by John McCormick
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama appeared on "Face the Nation" this morning on CBS. The transcript is below:
CBS, "Face the Nation," interviewed by Bob Schieffer, 12/23/2007
Bob Schieffer: And good morning again. Joining us from Des Moines this morning, Senator Barack Obama. And Senator thank you so much coming in this morning. And you are in a very good place this morning it seems like you are leading out there in Iowa. According to an average of the polls its getting very, very close in New Hampshire and it turns out you are now leading in South Carolina. I want to begin this morning by asking you about something you said this morning in the Des Moines Register, you argued to two of their reporters that you are the most electable of the Democrats. And you said that one reason for that you point to what you said you would not automatically have the Republicans rallied against you in the way in the way you argue that Senator Clinton would have them rallied against her. I mean, what are you saying here Senator that she just brings out the worst of the Republicans and you don't, I mean, how can you say that?
Senator Barack Obama: First of all, that was based on polls that we have seen, Bob, over the last several weeks that show me beating ever single Republican and showing that I am the only Democrat that does. And the difference, I think, is that I draw more Republicans and independents. And I actually think that Senator Clinton is a capable, solid Senator from New York. But because of the history of some of the battles that have taken place back in the 90s, it is true that she tends to galvanize the other side. But I was making more of a positive argument than a negative argument. What I've seen as I travel around Iowa and the across the country that people want to see the next president bring people together, push back the influence of special interests and lobbyists, talk straight with the American people and get things done. And how we've been running our campaign, I think, is the same way we want to govern. I may have disagreements with Republicans but I don't want to polarize and demonize those folks. I want to see if we can bring them into a working majority to actually deliver on healthcare, education, and new energy policy and a foreign policy that can repair some of the damage that has been done. So, the message was really one of what I can bring to the table as opposed to what others can't.
Bob Schieffer: Well in fact do you think that it would be a meaner and nastier campaign were she was the nominee instead of you?
Senator Barack Obama: Well, my suspicion is that the Republican National Committee is going be targeting any Democratic nominee. I am sure that there will be a lot of negative ads out there. They don't have much to run on based on what happened over the last seven to eight years. So, there is no doubt that there will be negativity, but I do think that if you start off with high negatives then you are playing on a very short field; and it's hard for you then to persuade those who might be persuadable to come into your corner. One of the things that I am seeing is that its not just Democrats, but it is also Republicans and independents who have also lost trust in how our government has functioned. They're concerned about profligate spending on things that aren't our priorities. They are concerned about the fact that we have a foreign policy that has diminished our standing around the world. They are concerned about inefficiencies. Katrina didn't just upset Democrats—it upset Republicans as well. And so we have a chance, potentially, to bring in people who have seen the philosophy of George Bush and Dick Cheney not serve the country well and are I think are willing to consider a new approach.
Bob Schieffer: Let me talk to you about the center piece of your campaign, you say it is change. Well now you've been in Washington and you have had a good record as a freshman Senator from Illinois. You're party has been in the majority, you have been on one of the key committees. What could you say at this point that since you have been dealing with national matters that you have change significantly? Have you changed anything yet or is that still to come?
Senator Barack Obama: Well actually, I think I have brought about change over the last two and half years. I passed along with Russ Feingold – the toughest ethics reform since Washington. We eliminated meals and gifts and the use of corporate jets from lobbyists to Congressman. We mandated the disclosure of bundling by lobbyists, who they are taking money from and who they are giving it to. I worked with Republicans across the aisle to set up a Google for government where that every dollar of federal spending is going to be on a virtual database, so that you as a journalist, but also ordinary citizens can find out how we are spending our money. And if there's a bridge being built to nowhere, or if there's a no-bid contract going to somebody, that will be transparent, and we will be able to hold our government accountable. On nuclear proliferation issues and arms control, I've worked with people like Dick Lugar to get things done. On Veterans Affairs, you know, in Walter Reed we had young men and women who were having to pay for their own meals after having been injured in service to our country; we eliminated that. So, obviously, there's a record there that I'm very proud of, but, when I talk about change, it's not simply policies; it's also a change in leadership. And what, right now, the American people are desperate for is a president that they can trust, who's going to promote accountability and transparency in our government, who's going to take a new approach on thing s like foreign policy—talking not just to our friends, but also to our enemies—and that's the kind of leadership I'm providing, and that's why we're doing so well in Iowa, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina; and, I think, ultimately, across the country.
Bob Schieffer: Well, Senator Clinton's husband says, not withstanding all of that, I'm sure he wouldn't concede that you've accomplished as much as you've just outlined there. He says that anybody who votes for you is taking a roll of the dice. What do you think about that, and are you surprised to find yourself running against Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton?
Senator Barack Obama: Well, look, I don't begrudge Bill Clinton helping his wife. You know, my wife's helping me, and I understand that, you know, he's loyal to her and wants to make sure that he puts the best face forward on her campaign.
Bob Schieffer: Well, what about his criticism?
Senator Barack Obama: Well, what I would note would be that much of the criticism he's leveling at me is identical to the criticism that was leveled against him when he was running against George H.W. Bush. Folks said that here's a governor of a small state, has no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and his argument was "Look, my experience is rooted in the real lives of real people, and will bring real results if we have the courage to change."
Bob Schieffer: Do you think he's helping her campaign or hurting?
Senator Barack Obama: Well, I--there's no doubt that he's an asset to her campaign. Look, there's enormous fondness for Bill Clinton among Democrats, and I think that he brings the sort of megawatt celebrity that is almost unequalled anywhere in the country. When he shows up, there are big crowds. But, what people, I think, recognize, despite the fondness of him and of her--I think people feel that they respect her very much but, what people here in Iowa consistently tell me is they're looking for something different; they're looking for something new. They want to turn the page, and they want to deliver the sort of concrete goals of healthcare, an improved education system ,a new energy policy, and the reason I think we're doing well is that we represent a set of new ideas and a new attitude in terms of inviting the American people into participating in their government.
Bob Schieffer: Let me ask you about the war. You were on e of the first to say "we shouldn't go to Iraq." You say you've always been against it; you were against the surge. But, when you look at what's happening—what is happening, over there, Senator Obama, there is no question violence is down, This month , compared to November of a year ago, there were six hundred and fifty civilian deaths, a year go there were thirty-four hundred plus. Iraqi security forces, they're building up. Daily attacks are down form a hundred and eighty last November to just eighty this year. What do you think would be the situation right now, Senator, if the president had taken your advice?
Senator Barack Obama: Well, if he had taken my advice we would have never been in Iraq, and we would've saved ourselves—
Bob Schieffer: Lets' just talk about this, this recent surge of troops; the recent surge.
Senator Barack Obama: Well, keep in mind what I said at the time when the surge was being proposed: that I had no doubt that additional U.S. troops would make some difference on the ground—we've got the best troops in the world. But, George Bush's own premise was that as a consequence of the surge, we would give breathing room to the Iraqi's to start negotiating, and to stabilize the political situation there, and that was what I was skeptical of, and continue to be skeptical of. I'm glad that the violence has gone down, but keep in mind, Bob, that we've essentially gone full circle. We had intolerable levels of violence, and a dysfunctional government back in 2006. We saw a huge spike in violence to horrific levels. The surge comes in, and now we're back to where we were in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional Iraqi government. If we want to stabilize the situation in Iraq over the long term, then we have to trigger different behavior among the Shia, Kurdish factions, and get them to come to an agreement on how they're going to govern, and that has not happened. The only way, I believe, to trigger that different attitude is going to be if we announce a phased, careful, responsible, redeployment, and that's what I've proposed consistently.
Bob Schieffer: Alright. Well, Senator, we want to wish you the best out there, and I'm sure we'll being seeing you before those Iowa caucuses. We'll be back with Republican—
Senator Barack Obama: Bob, Merry Christmas.
Bob Schieffer: —presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in just one minute. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barack Obama: Merry Christmas.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I'm fired up!
GOOODLUCK SENATOR OBAMA! you have earned my vote.
Posted by: Tracy | December 23, 2007 12:17 PM
It was a very strong performance on FTN for Obama. Knows his stuff. Looked very "presidential".
Posted by: Ava | December 23, 2007 12:55 PM
Thanks for posting this transcript, John McCormick. Sorry I missed this.
Last night, Sen. Obama was scheduled for an event in Urbandale. We were having a serious snow storm, so I thought, "Great. I'll finally be able to go to an event where the group is small enough that I might get a question answered" (like I thought about Harlan and Audobon) -- NOT!
Not only did Iowans show we are "Fired Up" & "Ready to Go" even in a snow storm, but Senator Obama did us proud -- I believe this was his 5th event of the day and he performed like it was his first. Snow storm? What snow storm?
And the crowd was overflowing out into the lobby - about 600 strong.
People who want intimate, but little house parties will have to find a lesser candidate - Barack Obama simply attracts like no other in this race.
Barack Obama appears to have a very good chance for a little "shock and awe" of his own on January 3rd, and in NH, NV, and SC.
Most importantly, on Jan 4th, young boys and girls in LA, Chicago, NYC, and New Orleans will begin to hang his photo over their beds -- they will find in him a man who instills hope on the order of JFK or Martin Luther King.
Good interview, Bob Schaeffer, and great answers, Barack!
America, our moment is now. Obama '08!
Posted by: Obiwan1250 | December 23, 2007 1:27 PM
There was no mention of Edwards here despite the fact that the NYX just said that he is the best positioned to win Iowa!
Unbelievable!
Edwards beats all the republicans, not Obama!
Obama is the only candidate who loses New Jersey to Giuliani.
Posted by: Oscar | December 23, 2007 1:30 PM
I really think this was a great interview and one that speaks volumes to OBAMA'S leadership ability and his vision, to lead this country into a new era of greatness at home and around the world.
Posted by: jimmie | December 23, 2007 1:51 PM
Clearly Senator Clinton is a divisive figure and would have a harder time winning in the general election than Barack Obama. Poll after poll shows this. More importantly, Barack Obama has a better chance of uniting this country under it's common values to address the problems we face.
Posted by: Edward Lynch | December 23, 2007 2:27 PM
Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.
It's time to Rise and Shine again.
Posted by: PulSamsara | December 23, 2007 2:28 PM
Up front, I would have a hard decision if Hillary got the nomination. There are just too many things that I don't like/trust about her. Lesser of two evils decision for me.
At the same time, I am EXTREMELY disappointed in Barack Obama.
To refer to him as the "Senator" representing Illinois, is laughable. How many days has he actually spent representing our state? How many times has he actually been there when critical votes were being taken? Where was he at when Chris Dodd was trying to protect American citizens by filibustering the immunity for the telecoms.
Any communication that I've had with his Senatorial office has gotten extremely poor responses, or no response at all.
None of this impresses me about how he would potentially react as a President.
Posted by: dogjudge | December 23, 2007 3:59 PM
Senator Barack Obama: Merry Christmas.
All I want for Christmas is anyone but Rudy, or Huckabee as president.
Posted by: Alberto G | December 23, 2007 4:31 PM
Senator Obama is correct in one statement: he would get many more Republican and Independent voters (of which I am one) than Hillary Clinton. I WILL vote for Obama for president, but NOT Clinton, as we need to get past this Clinton-Bush lock on America. Obama offers a fresh, new look with an exciting insight.
I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, but her negatives are just too high (too many people just do not like her). With Obama, it is just the opposite.
Posted by: Elaine | December 23, 2007 5:00 PM
Doesn't it seem like every morning talk show is asking negative questions bound to get defensive answers? Barack does a really good job here but 'Meet the Press' killed Ron Paul today (not that he wasn't already doomed). Can't we get some Holiday Spirit?
Posted by: Lee | December 23, 2007 5:16 PM
In 2008, we don’t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it’s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.
The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama’s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.
Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages.
Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn’t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
He didn’t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He’s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn’t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There’s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary’s attacks on Barack’s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary’s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.
Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.
I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I’m tired of the old establishment. I don’t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton’s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss’s wife?
Hillary’s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama’s recent surge in the polls, and I’m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child’s play.
Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren’t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he’s saying to you. He’s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn’t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.
I like that he’s young. I like that he’s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.
Simply because I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It’s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.
On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.
Posted by: Paolo | December 23, 2007 5:28 PM
NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: ingraham | December 23, 2007 8:51 PM
I see Obama as this generation's JFK, which begs the question, will actually let him govern if he comes to office? What a breath of fresh air it would be for the Nation if he were to win. I've got my fingers crossed!
Posted by: Jonathan Underwood | December 23, 2007 8:56 PM
Says Paolo: "Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates..."
You're joking, right? Biden alone fits that description, and he's effectively out of it.
and:
"Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages."
Sorry Paolo, but "fresh, untainted" Barack [chuckle] is no stranger to corruption at all. I suggest that you read something about Barack's tenure as an Illinois senator. His dealing with Tony Rezko alone is enough to send Barack packing, but there's plenty more; such as the foul-smelling political allies he had; his use of PAC and lobbyist monies. Gosh, now that's "Real World" experience!
So based on his politics-as-usual background, I have to ask you: If we vote for Barack, where would be the "Change" you're talking about?
Gee, I love how we're on a first name basis with Barack... it makes me feel warm all over!
Posted by: MJ | December 23, 2007 9:03 PM
The Clintons had their day in the sun.... I am tired of them. I want someone new. Plus having Obama as president should be a big boost around the world in third world nations.
Posted by: JIM | December 23, 2007 9:21 PM
Obama has no experience! Why would you put a Black Muslim in the White House? He has done nothing for Illinois. Hillary is not the answer, either. I may not vote this time around. There is nobody worthy of being President!
Posted by: Frank | December 23, 2007 10:03 PM
"The Clintons had their day in the sun ... I am tired of them. I want someone new."
Ditto that! The Clintons have had much, much more than their day. So, why do they run as if their lives depended on another stint in the White House: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | December 24, 2007 1:10 AM
MJ, I challenge you to write a piece as lucid and thoughtful as the one to which you so callously have responded. It's not so easy sustain a series of defensible written claims, in a measured tone, in a well-organized manner, as Paolo has done. I would have suspected a professional writer shill, except that Obama has such solid support among the thinking, writing, and reading class, that one can regularly observe better behavior, better research, and better writing skills among his supporters in these pages.
Let's see what you actually have to say about Tony R, "PAC monies [sic]", and "plenty more", instead of merely suggesting that there is a story yet to be told there. Let's shed some light on those shadows. Perhaps without "Gosh" and "Gee" and "Sorry, X" and exclamations and italicizings, any thoughtful opinions you have could be taken seriously too.
Personally, I am most offended by your slight against Joe Biden!
Posted by: Ronald P. Loui | December 24, 2007 2:18 AM
Mistake in the transcript:
"I passed along with Russ Feingold – the toughest ethics reform since Washington."
Instead should read:
"...since Watergate."
Great answers from Barack here, really shows that he backs up his rhetoric with substance. Obama 2008!
Posted by: Paul Oliver | December 24, 2007 2:54 AM
Darn it! The senator knew his stuff. He's right. We've gone through a full cycle in Iraq and things are so bad that we take comfort coming back just to where we were in 2006 - and call it a success! Jesus Christ!
It's time to ask Iraqi fractions that they hold their part of the bargain. Well done, senator! Glad you've made it clear that we're not going to do a nanny work for a nation of 25 million people and thereby delay the inevitable with more American blood. I'm fired up!
Posted by: ashley | December 24, 2007 5:25 AM
Posted by: Ronald P. Loui | December 24, 2007 2:18 AM,
First of all, FYI, the word "lucid" does not mean long-winded as you seem to think. It believe we sould at least try to be brief in a blog. So I barely skimmed the surface with my post. The facts are there -- look for them. Be an informed voter for a change.
Secondly, Paolo did not write anything that was defensible, at least not lucidly so. It was a string of slogans and flat out errors.
Third, the word "monies" is correct and your "(sic)" was incorrect.
Fourthly I did not slight Biden at all. Why do you say that I did? I was insulting the vacuous, celebrity worshiping electors who are ignoring him.
Posted by: MJ | December 24, 2007 8:56 AM
How Michelle Obama’s desire to get “some corporate experience” devastated the town of LaJunta Colorado.
Hispanic union workers like Santiago Vasquez lose jobs because Michelle Obama wants to improve efficiency? She defends layoffs telling Chicago Crains Business (click here to read the complete investigative report) that her firm "hopes to expand and hire more workers, many minorities, once it boosts its efficiency.”
Local reaction to the La Junta scandal:
Meet Santiago Vazquez (Windows Media Video)
“Ms. Obama, vice-president for external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, says she was asked to join the board — five months after her husband took office — after putting out feelers indicating she'd like to get some corporate management experience.” As if working for a hospital that charges uninsured minorities 5.4 times as much for drugs as Whites with insurance isn’t enough cold hearted corporate experience.
La Junta Mayor Don Rizzuto talks about dealing with a corporation like Bay Valley. (Windows Media Video)
A corporate press release. "The plan to close the La Junta plant and distribution center has been difficult because of its impact on employees, families and the community. The La Junta employees have demonstrated exceptional loyalty and dedication. Unfortunately, Bay Valley Foods has experienced…a significant increase in overhead costs, making it necessary…”
Candi Miell editorial director of the La Junta Tribune-Democrat discusses the impact of 153 people losing their jobs. (Windows Media Video)
The lesson learned by the publisher of the Pueblo Chieftain—don’t “depend on outside big companies.”
Meet Pat Ptolemy (Windows Media Video)
A proud Mayor pitches his town.
And by the way, the Medical Center he talks about, they mark up their actual costs of drugs by 190% as compared to The University of Chicago which marks up their actual cost of drugs by 538%. I guess they just don’t have the same corporate mentality in La Junta.
Posted by: Davey | December 24, 2007 9:38 AM
...Why would you put a Black Muslim in the White House...
Frank, where is your evidence for this? The topic has been beat to death in the press, and there is no evidence. Are you a member of Swift Boat that tries to spew lies about candidates? Very few people cling to this false rumor. Throwing it into this discussion is not going to change this.
Posted by: AC | December 24, 2007 2:40 PM
Obama 08!
Posted by: b | December 24, 2007 7:11 PM
Obama has never TRUTHFULLY explained and the media has not investigated Obama’s Muslim upbringing and Muslim training in foreign schools.
Because of Obama’s Muslim schooling, Muslim relatives, Muslin believes, and stated desire to cuddle up to the Muslim Extremist in IRAN he is probably the MOST DANGEROUS MAN in America today.
Americans need to take heed to the dangers of Obama. Americans did not understand in 1987 when in Senate Hearings Oliver North told America that Osama bin Laden should be feared. America thought that was nonsense. (see- http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blnorth.htm)
It was foolish to ignore the dangers of Osama in 1987 but it is far more foolish to ignore the dangers of Obama in 2007.
Let’s face it Obama has a Muslim education, Muslim bloodline, Muslim connections, Muslim geology and a desire to entreat Radical Muslim Iran.
Obama was raised as a Muslim and claims to have converted to Christianity but does not publicly display and evidence of the conversion. I have seen Muslims that have converted and they don’t talk or look Obama. They do look like Nassir Sadiki see- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aez2JmhUEqA&feature=related
It is amazing how the media fixates on Mitt Romney being a Mormon and gives Obama a pass.
When you factor in the Muslim connection Obama could be the ultimate sleeper agent for Muslim extremist!
This is a reckless, imprudent, perilous game we Democrats are playing with a precarious man.
Jesse
www.JesseButler.com
http://www.shopgbg.com/?ID=318975
See- JAX. FL. Dem. Poll - http://www.topix.net/forum/source/wtlv/T4501DM26SFHDSAOD
Posted by: Jesse Butler | December 24, 2007 8:26 PM
And to think that as this interview was being aired, Obama's church of twenty years' long-standing choir director's murdered body was being discovered, but was not reported UNTIL TUESDAY! What sort of coverup exists between MSM, Chicago PD, and Obama camp? And we're not to think MSM does not have a hidden agenda in burying this story? This is huge in lieu of the controversial nature of Obama's religion/church and warrants investigation and FULL EXPOSURE of this "Christian Church!"
Posted by: Curiosityhasme | December 26, 2007 6:15 AM