -- or campaigned, even, other than sending Chelsea out to speak at the Food Court and some other surrogates to do some stumping up in Baltimore -- she clearly would have thanked locals like Carol Petzold who worked tirelessly for her campaign in true-Blue, Old-line Democratic Maryland. But you have a wide swath of America being taken out of the equation simply because they didn't work out for her. You talk about bolstering the 50-state strategy, but the words of your candidate's campaign clearly state: if you win more pledged delegates, more popular votes, and more states, you have some 'splainin to do because you couldn't capture Massachusetts or New Jersey, which are about as likely to go red as Texas is to go blue.
Just to go back to the baseball metaphor (because baseball acts as a metaphor for pretty much everything in life) for a second, you're arguing with the umps (Dean and Pelosi) here on the FL/MI matter. Yes, you might think your guy got to first base safe, or you thought it was a foul ball, or that fan reached over the outfield wall and snagged it from your catcher, but the rules are the rules, and as every great umpire has been known to say, "I call 'em as I see 'em." Yes, the Republican legislatures in those states really screwed things up, but they didn't have the foresight to predict that it would matter THIS much. But Clinton advisor Harold Ickes voted last August in his capacity as a member of DNC leadership to take away the FL/MI delegates. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame him. Either way, as we blog at this very moment, plans are already under way for a repeat vote, which is probably the only fair way to settle this. You can protest all you want because this plan will erase the (meaningless) Clinton-only results that would have net her a bunch of delegates, but these new rules are being set by the people who have been elected to make the rules in the first place. They do have the final say, after all.
On the matter of caucuses, tough. Deal with it. Bill Clinton won the Texas primaries twice under the rules that still stand today. If the Clinton camp was so concerned about "young mothers" and the "elderly and handicapped" (you assume that these are Clinton folks... what makes you think these people wouldn't vote for Obama?) being disenfranchised by the Texas two-step, they should have had the insight to question the rules before the primary season went underway. This is the same problem I had with post-Gore Democratic self-flagellation about the Electoral College. Many people said that it was a corrupt system, and that if we had just abolished it in 2000, we would have had a different president. Well, too bad. The Electoral College is a part of the Constitution and it's been picking all of our presidents -- good and bad -- for the past two and a quarter centuries. The primary system is less than a century old, but the rules are the rules, and you consider all the options and change them before you get the season underway. You can do all the construction you want on your baseball stadium before the season starts, but you can't move the outfield wall in when a fly ball is in the air.
Also, I don't think Obama is "afraid" to count the voices of Michigan and Florida. He's won 27 contests in parts of the country no one might have ever believed he could win -- including Maryland, which has a VERY old-fashioned and very DLC-entrenched Democratic party structure (I should know... I worked for Chairman Cryor for a long time as an administrative assistant). At this point, delegates in Michigan and Florida would absolutely help him in his inexorable march toward 2,025. So, it's not fear -- it's abiding by the rules. His campaign isn't contesting the DNC's decision, because they understand that they have to work within the system and not allow ill-gotten, non-credentialed delegates to enter into the legal pledged delegate mix. And, just for your information, there was no attempted write-in campaign in Michigan. WOOD-TV (NBC) in Grand Rapids ran a story on January 4th with the headline, "No Democratic candidates file paperwork to accept write-in votes." So, there.
And by, "getting all legalistic," you really mean "following the law, instead of flaunting their desire to break it." A distinction that must be made.
What you ultimately fail to explain is how counting the sham FL/MI elections DOESN'T disenfranchise Obama voters in those states who never got the chance to cast a ballot for him. Or does that not matter, because as long as you re-enfranchise YOUR voters, the world will make sense again? Disenfranchisement works on many different levels, and looking at news stories from December and January, the cancellation of the primaries in those states didn't seem to matter to the Clinton folks until she won, at which point it became part and parcel of the campaign to take down Obama through the acquisition of any possible delegates (even going so far, at one point, as to launching an initiative to poach Obama's PLEDGED delegates, earned on a state by state level). So, when she was "inevitable," she couldn't be concerned with the "plight" of voters in two crucial swing states, but now that she's trailing, it's paramount? Step back from your drum-beating and recognize how fishy that is.
