Dear Terry McAwful

[ProSense]

Dear Terry:

You suck, Dean rocks!

When Kerry was calling for regime change in April 2003, where were the Clintons, where were you?

Terry exhibit A

Then watch the debates. In fact, Kerry was one of the few Democrats speaking out against Bush, none of you pundit types did anything. You, Begala and Carville, weren't deer in the headlights, you all were roadkill.

Terry who do you blame for losing in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Yet Dean comes in and wins in 2005. What about 2006? Are you going to take credit for the campaigning and fund-raising Kerry did for Democrats this year?

This is what people saw, Terry:

Before the convention

05.21.04

STRATEGERY:

The Kerry campaign's brain trust is regularly mocked and second-guessed for its strategic decisions, while Karl Rove somehow retains his reputation as a genius. Maybe it's time to rethink that conventional wisdom.

We can already assess the effect of the two big strategic moves of the pre-convention period. The Bush campaign's decision was to spend some $60 million in an attempt to discredit Kerry as a viable alternative to the president before the race really started. The Kerry campaign's decision was to concentrate on fundraising and allow events in Iraq and 527 spending to parry the Bush assault. Conventional wisdom among nervous Democrats outside the Kerry campaign, as well as much of the press, was that Kerry was making a Titanic mistake and Bush was making a bold and brilliant move similar to Clinton in 1996.

But the results are in. Kerry leads Bush in almost every national poll. His fundraising is astronomical, and he is pumping up his ad campaign just as Bush is ratcheting his down. The two main assumptions of the Bush campaign--that Kerry would be seriously under-funded and that he could be crippled by advertising--have proven to be wrong.

After convention:

When the Swift Liars/media assault began, did the three-ring circus Democratic pundits spring into action:

By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.

The campaign was in full swing and fired off responses. What did you, Begala and Carville contribute?

The Democrats were sworn in yesterday, and I'm ready for you Terry:



You disgust me,

ProSense

[Sydnie]

1. thank you

[rox63]

2. Couldn't have said it better

Thanks for posting this, ProSense! :patriot:

[wisteria]

3. Thank you for setting the record straight. n/t

[seabeyond]

4. yup..... and if he and begala and carville are spouting this crap about kerry and dean

in order to get hillary the vote,.... all the more reason to take her down, at all cost, wtf cares who gets in there as long as it isnt clinton. total bullshit and i will not support those that smear this rubbish at dems to win

[karynnj]

10. It is interesting that all the Clinton people are attacking Kerry

during the time leading up to his making a decision to run. I don't know if all the attacks are Clinton inspired or not - I hope that it has the opposite effect from what is intended.

Senator Kerry is an extremely honorable person, who has never been associated with underhanded tactics like these. If he sees this, as we do, that these people are destroying his reputation for political reasons, he might be even less likely not to run. After all Nixon. Reagan, and 2 Bushes have already tried. He is a far better man than any of these creeps.

In McAuliffe's case, it is transparent. Kerry nearly won - any error - including McAuuliffe's lame participation can be blamed. Kerry with a DNC as efficient or as srong an advocate for him as the RNC was for Bush - would clearly have won.

[diane in sf]

35. Kerry did win

the vote was stolen

[havocmom]

5. BRAVO! K&R

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[burythehatchet]

6. Subtitle of Terry's book: The Quest for Relevance

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. His autobiography, of course.

[beachmom]

7. Can't say it enough times that McAwful quotes BUSH to bolster

his case. Clueless in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and still CONTINUES to be clueless. I'm feeling a mass rebellion brewing in the Democratic Party -- hell, NO, not Hillary and all her dopey advisors.

[NoodleyAppendage]

8. Dear Prosense...

KERRY LOST. His campaign tactics and defensive posture throughout the 2004 run was abysmal.

At what point will you realize that your "boy" isn't going to be President???

J

[ProSense]

11. Dear NoodleyAppendage

Why are so many people, including you, spending so much time worrying about Kerry's chances?

[NoodleyAppendage]

12. Why are so many around here re-running history to prop up Kerry?

As I have asked you in the past, if your cheerleading of Kerry is completely devoid of conflict of interest, then please tell me that you have NEVER worked for the Kerry campaign or his associated operations.

