It's such a sad, dismal prospect for an opinion column. Am I actually going to read it? Ugh. I will try. I've copied the full text into my compose window and now I'm whittling it down to what's essential and worth quoting. Much of it is recounting what's happened so far — who got into the race, who was moderate and who was extreme, Obama's caution about too much extremism. I'm cutting that.
What continues to define the Democratic race is the absence of a candidate who has truly captured the imagination of voters.Some things are defined by the lack of definition. Sometimes what comes into focus is fuzziness. Sometimes when you think the people are confused and need clarity, you're actually looking at something that is quite clear. We're not confused. We just don't like any of these candidates. There's your clarity if you want clarity.
And that's the result of my whittling-down approach to writing a post on a column like that. I ended up with only one sentence, and I only kept that because I was vaguely intrigued by the concept of "defin[ing]... the absence."
There's so much repetitious junk out there. But columns must be written. You do not have to read them.
Posts
100 comments:
Maybe the more debates, the less popular 5hey become
Their biggest problem is that the base, which includes 90% of the media, including this Dan fellow, is forcing them to go full commie.
Althouse cuts through the WaPo clutter in seconds. Her readers and commenters appreciate that.
The only one of the Dems still standing that I would want to have a glass of wine or beer with is Tulsi because she’s so good looking and not crazy.
I like Tulsi, but I’m not voting for her.
A muffled cry of pain
Siri, play Everybody Hurts.
Thank you for putting on your wellies and mucking through so we don't have to...
The Democrats writing these pieces remind me of college football fans getting all wee weed up over the future NFL prospects of their team's star player, then bitching about the injustices when he doesn't even make the pros.
Wake me up in August after you pick somebody...
There's a lack of clarity on all sides...except for Trump.
What is abundantly clear is that the ideas offered up by the Democrats are not acceptable to most outside of a college campus or coastal media corporation. There are no palatable ideas coming out of that party and the extreme ideas have risen to the top, hoisted up by the screams and 'likes' of a younger generation. (or as Veep Selina Meyers put it: "Hoisted up by our own retard").
The sad thing for Dems is that had they been running against any 'Republican' other than Trump, they'd still have a clear shot because the Republican party has either been devoid of ideas or unable to articulate them for years.
Trump is not a classic Republican. He merely owns the seat on that party's ticket. And he won't be giving it up for 5 more years at which time the Dems can get back into play again, if...if they can manage to not be crazy. So far that seems to be a task too great. They've gone so far down a narrowing branch, I do believe it's about to break off.
I'd like to have a beer with the Fake Indian, so I could ask her when she last washed her only pair of black pants.
-or-
I'd like to have a beer with Slow Joe, only after I hadn't washed my hair for about 6 months, you know, just in case.
I think he (and the Dem candidates) are dancing around the real point: in terms of actual accomplishments (the economy, foreign policy, appointing judges, one-off changes such as prison reform), Trump has been tremendously successful from a conservative point of view, and he appears to be making deep inroads into traditional Dem constituencies (three, count 'em, three polls in the past week or two showing 30%+ of black voters approval of Trump).
The Mueller Report was a bust, the impeachment effort in the House is shaping up to be a bust, and the Dem candidates are forced ever more leftward to distinguish themselves from Trump and from one another. Half a century of following politics leaves me very much aware of readily the GOP can shoot itself in the foot, but I still think next year's election will bear some strong parallels to the 1984 election. Keep in mind that most of what the left/press has been saying about Trump for the past four years is what they said about Reagan all through his first term.
defin[ing]... the absence.
Everything that isn't minus what is.
*"aware of how readily"
Never fear, Dems!! Quid Pro Joe has fired up the ‘No Malarkey’ tour bus and is barnstorming through Iowa. 🙄
Malarkey Joe—the embodiment of confusion—yet he leads the dismal Democrat pack.
Yesterday Slow Quid Pro Quo Joe bit his wife’s finger mid speech AND delivered a jumbled soliloquy about his lifeguard days replete with tales of his blond leg hair that the Black kids liked to touch when they were not jumping gleefully into his lap.
Joe thinks Malarkey is the city in Wisconsin where the convention will take place.
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
Still early days.
Beasts of England said...
Never fear, Dems!! Quid Pro Joe has fired up the ‘No Malarkey’ tour bus and is barnstorming through Iowa. ��
Guess the "23-Skidoo" and "Oh You Kid!" buses were unavailable, huh?
Nicely done and completely correct.
What hath people like this writer wrought?
Pretending they’re just sitting on the sidelines observing is a key part of the mess.
There's so much repetitious junk out there. But columns must be written. You do not have to read them.
I am grateful that you do read them, so that I do not have to. It's not good for my blood pressure.
Shorter article: Will no one rid me of this turbulent President?
Woke insanity will not win nationally.
Yang is the only one who I feel doesn't want to put me in a concentration camp.
Snickers are delightful on a Sunday morning.
What was the old expression, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
Like so much else in our politics, Trump seems to've turned that upside down too. In 2016, the Democrats had to fall in line for Hillary, because it was her turn, and it was the Republican base who refused to fall in line for Jeb, instead falling in love with Trump.
While Bernie and Warren have captured the imagination of the Left, to the Democrat Establishment and Boomers they smell like McGovern. Every effort will be made to shoehorn Mayor Pete into the Gary Hart-throb role, but I suspect that will prove a dry hump.
He fools you only because he's inscrutable, JayDee!
Athouse thank you for your service. You read Balz, so we don't have to. The D's Problem is they have a very weak bench. They had a weak bench in 2016 too, that's why they ended up with Hillary. Why? because in deep blue states the Democratic candidates win, no matter what. They can be stupid, crooked, or just plain weird, and the D's will line up and vote them in. Most D's are sheep.
Right now, that hurts them with Independents in the POTUS race, but I wouldn't be surprised if Warren, Buttigig or Biden gets elected. They're all beating Trump in the polls.
Isn't this, in part, the result of the modern laissez-faire, come one, come all, approach to the political parties selection of a candidate? Back in the day of the smoke filled back room, the candidate would be chosen, presumably, based on which was best able to capture a majority of the voting public's support.
The free-for-all did produce Trump and I think he was the only Republican that could defeat HRC, but his selection was the result of so many being in the race. Did he ever win a majority of primary or caucus voters?
The other point to consider is that the smart and appealing Democrat candidates are sitting this one out because they understand Trump is going to win, handily. Holding fire until 2024. Might also make a good case that Buttigieg and Gabbard are in it now to get some national recognition, again for a 2024 run.
"Defined by absence" Great job. Put that together with yesterday's blog where it was pointed out that the Dems are searching for the right lie - and you get
Dems 2020 - Defined by the absence of the right lie.
I'd add that the Dem problem is they are also defined by the presence of the wrong lie, namely,
"America Sucks", the true Dem slogan of 2020.
Maybe "We Tax" would be better?
No sympathy here that the Democrats can't field a candidate that people like. They act as if it were someone's fault other than their own -- as if candidates just happen like shit happens. Each of them is an organic product of their inadequate farm team system. Boo hoo.
Why? because in deep blue states the Democratic candidates win, no matter what.
Case in point, Kamala Harris. She never fought an uphill political challenge, ever. All of her challenges were to please the right men of her ilk, not the people.
Slow Joe is doing battlefield prep for his diminished capacity plea in the upcoming corruption storm. All he needs to do is start drooling. Truth is the dumbocrats are faced with the results of their governance over the last decades. L.A., Baltimore, New Orleans, Portland, Chicago, Detroit all shit holes on the street. The wealthy neighborhoods are $gated$ $communities$. Can't hide the decay. College towns are petrie dishes, fantasy islands of social theories. Can't hide it. As Mick said don't mind the maggots. Well, lots of people do mind the maggots. Buckle up, gonna be helluva ride!
The 'cry of pain' needs a new muffler.
Did he ever win a majority of primary or caucus voters?
During the general election, sure.
You know who has captured the imagination of Democrats? Donald Trump.
Dems are so busy imagining things about Trump they have no imagination left for their own candidates.
Trump has not only captured the Dem imagination he has broken it to ride and trained it to jump through flaming hoops.