-- The student.
Next SNL skit:ReplyDelete
Hilary and Bill re-enacting the scene from “The Abyss” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/) where Lindsey has to drown so Bud can save her…
“YOU’VE NEVER BACKED DOWN FROM ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE DAMMIT NOW FIGHT!”
Great scene; great flick, too.
You are a standard-setter! My new pledge: every time you print the word "Clintonista" in this blog, I send Obama another 5 bucks. Yes, you can easily break me financially (up to another 2000 bucks anyway). But it's all in the name of a spirited race! May the best woman win--and, yes, I do think he's a better woman than she is...
signed, gObama, from a dyke for Barack who still loves reading your blog
No, really, Student, I think I'd rather just keep beatin' my drum. Makes it easier to dance.ReplyDelete
And as for you, Mandy, well, rather than break your bank, perhaps we'll retire the C-word and start referring to Hillary supporters as non-Obamaniacs. Nah, can't do it.
Pay up, pal. Your candidate will need your help in PA. ;-)
I'm guessing I should just set up a recurring payment plan...ReplyDelete
Rock on, HillaryManiacs
Can I simply say that Roxie has selected some stunning pics of Hillary? If the NYT cared as much about their visuals as RW. . . . . . Rock on Roxie, Moose, and Goose. I may not be a Clintonista, but I admire the hell out of what you're doing here. Your fan, Dog-Eared Book (blocked, oddly, from posting as such Under the New Regime. . . .)ReplyDelete
Shucks, DEB, thanks for the kind words. Can't believe we haven't made a Clintonista of you yet, but we are delighted that the visual pleasures of Roxie's World have caught your eye. The department of eye candy will be so happy.ReplyDelete
But blocked from posting as DEB??? Did you try clicking on Name/URL? That should open up a box for typing in your identity. Uh-oh, paging Mark Twain! Mark Twain, you're wanted in Persona Management!
By the way, if Clinton says Obama resembles Ken Starr, I mean, we really have to believe her, and I do. Because, let's face it, there no people on earth who know Ken Starr better than the Clintons.ReplyDelete
As for Michigan and Florida, fair is fair. We either leave them out or re-do them. In total, we should leave them out altogether. And I say this without it having anything to do with which candidate I support.
Like it or not, the system we have is NOT a one person-one vote-and-that-tells-the-tale system. Whether you have liked the outcome of past elections or not, it never has been a count-every-vote system. It is a representative system that works in, well, layers. Good or bad, something we should change or no, it's what we got for now.
The people of Michigan and Florida need to do what they can to become enfranchised voters again in the future--i.e. GET RID of the party hacks who *knowingly* arranged things so that their primaries would be in violation of the rules.
Clearly Obama supporters are not interested in one-person-one-vote (and are not quite as informed as they think about the law). Astonishing too is the blithe disregard for enfranchising the voters of Michigan and Florida -- why are you so afraid of that?ReplyDelete
I guess I can understand why you're panicking. . .the candidate for hope and truth is suddenly sounding very petty and George W Bush-like in more than "I'm a uniter, not a divider." That saddens and rattles me a bit, and I'm not an Obamaniac. Also, though you two may not be aware of it, you're definitely picking up on what his campaign is panicking over: he has a huge problem when it comes to electoral votes, which is what it will take to win in November. If we count electoral votes won by Obama and Clinton so far (presuming they win the states they've won in the primary in November), Obama has 193 of the 270 needed while Clinton has 263 of the 270 needed. She's won primarily BLUE states, and can count on around 240 of those 263 electoral votes, maybe all. He's won primiarly RED states (he has yet to win a closed Democratic primary), and polls in MORE THAN HALF of the states he's won in the primary show him losing in those states in November, so he can only count on 100 or so electoral votes. THOSE are the real figures to deal with if we're talking about winning the November election.