[ProSense]

13. Why are you worried about me supporting Kerry?

America is a democracy. Support whomever you choose to. I'm free to support Kerry 2008!

[NoodleyAppendage]

17. It's called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

DUers would probably like to know whether your cheerleading for Kerry is motivated by:

1.) alturism

OR

2.) your activity as a PAID interest for his campaign efforts.

[ProSense]

19. What the hell are you talking about? Is it impossible for you to wrap your head

around the concept that a lot of people, including me, support Kerry because we want to, not because we're on his staff?

[NoodleyAppendage]

20. I didn't say "staff." I asked if you were ever or currently paid for work related to Kerry.

It is a simple "Yes" or "No" question.

[ProSense]

21. I don't care what you asked, obviously you are bothered by the concept that Kerry has supporters.

NO

Now answer this question: Do you believe I'm the only non-paid Kerry supporter?

[beachmom]

34. I'm outing myself as yet another one who labors for Kerry for no pay

AND, no agenda, I may add. Who else out there is like me and Prosense? A labor of love, not pay . . .

[karynnj]

50. Me too

Never employed by any politician ever in my whole life. I am completely inspired by the life, vision and integrity. Someone like that comes along very infrequently. In my life, he is the first candidate who completely fits that description. My first vote was for McGovern and he is likely the next closest.

In fact, if Kerry opts not to run, I will do what I can to support his actions in the Senate in the blogasphere. Kerry is trying to push people in the right direction on foreign policy - and he has a very clear vision, I would rather support Kerry's ideas than support Hillary or Edwards as a Presidential candidate.

[globalvillage]

61. For the record

Another unpaid Kerry supporter here. Are we all supposed to declare?

Thanks to the OP. Terry McAwful didn't get that nick for nothing. Thank God for Dr Dean.

[MH1]

23. What's your F***ING PROBLEM?

check out the Kerry forum some time, there are A LOT of people who post there and they aren't paid staff.

It's asinine and insulting that you keep asking this question.

[JanusAscending]

27. I am in FULL support of an '08 run for John Kerry!!

I would support him to the death, and I worked for his last campaign FREE !! Now...WHO DO YOU WORK FOR ????????????? Oh yes,and I do support him for ALTRUISTIC reasons !!K??????

[Richard Steele]

67. That's not what a 'Conflict of Interest' is. Not even close, lol!

[seabeyond]

14. i believe it is anti kerry continually putting up lies for agenda sake

that causes people to have to once again enter threads to correct misstatement and flat out lies being fed to the public. it is not people supporting kerry starting these threads. maybe you need to address the crowd that continually feels the need to go back to 2004 and re write history as fact

[wisteria]

16. I have never worked for the Senator or his campaign and I will continue to defend him.

I recognized what a great President he would make and wrote him with a request to run again for President. I observed the 2004 elections as an outsider to the internet. I can tell you what I saw was not so much Kerry inadequacies, but media bias towards Bush and a lazy Democratic party not willing to do there part. McAuliffe was part of the problem, he did very little to help Kerry, now he comes back and tries to use Kerry as a scapegoat to cover up his own management inadequacies.
Let McAuliffe continue to carry the water for the Clinton's. He is doing Kerry and his supporters a huge favor.

[MH1]

25. Okay, who's paying you? n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

30. NO ONE. I'm just sick of the "Kerry won" or "Kerry can win 2008" DELUSION.

The last thing we need to be doing for 2008 is backing a loser. IMHO, this concern also involves Hillary.

J

[MH1]

32. "Kerry can win in 2008" is no more "delusion" than saying that about any other candidate.

We each have a right to our opinions, but not to accuse others of conflict of interest or lying just because of disagreeing.

[The Count]

63. Dunno about 2008, but he won in 2004 - it's NOT a delusion

I'll treat your factless pronouncements again with my exit poll chart:

I am not a Kerry cheerleader, I wouldn't vote for him, his campaign was far from good, but he won nevertheless. Sorry you find it hard to accept - I blame this on Kerry + Edwards complicit silence - among other things.
Since the counts were clearly crooked, you have no way of knowing by how much he won either.