The big problem with the Dems from my point of view is they are totally focused on “who can beat Trump” rather than “what will we do for America that is better than what Trump has done.” And anyone who is paying attention will realize that everything the Dems propose - especially Bernie and Warren - will wreck the economy. Under Trump we have low unemployment across all categories, no new wars, a strong economy, and a President who is willing to stand up to the evil Chinese. What do the Dems offer? Only policies that will reverse all that. Plus, Trump is positive and obviously loves this country and its people while the Dems pretty much hate much of America and everything it stands for. No thanks, Dems, we don’t need you.
What a bunch of malarkey.
Hahahaha!
Well, let's see. Every democrat candidate, with perhaps one or two exceptions, proposes that they should punish, penalize, and belittle every productive and responsible adult in the country. They promise us that "any minute now" evidence will emerge that Trump is a traitor, criminal, colluder or/and et al and should be removed and incarcerated. Their sycophants in the media cheerleads them on continuously and unsurprisingly incuriously. And yet despite this unending onslaught, responsible and cogent America recognizes them for the clueless, ignorant asswipes that they are. Worse those Americans will vote accordingly. The leftist propaganda and the purveyors of the same are becoming mired in the reality of their impending defeat. One can only bullshit in front of a floodtide of reality for so long.
JayDee77 said...
Yang is the only one who I feel doesn't want to put me in a concentration camp.
It's possible that's right but probably because his basic income was for everyone but whites so we have to keep working so everyone else is supported. Basically were slaves. And make no mistake there are whole bunch of people that think that's a good idea including some white people
In 2008, Obama had an empty CV. I guess that's really hard to reproduce.
Is there supposed to be clarity before anyone has voted?
There’s no confusion. It’s Open Borders and Socialism.
What continues to define the Democratic race is the absence of wisdom.
Tulsi captures imaginations. Rags-to-riches Schultz could have, but he was unwelcome. Maybe activist dems, the people deciding things right now, aren't really imaginative people.
"What continues to define the Democratic race is the absence of a candidate who has truly captured the imagination of voters."
Well, this is a symptom we have great experience with. Let me frame it this way- did Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Shelob capture the imagination of voters in 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and 2016? On the other side, were Republican voter imaginations captured by Goldwater, Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney in the general elections they lost?
Losers don't capture imaginations, but is this cause or is this effect? I think it is a bit of both, but probably weighted a bit to the former. I look at this field, and the only candidates in it right now that look like winners are Gabbard, Buttuvwxyz, and Warren. Biden has a long history of being a loser. Bloomberg is a winner, but he has picked a horrific strategy for winning the nomination. I mistaked Harris for a winner, though, so take my opinions with a huge grain of salt.
@Chickelit,
"Case in point, Kamala Harris. She never fought an uphill political challenge, ever."
Hey, perhaps no uphill battles, but she had to climb Mt. Willie a few times, no?
The early primaries and caucuses will narrow the field quickly and efficiently, so the confusion will clarify itself very rapidly in February and early March. This is just human nature- when your candidate hasn't been able to secure at least 2nd place in any race, you switch your vote to someone who has. After South Carolina, it is very likely the race will be down to just two candidates, three at most, and certainly two after Super Tuesday.
Balz's problem is that he looks at the cards in his hand---in this game of political poker, and realize that he doesn't even have a pair of deuces---well there's at least one joker in his hand.
And he looks across the table and has a sneaking suspicion that Orange Man Bad holds at least a Full House, if not four aces.
Balz hasn't learned the lesson that you have to know when to hold them, and know when to fold them. He's still hoping that something will happen for his moment of clarity. I'll suggest that when he does have his moment of clarity, he will fold.
I can sum that silly WashPo piece up in four little words:
The Democratic presidential campaign is a lot like what the GOP campaign would have been like in December 2015, if Trump wasn't in it. A bunch of mush--differences between them, but nobody really cuts a figure.
Lots of talk about a "strong" field, but in fact a bunch of people with little to say and little to recommend them.
In 2015-16, putting aside Trump, you had Cruz, whose appeal was too narrow to win in November, but at least he had something to say. Everybody else was either just in it for shits and giggles (Pataki?) or focus-grouped and polled and managed into political mush, and it showed, or were not attuned to where the electorate was at (Kasich).
Now, Sanders is still his own man, Biden is Crazy Old Uncle Joe whom people like but not sure why, Warren trying to fool us that she is a real person and succeeding better than most of the others, Harris and Booker having proven they aren't it, Yang is an interesting face for 2028 if he gets some experience, Gabbard as interesting but anathema to the establishment, and Buttiggieg (sp?) picking up all the loose change that nobody else can find.
Dems, they got nuthin’.
Balz is a sniveling little whiney snowflake, ain't he? If I were Joe Biden, I'd be yelling "No Malarkey!" in response to this tepid little article.
Dear Ms A: That’s some good whittling. You’re excellent at it.
Wouldn't it be interesting to hear an experienced political commentator not only note the absence of interest and affection consolidating around any of these candidates, but also speculate as to why? The Dem Party is, in some respects, an organizational wonder: so much of the infrastructure of our 20th and 21st century political and civic institutions has already collapsed around us, including the GOP. But the Dem Party holds strong. The upshot is that we're still being given for consideration as our leaders a bunch of political hacks. It takes more than mere electoral defeat, even repeated and humiliating electoral defeat, to destroy this institution. It truly is the most conservative institution left standing in today's political landscape. Only in this context is Warren impressive and Tulsi interesting. Against the possibility presented by Trump and the GOP, they are a bunch of badly programmed robots trying to act human and relatable while averring any risk of actually revealing their personalities. That dog won't hunt anymore.
I will also mention that the biggest problem the Democrats have, also an echo of the 2015-16 GOP, is that some of the positions of its activist and/or donor classes are anathema to the voters--how does a candidate thread that needle and not look pathetic?
Most people, including most Democrats, are NOT for public funding for abortion on demand in the 9th month, recognize that calling a man a woman is not simple or without problems, are in favor of free speech rather than deplatforming, think political correctness has gone too far, think the media does an awful job and is divisive, and while recognizing it has problems are not ashamed of the United States of Ameriice.
The academic, media, and donor core of the party sees all those opinions as anathema, including the last, meta-opinion.
Tough seas for a candidate to navigate, and you're not going to look good even trying.
Not only is Democratic economic policy hostile to business entrepreneurship, the way they do politics is hostile to political entrepreneurship. It's a highly conservative approach for a radical era, a mismatch of methodology and the zeitgeist that is obvious to many and still impossible to change rapidly. The Dem Party is the only thing holding together our political establishment, with even the GOPe forced to take sides by this impeachment gambit. The lethargy of large and powerful organizations is always an opportunity, but it does not appear there is anyone enterprising and bold enough to seize it at this moment. It is truly a desultory time for Dem supporters. Reminds me of what I hear from lifelong labor voters in the UK on the eve of their election there, where Corbyn dodders on and Labor slinks into further obscurity.
Martin wrote: ...and Buttiggieg (sp?) picking up all the loose change that nobody else can find.
What an excellent metaphor! It's almost Obamaesque...there's hope and change still out there but it's "loose."
As a former presumed lefty or at least lefty sympathizer, who turned away from the whole progressive program thanks to revulsion at identity politics, I admit that it's satisfying to see the fringes of the coalition tearing it apart. Having elevated the grievance mongers to an unassailable moral authority, it seems just that the most promising candidates and ideas are being shredded by the grievance mongers. Creative destruction.
There’s a certain Pantsuited Pantload just waiting for the call... waiting to toss her whineglass aside, take cudgel in hand and throw down large.
The problem is that the problems that need solving are not the ones they want solved.
Let's take it back to first principles. What are the biggest problems in this country?
The health care system is broken. There's too much bureaucracy and the entry costs (i.e. insurance) is too high. There's more, but that's a start.
Solution: Ban prescription drug advertising. Eliminate AMA restrictions on how many doctors can be trained. Eliminate Obama-era rules on digitizing records (docs spend as much time entering the same information on forms as on treating patients). Let doctors treat patients, and you reduce stress on them and they'll be more likely to stay in the profession. More competition among doctors and fewer regulations, and you put pressure to reduce prices.
Can you imagine who'd be against that?
OK, how about consumer privacy. Keep companies from gathering all kinds of information about us? Pass laws allowing customers to repair their products. Force social media companies to choose between offering an open forum to all or becoming publishers.
Or airline security, which was made stupid by Bush after 9/11. Flying nowadays is painful, humiliating, and more expensive.
There are a lot of problems. It's the kind of problems that the political parties don't want solved, because there's too much money to be made that way.
To paraphrase Joe Biden, one of the biggest problems dems have is a "3 letter word: Jobs".
I cannot think of an issue under the sun hat the Democratic Party is not in the wrong about.
So what is a competent politician to make platform of to run with?
The dem campaign provided clarity for me.
"[Yang's] basic income was for everyone but whites..."
I don't think that's true, at least not based on what his web site says today. It says the UBI is for everyone over 18, which makes it sound to me like what McGovern was pushing back in '72.
Obamacare was put together by HMO lobbyists in Harry Reid's back office with no other interests present or their opinions wanted. There is no "fixing" this.
One of the biggest problems Dems have is a 3 letter word: Joe.
The first rule is, pick a governor not a senator. You can pick an exceptional General. Exceptional business people, like Hoover, are iffy and may or may not work. Even within these rules there are exceptions, like Dukakis, and JFK. There were better people than JFK available but Americans wanted a rich playboy. Dukakis looked stupid.
"It's such a sad, dismal prospect for an opinion column."
The Democrat Party is a sad and dismal subject.
Very funny, Bob Boyd:
Slow Joe
A Muffled Cry of Pain would make great campaign slogan for any Dem candidate. Only total silence would be muffled enough for my taste.
From a character/personality perspective, it's not difficult to imagine the Dems coming up with someone who is sufficiently appealing to a broad section of the country as an alternative to Trump.
But from a policy perspective? Once you get away from the demonstrably crappy ideas, like Medicare-for-all, forcing corporations to appoint boards pursuant to sex/race quotas, deindustrializing in the name of carbon reduction, or freeing the criminals, what can they offer that will make life better for working people, or most people, or whatever? Certainly nothing that I've heard.
Bill Peschel above notes some common-sense perspectives on issues that could use some attention, like applying better free-market principles to health care, but the Dem base seems to have very little use for that, and actually Trump would probably be pretty receptive to much of it. (His Administration has already taken some substantial steps to improve transparency in hospital pricing, for example.)
So what is it that the Balzes of the world would like to see that isn't looney-tunes leftist garbage? Until they can answer that, they will be disappointed by their field, or by their field's chances for electoral success.
The free-for-all did produce Trump and I think he was the only Republican that could defeat HRC, but his selection was the result of so many being in the race. Did he ever win a majority of primary or caucus voters?
@stevew (9:40), Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, then Trump swept New Hampshire, South Carolina, and nearly every other primary out there. He won or tied for first in nearly every state east of the Mississippi River (he lost Ohio to Kasich and Maine and Wisconsin to Cruz), plus the three left coast states. He entered the convention with 1441 committed delegates, with 1237 needed for a first ballot victory. Cruz won the center of the country, including Iowa and a swath of states In the center of the country from Texas up to Idaho, but Trump had almost double the delegates he had. Rubio won only DC, Minnesota, and Puerto Rico. Rubio lost his home state.
Mattman puts his finger on something important. We cantankerous, chaotic Americans distrust and dislike quotas, and the Democrat’s embrace of quotas is a blunder. Is anyone here besides me old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey insisting that affirmative action would “never” lead to quotas? Were they lying or just stupid? Being Democrats I think it must be both.
This election is as clear as any could be. We have unprecedented prosperity with an economy that is unmatched and virtually singular in the world right now in it's strength. One side's message is to continue that and improve on it, while avoiding wars, but standing up for our own interests internationally. The other side recommends that we completely change all that so we can adopt the policies of nations past and present who are performing poorly or in completely collapse if they even exist at all. Seems pretty clear to me.
The problem for the Democrats is that with Trump's success and this economy, what can you run on? Everything that makes sense is being done by the current office holder, so you are forced to champion really bad ideas just to have some contrast.
"Obama's caution about too much extremism." From the man who ran on "fundamentally changing this country".
Yeah, the unmatched economic strength is tough to compete with. All the more reason to impeach the guy.
"the point is just it's an awful mess"
Why? Things are crystal clear: Dems have no competent national candidate, the party's left sets the agenda, they are motivated mainly by Trump hatred, and their only "ideas" are mad lefty schemes. They are counting on winning without making concessions to the middle or the deplorable right.
Declaring a clear situation a "mess" is just part of the vote rationalization by "moderates" looking for "serious" candidates, still making "plans" and wanting to "see what happens." The point is just it's awfully messy to engage in such policy-free vote rationalization.
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1201119857951019008
“Is anyone here besides me old enough to remember Hubert Humphrey insisting that affirmative action would “never” lead to quotas?“
I’m pleased as punch to tell you I am and I do.
he would eat his hat, I think was the pledge,
Danno said...
Althouse cuts through the WaPo clutter in seconds. Her readers and commenters appreciate that.
Hear, hear.
Didn't Joe say something about putting someone back in chains? Dem policies got that covered.
Iman +100... and Killer Kennedy promised there would be no illegal avalanche too!
“There’s a certain Pantsuited Pantload just waiting for the call... waiting to toss her whineglass aside, take cudgel in hand and throw down large.”
Sure, but the saner Democrats realize that that would just let Trump run up the score even more. Back in 2016, no one really knew that she and her campaign had actively colluded with apparently both the Russians and the Ukrainians, as well as the FBI and CIA, to sabotage and spy on Trump and his campaign. Last time she got away with mostly just doing intimate fund raisers with ultra rich donors, barely getting in a single public event a week, while Trump, in a bad week was doing a half dozen decent sized public rallies. She could do that because she had the inside track, and her physical problems were being intentionally hidden from the public. The physical problems are, no doubt, worse. Trump’s events are even bigger. She gets the Dem nomination, and I expect that Trump will make her a laughing stock of the country. Partly, it would be payback - the fictional Steele Dossier that caused him so much trouble over the last three years was bought and paid for by her and the DNC, which was, at the time, run as a surrogate of her campaign, since she controlled their budget. I expect making her the laughing stock would be easy, just ask at the beginning of every rally “Where is Crooked Hillary?” Throw in some jibes about Scooby van sightings. Etc.
What continues to define the Democratic race is the absence of a candidate who has truly captured the imagination of voters.
Not true. Trump has captured the imagination of voters.
Dictator-for-life
Concentration camps
Not one of us
Not who we are (Thank God! Because God protects drunks, fools and the United States of America.)
Etc ad nauseum
the product is Orange Man Bad. but the NPCs seem to be buggy. They're not buying it.
@daskol:
hi!re "the fringes shredding the coalition" -- in the case of a schadenboner lasting more than 4 years, consider repealing the 22nd, and go for 16!
Give the Left a long close look at their New Rules!
@Big Mike
It wasn't until later that he won more than a plurality in a primary or caucus. When it was down to Trump, Cruz, and Kasich he achieved more than 50% of the vote in New York.
Yancey Ward seems to have it right that it's silly to get all worked up (issuing muffled cries of pain) about the race so far in advance of the first votes being cast.
"A muffled cry of pain..."
Cry-of-pain mufflers should be illegal, or onerously regulated by the Government, like firearm suppressors are.
When politicians whimper in distress, it's important that we get to hear it. It's encouraging to us and lets us know that we've hit them where it hurts.
Sad, sad puppy Dems. Oh the humanity.
bagoh20: "The other side recommends that we completely change all that so we can adopt the policies of nations past and present who are performing poorly or in completely collapse if they even exist at all. Seems pretty clear to me."
Heck, just trying to go back to the policies Trump reversed (thanks to President Pen and Phone) would make the Democrats toxic in my book.
they never move on:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/12/former-hillary-aide-still-attacking-brett-kavanaugh/#comments
There are ways to, um, cure a muffled cry of pain.
BUMBLE BEE said...Slow Joe is doing battlefield prep for his diminished capacity plea in the upcoming corruption storm. All he needs to do is start drooling.
--
He's already biting the hand that feeds him.
Fatty McButterpants
@gloliver7149
4h4 hours ago
Replying to @mattmargolis
He thought she was holding a treat- lol!
well that's awkward,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/01/jeremy-corbyn-protested-against-extradition-terror-suspects/
Barack Obama says it doesn’t matter who the nominee is; just vote Democrat, dammit.
this all arose out of fraud,
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1201186052741980161
BRIBERY!
WITCHCRAFT!
Professora Emerita said : I was vaguely intrigued by the concept of "defin[ing]... the absence."
____&&&-----
Best effort to my knowledge : empty chair by Clint Eastwood.
Because NewAgers always produce clarity?
Come on.
Post a Comment