I'm for the candidate who keeps talking about the issues, who's offered clear plans on withdrawal from Iraq, healthcare, education, and the economy, and who doesn't advocate blowing off two huge constituencies in Michigan and Florida. If all of the popular vote is counted, that candidate leads by more than 40,000 (and she now leads Obama in all of the national polls, as well as in Pennsylvania), and she can win in November. And in speech after speech Wednesday and yesterday, she continued to focus on issues.
He would be a good Vice Presidential candidate. In that office he could obtain more of the experience he needs, and Obama supporters would get 16 years of their guy in high office. He can't carry the electoral votes to win in November -- that's a simple fact, and his campaign knows it. Let's work together in this venue to bring these candidates and their teams together. If we don't, we'll just be standing there on Nov 4, wondering how John McCain became POTUS.
To read about the electoral vote count, you can start at
No panic here. But I do think your math is a bit, um, fuzzy? Girlfriend is going down, and I'm just sorry that we'll have to watch every moment of her slow, painful erosion over time.ReplyDelete
Clintonista thinking: if we win, the system's great. If we lose, it's a real mess.
She can have her 10% of the vote in Michigan and Florida as far as I'm concerned--should net her a few delegates. And that will help her save some face, which is what this is now all about for Senator Clinton.
There, there, now, children -- simmer down. I don't want my happy little corner of the blogosphere to become a place where Clintonistas and Obamaniacs take pot shots at one another and get all snarly over who's in a panic and who's going down. It reminds me of a hilarious little bit my internets troller stumbled across yesterday, by way of Digby, arguing that "Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race." It goes on to 'splain:ReplyDelete
Hillary Clinton's supporters have gotten incredibly annoying, with their chants of "Yes She Can," and charges of cultism and their desperate yelps of schadenfreude every time Clinton looks like she might actually be "recapturing the lead" that she never had.
And Obama's supporters, yes, you too are incredibly annoying, with your accusations of Clintonian Republicanism and your whiny little cries about how you're going to take your ball and run home if your candidate doesn't win the primary.
Supporters of both candidates, please listen closely. For the good of the Party -- no, for the good of the Nation! -- the time has come for you to leave this race.
(The post is here.)
Not that I want to squelch the lively conversations that are suddenly breaking out here. Far from it, beloveds! Roxie's World revels in the sound of all your voices and in the rough and tumble of a good debate. And I know I engaged in a bit of a pot shot of my own the other day in confessing that I hope Senator Clinton kicks Senator Obama's butt in PA, but I want us to bear in mind that we're all pretty much in the same pack and that this whole business of choosing the alpha dog among Dems in the end matters far less than keeping the pack together to assure our success in November. No matter who emerges as the nominee, the Democratic party will make history this year. That is cause for celebration in and of itself, but it won't amount to a hill of beans if we can't keep it together to win in November.
Every time you are tempted to demonize the other guy or gal or threaten to take your marbles and go home if your candidate doesn't end up as the nominee, pause, take a breath, and conjure up that video of John McCain singing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Tell me again, children: Who's the monster in this race?
As I said, I think folks should work together. I have no interest in demonizing anyone, Rox! Senator Clinton is the best candidate on either side, and if folks don't want to vote for her, that's their business. She's a terrific leader, as her performance this week shows.ReplyDelete
One-person-one-vote, that's my mantra, and I hope it is for all Democrats.
In Possibility and with hope for an election that is untainted,
1 person-1 vote.ReplyDelete
I offer no comment on whether or not this is a good mantra. In a completely disinterested way, all I meant was: this is not how it works, nor how it has ever worked, in the U.S.
Should it be? I leave it to others to decide. Martha Nell says: yes!
I'm sorry if I was offensive earlier. I respect Senator Clinton, I don't want her to be my President, and I am very grateful (and excited) that I have a better choice.
i guess no one saw "The Abyss"ReplyDelete