[rosesaylavee]

71. Why not let the primaries decide?

[blm]

43. NONE of us have - and it doesn't matter how many times we tell you - you never listen.

.

[MH1]

24. Shilling for "your girl" are you? n/t

[NoodleyAppendage]

26. No. I just don't want to see another failed bid by Kerry in 2008.

Our country cannot stand another 4 years with a Repuke in the WH, so I'm behind anyone who has a very good chance of winning in 2008. That means Kerry is not one of the choices.

J

[MH1]

29. Well, MANY of us disagree with you.

Kerry has as good a chance as anyone, and better than most. He is more qualified by far than several of the potential candidates. And frankly, it is becoming clearer and clearer that there was some conflict of interest on the part of certain persons in 2004, who rolled over for republican talking points when they should have been promoting Kerry and calling bullshit on those rtp's. Now they want to come out and rewrite history and blame Kerry instead of their own incompetence (or was it complicity?)

And if you would support a soulless, valueless shell like Hillary just because you think she can "win", I sure hope there's not very many like you in the Democratic Party, because that means the party is just as morally rudderless as the repukes want to portray us.

I'll support the candidate who represents my values, not some shell who will go whichever way the wind blows or say whatever crap will be politically advantageous for him or her.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. I don't think Hillary has a good chance either. Both she and Kerry are too polarizing.

We need a candidate that will bring in Southern voters.

[MH1]

33. *WE* need a candidate who is qualified to be President, and represents Democratic values.

Haven't seen much credibility in that area from likely southern candidates. Except Gore, but I don't think he's running.

[karynnj]

52. As soon as the Republicans make it their goal

to pick a candidate who can win DC, MA, NY and VT. By the way, Kerry won the primaries in several Southern states. He only lost the Carolinas and OK.

[karynnj]

51. We also don't want to see a failed bid - but a winning one

2008 is likely to be a much easier year. The Republicans have messed up and there will be no sitting President. In addition, Kerry has shown over the last 3 years that he is exactly who he said he is. Do you think other candidates won't be attacked for anything in their past? If 2004 taught us anything - it is that he has lived a life that shines with integrity.

[LittleClarkie]

57. But the OP had nothing to do with a bid in 2008 for Kerry

And everything to do with the shambles that Terry McAuliffe left of the party. We were not competative. Now, with the help of Howard Dean, we're working on that.

WHOEVER runs for president in 2008, be it Kerry or Hillary or whoever, will owe a huge debt to Howard Dean for making the party able to wage a national battle. McAuliffe let the party atrophy. He can kiss my shiny metal ass.

[LittleClarkie]

56. What does the OP have to do with Kerry being president. It has to do with

McAuliffe. Whatever Kerry's faults were, McAuliffe has little room to talk. As the leader of the Democratic Party, it was his job to do what he could to get Kerry elected. I'm not sure the party that he headed could have gotten anyone elected president in 2004. This is about him not being allowed to deflect blame away from himself by pointing fingers elsewhere.

Thank God for Howard Dean.

[autorank]

69. Kerry won. The election was stolen. It's a 24 month old crime...still hot.

Check this out 2004 Election Theft: A Beginner's Guide or for broader consideration of the long tradition of election fraud W style,
check this out: www.electionfraudnews.com

He stole 2000 right in front of our eyes. He stole 2004 with greater aplomb...but it's all there.
24 months ago somebody steals everything in your home and trashes it. What do you do if you can
still catch the crooks?

Cheers.

[karynnj]

9. Great Post

Let's not forget the McAuliffe decision that put Kerry is a very disadvantaged financial position in 2004. He chose the early convention date that meant Kerry had to use his general election money for 5 weeks before the Republican convention while Bush could still use his huge primary fund. This was the first year McCain Feingold was in place, but this was a flaw that could easily be seen. In fact, someone did see it - No, not the genius, McAuliffe.

Kerry saw it and proposed the clever idea that he not "officially accept" the nomination at the convention. (The convention would be an engagement party, not a wedding) He could then accept the nomination - in some quiet, offical act on the eve of the Republican convention. Weird - but a solution to a problem McAuliffe created.

Not only did McAuliffe, Begala and Carville do an awful job of defending Senator Kerry, they don't even have the excuse of having no ammunition to use.
The information was there as early as April:

-There were over 100 pages of naval records, all uniformly extremely positive - many signed by the SBVT.
-There was a Nixon tape where they decided to destroy Kerry after finding that he was squeaky clean and a genuine war hero. Their problem was that he was very credible and he was the only anti-war leader they feared.
-At the convention, all but 1 of Kerry's crew were there and they at other times had all been very positive about Kerry
-Brinkley was a noted historian. His book was not campaign fodder. He had spoken to over 100 people involved with Kerry in Vietnam. Those comments were made before it became political. Brinkley came away from his investigations very impressed by Kerry.
- The Navy gave Kerry his medals and John Warner - who at that time was the Secratary of the Navy said he earned them.

So ,with all this - McAuliffe as the head of the DNC could not even defend Kerry. Remember the Clinton people defended Clinton on Gennifer Flowers when there was a TAPE of Clinton speaking to her - with Clinton suggesting she lie to reporters. Who is harder to defend a man who by all reasonable accounts and all the records was a war hero or one who was denyin a seedy affair that even to a Democratic partisan (me) looked like it occured. My problem then was why was he lying?

Kerry also gave the DNC a huge chunk of primary money he couldn't use because of campaign rules.

[MH1]

22. MCAULIFFE chose the early convention date???

I was wondering who was responsible for that atrocious scheduling.

Gee, is it the tinfoil, or was "Hillary 2008" a gleam in someone's eye that cycle?

[karynnj]

53. He or someone on his staff - so he approved it

The decision was made before it was known who the candidate was. The reason I heard in 2004 was that he was afraid that the Democratic candidate might not have money for the time between winning the nomination and the convention. By starting the general election early, they would get the money early.

This means:
1) He was not confident HE could raise money. As it was KERRY raised a lot of money.
2) He completely ignored the very obvious downside.

OT, but this is a very poorly thought out provision of M/F that greatly favors the incumbent, who always goes last. You either try to make your convention so late the Republicans immediately follow - eliminating the normal use of the convention to jump start the campaign with a triumphant tour - or you are at a finacial disadvantage. Or you don't take federal funds.

[sandnsea]

15. thank you

What a fuckwit. Th Democratic heavyhitters were sick of McAuliffe way back in 2003. This is nothing but a hit piece to try and redeem himself for Hillary's run. Disgusting. This is what is WRONG with the Dem Party and American politics. I don't want anymore of it.

[carolinayellowdog]

18. Hillary's deniability for such antics isn't very plausible

If she gets nominated I'll hold my nose and vote for her, but every time her pals Carville, Begala, McAuliffe (who's next?) play circular Dem firing squad I'll suspect they're acting in her perceived interests. Which are NOT identical to those of the party or nation IMO.

[fooj]

41. Seriously...she won't get the nomination.

I'm taking that to the bank.

[karynnj]

54. I might not - if the Republicans nominate someone honorable

who actually cares about the soldiers - Hagel is the only one I know of know. If he is saying something remotely close to what Kerry was saying last summer - I would trust him over Hillary.

It deeply bothers me that she and the leadership put the election calendar over speaking out on getting the policy right in Iraq. I could do this because we will likely have an even more Democratic Senate (given what seats are up) and a Democratic house. This would keep him from suceeding with a conservative economic agenda.

I never thought I would ever say this - I have voted Democratic since McGovern.

[politicasista]

28. K&R!

No wonder they have been going after Kerry and Dean of late. They are a threat to their agenda. :kick:

[Hippo_Tron]

36. The Kerry campaign still screwed up the Swift Boat Liars

The Rassumen ad should have been in the drawer and on the air within 24 hours after the first Swift Boat Ad was on the air. The statement that they issued and sending Cleland to Bush's ranch didn't get any attention. It took several days for the Rassumen ad to get on the air and that was simply too late.

Secondly, Kerry requested that moveon.org pull the national guard ad about Bush and that was also a stupid mistake. Bush's lack of service in the national guard was fair game and he should've gone after it. Certainly doesn't help that Dan Rather fucked up, but that's not an excuse.

Kerry's camp did well in the early months but after the convention is a different story. Also, he didn't get a convention bump. I'll let people try to explain away that one because frankly I can't figure it out.

All of this said, I don't disagree with the original premise of the thread. Terry McAuliffe was a stunning example of mediocrity and I'm glad that we got rid of him.

[karynnj]

55. I think you are wrong on the TANG stuff

The NYT in an article on a poll that was taken when the Rather stuff first came out - found that there was little if any shift away from Bush when people who in the Bush/Kerry question were asked whether IF it were true, would you not vote for Bush. The reason they found was that as he had already been President for 3 yrs, people knew him and weren't going to change over something a long time ago.

For Kerry, it was different. The SBVT story hurt because most people barely knew him and it challanged two huge assets - his character, which his men attested to and his reputation as the most honest man in Congress (Time designated him that in the mid 90s). There was also the idea that he understood what it was to be in the military.

I agree with you (and Kerry has said he agrees in retrospect) that they should have put money behind it in ads - like the Rassman one. It was a tough decision as Kerry had to stretch his money over 13 weeks instead of 8 as it was. Anyone who has read much about Kerry knows how much he values his honor, reputation and his integrity - in an almost old =fashioned way. It likely took disciple to limit the amount spent then - and we don't really know what the opposite path would have led to.

Imagine he spent a significant amount of money on ads. Which would people believe the ads or the fair and balanced TV? Even if it succeeded, Kerry would have had less money for September and October. What if the Republicans made something else up? He could really have been in far worse shape. As it was from exit polls, there were not many people who would have voted for Kerry who didn't because of them. The think he would never have predicted were some media comments that "we will never know what the truth is." Given that ALL the records backed Kerry and these people were caught in lie after lie and offered no proof, that is an apalling and lazy comment.

As an alternative, I think what he should have done is to find any TV host who would let him, Rassmann, Del S., David Alston etc on to tell their side. Maybe with excepts of Butler's excellent "Going Upriver". (It would have helped if that film were done about 3 or 4 months earlier - so many people would have seen it before they heard the liars.)

[sandnsea]

68. propaganda

Kerry was up in August, the polls were fine until he personally responded to the swiftboaters, that's the day they dropped. Cleland didn't get any attention?? Hmmm. Neither did the 15 or 20 other people who stepped out to back up Kerry, or the retired military officers who had a press conference to address the lies.

The polls were fairly close all year, most people knew who they were going to vote for early on. But Kerry did go from 45 to 48 by Aug 12, while according to this Rasmussen poll, Bush didn't bounce at all. Funny how you didn't hear that reported either.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Weekly%20Tracking%20Updates.htm

Why did Kerry lose? Ultimately, the media lied in 2004. Like this commentary about what Kerry said about Afghanistan. It's a blatant distortion that came right out of the White House, and here it is as most mailed news just days before the election.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7885-2004Oct28.html?nav=most_emailed

And why did we win in 2006? Ultimately because the media told the truth, and we really shouldn't forget it.

[mzmolly]

37. I have no idea what he did but ....

HELL YEAH! ;)
:toast:

I presume he blamed Kerry and Dean for the last Dem election failure?

[ProSense]

38. Thanks. Sorry, I should have included the link to the AP article

here.

[mzmolly]

39. Not a problem, I'm just in and out of DU today, so not up on everything.

Thanky :hi:

[mzmolly]

40. Well, now that I've read it ...

I hate to say I find this part very legitimate critique:

"I thought the decision of the Kerry campaign to back off any real criticism of Bush was one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics,"

I think he takes issue with the "campaign" more than the candidate? But, I could be wrong. If what he says is true here, it is an error. However, the majority of the Democratic Party ceded the issue of National Security to the man who failed us on 911. I'll never understand that.

Thanks for another perspective. I love your posts!

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. After Reading The Article, I'm Not Sure What Parts Have You So Outraged.

I'm a huge Kerry fan and have supported him always. But how many here wouldn't attest to the fact that his campaign had severe flaws and that he fell far short of defending himself as he should've? I mean, that's just common sense understanding isn't it?

And no, that's not a knock on Kerry. Ya live and ya learn and that's life. I still think the world of him anyway.

[ProSense]

44. Parts like

this and this.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. You Didn't Provide Anything Substantial. Still Doesn't Answer My Questions.

The first link was to a quote of shrubby, so I fail to see what the hell that has to do with Terry. The second link was to a blog post that mirrored the OP, so I fail to see how that redundancy means anything.

[ProSense]

48. Terry relayed the quote.

What significance or reflection on Kerry's campaign is a quote from Bush supposed to have? Bush says a lot of things---most of what comes out of his mouth are lies. What insight is this supposed to provide? Bush was really worried about Clinton's reputation. How's Bush's reputation? Is Clinton hanging all over him?

From the second link:

Update -- From the AP article about Terry McAuliffe's new book:

Some of his harshest criticism are aimed at the 2004 campaign that he was once responsible for defending. McAuliffe calls the Kerry campaign gun-shy, incompetent and distracted from the mission of defeating a more organized Bush campaign.

McAwful may want to compare his DNC to the RNC. The Bush campaign benefited from an RNC that outpaced the DNC in response.

[blm]

45. Did Bush defend himself or did the RNC do it for him?

Did Bush attack Kerry or did the RNC and RW media do it for him?

Seems to me that many expected Kerry to do everything by himself that no one expected Bush to do. Bush didn't win - the RNc dragged him across the finish line through their strategic tactics they worked on for four years prior to election day. How did the DNC do countering those efforts for their four years?

Every candidate and campaign makes some mistakes. But, the party made the BIGGEST mistake in not countering the RNC in all their matchups or securing the election process for the four years they were charged with doing so.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I'm Not Saying The DNC Didn't Make Mistakes Also.

I'm just saying that from what I read, the statements were fairly accurate, weren't they?

[tritsofme]

58. Kinda hard when he wasn't invited to a single meeting at Kerry headquarters

As McAuliffe claims.

[ProSense]

59. Even if this is true (a good thing in retrospect), how does this make McAwful look good?

Instead of taking action, he waits more than two years to whine about it. Why didn't he speak up then, rectify the situation, do his job (as Dean would have as demonstrated in his dealings with Rahm and others)?

[sandnsea]

66. That's easy and smart

The Clintons never understood Kerry's campaign to start with. They're the ones that kept harping about shutting up about Vietnam, instead of standing by him and those who responded against the swiftboat attacks. They consistently alienated the anti-war activists by being hawks on the war, framing Kerry's position as the same as Bush's when he kept trying to move HILLARY off the war. It was THEM who said supporting the war was a good idea in the first place. They're the ones who wanted him to support gay marriage bans. They're the ones who wrote off the south by not creating any party infrastructure and are STILL criticizing Dean for reaching out to the south. What the hell were they doing saying ANYthing to Bush about the Kerry campaign? WTF?? Then, on election night, Carville turns right around and leaks the Ohio election contest info directly to the Bush people?

Kerry's supposed to include them in his campaign??? They have been nothing but total fuck-ups since 2000. If Clinton would have had to run head to head againt Bush in 1992, he would have lost. Those people have been a bunch of blowhard phonies from the gate and this last election proved their shit is wearig thing.

[ProSense]

60. More on McAwful:

What A Party - What A Hypocrite

[seabeyond]

64. i tell ya. i want kerry to run more today, than yesterday. both

repugs and our own party runners are most fearful of kerry. tells me a lot.

[Diane R]

62. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Kerry is my President.

[UrbScotty]

65. I am SO glad Dean's in charge now instead of McAuliffe.

[autorank]

70. You're right. Join other fine DUers on the autorank "Buddy List" and

School of Diesel Repair.

You know why Dean makes the 'leet Dems uncomfortable ... because ... THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH.

Dean is the truth: show people respect by showing up and asking for their vote...everywhere, not just
in a few states...show up, tell them why you want their vote, why it's good for them and treat them
likek they're CITIZENS. Dean is just plain smart and they can't stand it, not one bit.

[ProSense]

72. Thanks.

It's an honor.

:pals: