Ridicule McCain, not Palin
I think my last post re: Palin was misunderstood. Matt Zeitlin wrote a thoughtful comment:
Reihan, I ask this question in total honesty, what are Democrats like me supposed to do except ridicule Sarah Palin? By that I mean, we can’t attack her on the issues – like foreign policy, for example – because we have no idea where she stands or if she’s even seriously considered anything outside the purview of the 600,000 person state she’s governed for less than 2 years.
The other line of attack we’ve been using (I got the secret blogger attack codes this afternoon) is that her experience governing Alaska – a state where everyone gets welfare from oil royalties and has fewer people than Indianapolis – isn’t exactly relevant to being a Vice president with a non trivial chance of assuming office. Is that somehow stupid or irrelevant?
Perhaps we should be ridiculing McCain, who seems to have made a pick that’s all about winning the next news cycle as opposed to actually governing. Now, I’m sure you disagree with just about everything I just said, but was any of what’s above constitute unfair “ridicule” of Palin? If it was, what attacks should we launch without being unfair and patronizing?
The Palin pick is the politicial equivalent of bear-baiting. Yes, ridiculing Palin as a hick and a rube, and devaluing her experience, comes naturally to the kind of people who take Barack Obama seriously as a presidential candidate. Philip Gourevitch discussed the parallels between Palin and Obama — but of course Palin is in many respects the cultural and stylistic opposite of Obama. Obama speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a certain kind of urban liberal. Palin, in contrast, speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a different set of Americans. That’s why insults and ridicule are counter-productive for Democrats. Why? Because the kind of Americans inclined to like Obama, without the aid of Joe Biden or free factory-reviving supercars, will never vote for a Republican. The kind of Americans inclined to like Palin might vote for a Democrat, particularly this year.
As for Palin’s worldview, the Gourevitch interview was very insightful. On Democrats, and whether she’s inclined to ridicule them.
But she said she recognized that “the Democrats also preach individual freedoms and individual rights, capitalism, free market, let-it-do-its-thing-best, let people keep as much of their money that they earn as possible. And when it comes to, like, the Party machine, no one will accuse me of being partisan.”
So the possibility that Obama might win Alaska did not worry Palin: “Turning maybe purple in the state means, to me, it’s more independent, it’s not the obsessive partisanship that gets in the way of doing what’s right for this state, and I think on a national level that’s what we’re gonna see.”
Given how the Obama campaign is taking shape, perhaps this sentiment is worthy of ridicule. I don’t think so, not yet at least.
And as for her views on the war, I fear they reflect those of a lot of Americans.
Her son is a soldier, and she said, “I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy.”
This defies the McCain caricature. It is in line with the McCain who in 2004 said he opposed the creation of permanent bases, who called for a shift in strategy in Iraq and is calling for a shift in strategy in Afghanistan, and who has warned against some armed interventions and championed others.
Again: Palin is bait. Her profile is designed to draw out all of the least attractive impulses of Obama supporters. The smarter strategy is to ignore Palin and to ridicule McCain.
(1) For having lots of houses. You’re not risking any votes here. Rich Democrats love populist language and the rest of the country isn’t awash in real estate. It might make things a little vexing when Hillary Clinton or Mark Warner or [insert name here] runs], but I don’t think any candidate will ever forget the detailed contents of her or his real estate portfolio from now on.
(2) For being out of touch. George H.W. Bush in the supermarket aisle. You alienate no one this way.
(3) For being old. McCain is ging to 55+ voters. This is the riskiest approach. But done subtly, it could make a difference. “A new energy for America,” etc.
These charges are about as substantive as the shrill mockery of Palin, but they’re frankly less risky.
One commenter seemed to think I was comparing Palin to Clinton or Reagan. I wasn’t. I was making a different point. Obama shouldn’t be raising the experience issue, even though he can make a plausible claim to being slightly more experienced than Palin. I don’t think he is, but the thing is: this is a game of inches, and you really, really don’t want to talk about it. And I was noting the canard that is “national level” experience, a notion rendered absurd by all candidates who haven’t served in the US Senate, the House, or, I assume, as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
You know, I thought Obama was a lightweight too, up until a couple months ago when I suddenly realized that he’s led (managed) the largest, most successful campaign organization in history, that is marked by both a lack of dissension, extends throughout the entire US and its other territories, and has the ability to raise $51 million per month. No other campaign was run as well, this year or in the past, despite having leaders with and without executive experience. As a result, I understood that executive experience isn’t exactly an indicator of leadership ability. But I can’t equate Palin’s leadership ability to Obama’s because the numbers just don’t bear out. If we leave out the titles Palin has held, just how solid is the “meat,” the underlayment of her experience, and it’s level of success. What solid achievements has she left behind when you read past the initiall achievements? I just don’t get why she’s so great, other than she’s made statements that support a party line. So, please tell me what I’m missing.
— CHART · Aug 30, 02:31 PM · #
My goodness, Reihan, I am an independent who reads this blog because I want to read smart young conservatives. But I am not with you on Palin. You wrote: “Palin, in contrast, speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a different set of Americans.” And you go on to mock Obama supporters as latte-sipping urban Americans. Let me ask you this: have you ever lived in rural America (like I do)? Or suburban America (like I used to)? How many of your friends at present live in rural or geographically middle America? Your writing on Obama sounds like self-loathing, and the people on “your team” are not your people, but people you “admire” from a distance. But I live in rural America. And to say that our self-conceptions are somehow “spoken to” by Sarah Palin is insulting to us. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Shame on you.
— sal mineo · Aug 30, 02:53 PM · #
Obama speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a certain kind of urban liberal. Palin, in contrast, speaks to the highest aspirations and self-conceptions of a different set of Americans. That’s why insults and ridicule are counter-productive for Democrats. Why? Because the kind of Americans inclined to like Obama, without the aid of Joe Biden or free factory-reviving supercars, will never vote for a Republican. The kind of Americans inclined to like Palin might vote for a Democrat, particularly this year.
There’s some truth here, but there’s also some outright nonsense. It completely misses all the rural caucuses Obama won, and how everyone seems to have a Republican grandparent who was at least at some point excited about Obama. Yes, Clinton won lots of rural areas, but Clinton v. Obama is a totally different game than McCain v. Obama (something I think you’re totally missing, in that while Obama was obviously the goo goo upper-middle reformer in the primary, that’s not at all so obvious in the general.)
One commenter seemed to think I was comparing Palin to Clinton or Reagan. I wasn’t. I was making a different point. Obama shouldn’t be raising the experience issue, even though he can make a plausible claim to being slightly more experienced than Palin. I don’t think he is, but the thing is: this is a game of inches, and you really, really don’t want to talk about it. And I was noting the canard that is “national level” experience, a notion rendered absurd by all candidates who haven’t served in the US Senate, the House, or, I assume, as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Okay, here’s the thing. This is still just as absurd as comparing her to Clinton or Reagan. Because all of the non-Senator, non-Representative, non-Secretary, non-General, non-Ambassador candidates that you likely had in mind at least had some evidence of their foreign policy views. Certainly, if they were presidential candidates, they spent time explaining to voters how they thought about foreign policy. The two sentences you just posted is ALL WE HAVE. No one can disagree with those two lines, therefore they say nothing.
This isn’t inches, this is light-years. And what’s worse is that Palin has no chance to change that before the election—her job now is to defend John McCain’s views, not her own views.
I agree that we shouldn’t demean her leadership in Alaska. In particular, I think she’s really smart to tax oil company profits—that’s a really good idea that John McCain opposes (with no explanation as to where he’ll get the money to pay for his “all of the above” energy approach). In domestic policy, I like her better than John McCain. And I agree with a lot of what you’ve said above—there are quite a few attacks that will play right into McCain’s hands.
But she’s an utter blank slate on foreign policy. And the veep is expected to take charge in a crisis. A crisis that is not at all improbable in the case of John McCain.
Obviously, this could all change after her debate with Biden. But as of now, “heartbeat from the president” is a good line, not because of what it says about Palin, but because of what it says about McCain’s recklessness and poor judgment. Even if Palin turns out to be a good pick, McCain had no way of knowing that when he picked her.
— Consumatopia · Aug 30, 02:59 PM · #
You’re right, Reihan, that the Obama campaign should not start comparing resumes. This is what was tone-deaf about that spokesman’s “hair-trigger” response: how is Palin’s being a “former mayor of a town of 9,000” a strike against her? She’s now governor of Alaska! She used to be a small-town mayor! That’s not appealing? That’s not relevant?
The contrast to draw is expertise, not experience. Barack Obama may not have the most substantial presidential resume, but he demonstrates a level of policy expertise that is, on most subjects, superior to that of McCain’s. Which isn’t surprising: most con law professors and civil rights lawyers are intellectually curious about the state of the union and the world, and McCain’s own curiosity seems much more selective. (Not to mention, of course, that Obama has been politically ambitious for some time, and this also may have inspired reading up on any number of relevant subjects.) Sarah Palin, meanwhile, strikes me as a pretty awesome person in a lot of ways, but it’s not clear that she’s ever had that kind of curiosity, and so she hasn’t developed opinions or expertise on a whole range of essential issues.
Yes, leadership qualities matter immensely, too, and she may have them. (And this is one attribute that, with Obama, one has to take either on faith or on less than airtight evidence: the way he’s run his campaign, the praise he receives from other US and state senators, etc.) But, even if you have those leadership qualities, you need to know where you want to lead the country, right? If Sarah Palin became president next February, it’s not clear to me that she would know. And in it’s that sense especially that she may not be “ready to lead.”
And yes, the person this is actually reflects badly on is John McCain, and he’s the guy the Democrats need to keep going after. Harriet Meiers seems like a perfectly nice person, and her appointment didn’t say anything bad about her, really. But it said plenty of negative things about George W. Bush.
— C · Aug 30, 03:08 PM · #
Obama graduated with a Juris Doctor magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. He then worked in a number of low-profile, community-based positions before spending 8 years as an Illinois State Senator (approx. 200,000 constituents), and four years as a U.S. Senator (approx. 12 million constituents).
Sarah Palin has a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Idaho, was on the Wasilla City Council (approx 500 constituents? or thereabouts?) for four years, was Mayor of Wasilla (approx. 5000 constituents) for six years, and has been governor of Alaska (approx. 650,000 constituents) for 18 months.
I know, I know: typical elitist lib, mentioning the tony law school over the down-home, meat-and-potatoes state school; plus Mayor of Wasilla = valuable executive experience, much moreso than the ridiculous Illinois State Senate.
But seriously: politics aside, if a board were evaluating these two for CEO of a major company, it wouldn’t even be close – Obama has a much better and more extensive education, a better resume, and MUCH better demonstrated familiarity with the relevant issues. I think it’s fine to make the argument that Obama’s experience is definitely thin for the Presidency of the United States, and this is indeed an argument that all of Obama’s opponents have made with some success. But even if you were to lie and say that Palin’s background and experience are more significant than Obama’s, you’re still faced with the fact that John McCain has almost exclusively relied on the “ready to lead?” argument. By bringing in Palin, he admits that he wasn’t at all serious about that argument, and just really really wants to get elected.
And that, in fact, is the tack I expect the Obama campaign to take. Don’t attack Palin – there’s nothing to be gained there, and the blogosphere and media will do it for you. Attack McCain. Point out that he has continually changed his positions in order to get elected, point out that his choice of VP is completely contrary to both his arguments against Obama and the criteria for a good VP that he himself set forth, and contrast this with his maverick pose.
This election is over. McCain has left himself nothing to run on.
— bonk · Aug 30, 03:08 PM · #
_And to say that our self-conceptions are somehow “spoken to” by Sarah Palin is insulting to us. _
I also live in rural America and disagree with Reihan on this, but I think you’re off the mark too. Both Palin and Obama both seem to be good people with fairly compelling life stories that most people, urban or rural, red and blue, can find something to admire about.
I do think, however, that Obama has spent decades thinking about foreign policy while Palin will likely be figuring out what she thinks about it today. There’s nothing wrong with that—I’m kind of ashamed that I care about foreign policy when I have no capacity to change it. Nonetheless, the environment in which she’ll now find herself—surrounded by McCain campaign advisors explaining to her how to defend McCain—is probably not the best time to acquire a deep, insightful view of the world.
— Consumatopia · Aug 30, 03:10 PM · #
@ bonk
“But seriously: politics aside, if a board were evaluating these two for CEO of a major company, it wouldn’t even be close – Obama has a much better and more extensive education, a better resume, and MUCH better demonstrated familiarity with the relevant issues.”
Well actually you might be wrong there, because Palin has more private industry executive experience than Obama does (I believe he has none). If you want to consider being President of the Havard Law Review similar to private executive experience, then I guess they even out.
The funny thing is we make the distinction between private and public office very clear each election cycle. If we were actually acting like a board of investors and electing a CEO, we’d elect neither Obama nor McCain, since neither of them have many exemplary executive accomplishments – to say nothing about increasing value for their shareholders!
— mattc · Aug 30, 03:40 PM · #
I think people are fooling themselves or are being disingenuous when they say Palin has equal or more experience than Obama. The mayor/city council experience of a town of 6000 is shared by 100,000 of people across the united states. Obama’s experience in the state legislature trumps that easily. And the 18 months as govenor of Alaska—as state of 600,000 with a legislature that meets 90 days out of a year is job pretty similar to the mayor of a medium sized city, with a similar parochial focus. Lets say Columbus, OH. That is good experience, but not in many of the kinds of issues and challenges that a president is face with. A senator has more of the relevant experience.
But more than experience, you also have to have knowledge. I think there is very little evidence that Palin has knowledge, or even interest in wide swaths of the issues that a president deals with: foreign policy, urban affairs, transportation, education…. She has a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho. Obama has a degree in foreign relations from coloumbia. I am absoloutly positive that Barak Obama has vastly more knowledge on these subjects. I mean, he has spent—at the very least—the last two years preparing to be president. Sarah Palin started yesterday.
So now I am sure I am going to get some people telling me that it is not experience, knowledge or interest, it is authentic character, ability to learn, whatever…. But two days ago the same people would have been telling me that Barack Obama was a nice guy, with potetial but was not ready to lead becasue he was too inexperienced.
And beyond the actual realities of the job, politcally, with this move, McCain has taken national security and experience off the table. Obama says, obviously now experience is not that important. And the idea of a novice in the whitehouse means that obviously, national security isn’t that important either.
So instead of their best argument—arguments that actually had some truth to them, they put all thier chips on what? The mavrick and his spunky outsider gal sidekick? On people magazine type feel good celebrity? That is not only a huge stuipd gamble in terms of the actual duties to the country, it is a huge stupid gamble politically. It just demonstrats to me what I feared about McCain. That what is most imortant to him, more important even than the safety of the country—something he claims is paramount in his life—is getting elected. And also that he is not a cautious, thoughtful man. He is someone willing to take huge, huge bet it all on one roll risks.
— cw · Aug 30, 05:44 PM · #
But this was a transparently political pick, right? I’m not saying that this is entirely wrong or unprecedented, and I’m not trying to make a backdoor insult. But I’d like a little more acknowledgment that this choice was largely made for the most baldly tactical and political reasons and had nothing to do with governance.
On a basic level, for me, both the Biden pick and the Palin pick turn my stomach and put me in political crisis. When I set aside my distaste with the whole thing, I think that the Biden choice demonstrates calm, and the Palin pick panic. That doesn’t mean that Obama will win or is winning. But I think that conservative pundits and bloggers have taken on exactly the kind of overconfidence lately that they have complained about in Obama supporters for a long time, and this pick to me undoes the notion of a McCain juggernaut. This is a desperation pick. Desperation picks can certainly work, and this one might. We’ll see.
— Freddie · Aug 30, 06:40 PM · #
Look out Reihan! One of the most annoying things about many conservative outlets – American Scene being a delightful exception – is the disconnection from reality – as Arendt says:
their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of the man who can fabricate it
But this is just from cloud cuckoo land:
“he can make a plausible claim to being slightly more experienced than Palin”
Come back to reality! We need at least a few smart, non-delusional conservative commentators.
— peter · Aug 30, 06:47 PM · #
I don’t think people are being disingenuous when they say that Palin and Obama are a wash on experience (saying she has more experience seems like a stretch). What people are saying is that veep and prez are two different jobs. Obama can’t seriously hope to get anywhere by saying “McCain’s running mate is even less experienced than me!”*
What matters here is what independents think. I’ll say it again: the Obama camp can claim that the freshman senator has the experience or education or whatever credential to be president, but independents are not convinced. Otherwise this election would be a cakewalk, instead of the nail-biter it is. So if we want to know whether the experience issue hurts Obama or Palin more, we need to see what independents think. It’s too early for really decisive data on the matter, but early results from Rasmussen indicate that independents like her more than Biden, hinting that experience might not be a problem for her.
*Stole that line from Mark Steyn.
— Blar · Aug 30, 07:00 PM · #
I agree that many of the criticism of Palin shows snobbery and condescension. I also think that a similarly qualified man would not face the same level of “ready to be Commander in Chief?” questions.
But I think she’s an irresponsible and terrible pick because we know literally nothing about where she stands on foreign policy — the area the president has the most control over.
Anyway, what do you think about the pick, Reihan?
— JimmyM · Aug 30, 07:00 PM · #
I agree that many of the criticism of Palin shows snobbery and condescension.
Yeah but you guys, these two posts from Reihan are about as shrill and sneering as I can imagine. You can’t combat unnecessary cruelty in criticism by engaging in it yourselves, but that’s exactly what Reihan’s trying to do.
— Freddie · Aug 30, 07:03 PM · #
“Obama shouldn’t be raising the experience issue, even though he can make a plausible claim to being slightly more experienced than Palin. I don’t think he is, but the thing is: this is a game of inches, and you really, really don’t want to talk about it.”
He doesn’t have to talk about it anymore, because McCain can’t talk about it anymore either. We are getting into chess match territory here I think the Palin pick was one of those extra tricky HA! HA! moves that seems to cut off the opponant but in reality wasn’t really well thought out. This just totally feels to me like if Obama takes some time to consider his response, McCains move goes from HA! HA! to Oh no!
To say nothing of McCains actual responsibility to the country.
— cw · Aug 30, 07:06 PM · #
She just doesn’t have the intellectual chops for the job. Simple as that. I used to read this blog, but I can’t take it seriously any more.
— greg · Aug 30, 08:08 PM · #
Here’s something else I forgot. With the Palin pick he takes experience and national security as issues off the table and put onto the table age and, I think, judgement and integrity onto the table. In exchage for what? Everyone says that in the end VPs don’t matter much at all. Even if she does bump him up some with base and maybe swing voters (?) how much is that really going to be? How many net swing votes is he really going to get? He can no longer make his best arguments against Obama without looking senile. The only real boost I can see coming is base. He is betting everything on base turnout in an election year when everyone agrees there are more lean towards democrat voters and Obama has a far superior ground game (when did I pick up these political cliches?). It is a huge huge risk. I think a stupid doomed to fail risk.
— cw · Aug 30, 08:18 PM · #
Quayle had four years in the House and eight in the Senate before being picked as VP. W had six years as governor of one of the largest states in the Union. Clinton had twelve years as governor of Arkansas. All were still questioned on whether they had the experience. Saying Palin’s only getting criticised because she’s a woman doesn’t hold water.
Although at the back of a lot of people’s minds is the question about how much time a mother of five could dedicate to her political career outside the daily routine of her job as governor.
“Her son is a soldier, and she said, “I’m a mom, and my son is going to get deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign energy.”
Ugh. That might be an adequate reflection of how the typical military mother feels, but is that level of analysis what you want from a potential C-in-C?
Palin’s creationist, pro-life and pro-drilling views will give the typical liberal elitist heebie-jeebies but the thinness of her resume means they don’t even need to make condescending attacks on how suitable her positions are.
— Ali Choudhury · Aug 30, 09:13 PM · #
Reihan,
What most of these comments have in common is that they raise an issue your (politically astute) post elided: whether Palin’s selection deserves criticism in terms of its policy merits, not its political symbols. I know you and Ross often argue for the substantive nature of allegedly symbolic matters, but you have not made that link here. Generally speaking, Obama clearly knows the issues relevant to the presidency. (He has proved this in large and small ways … an illustrative example is the Jerusalem Post’s comments about his preparedness for their recent interview with him, as contrasted with McCain. Link below.) Biden seems to know them as well. Does Palin? Republican supporters may like her for her values and her self-reliant yet family-centered persona, but no one should be glad if she doesn’t know the issues.
I mean, really. Doesn’t the president make, like, a whole bunch of decisions and stuff?
Link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331099249&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
— jason · Aug 30, 10:05 PM · #
Amazing to me, Reihan, that a loquacious intellectual like yourself appears to be making the case for simpletons over serious thinkers in our politics.
And maybe the condescension is yours for assuming Americans want nothing more in their leaders than someone who speaks to their “highest aspirations and self-conceptions.” Maybe they want and expect their Vice President to have a slightly more nuanced take on Iraq than they themselves do.
— Bart Acocella · Aug 30, 11:50 PM · #
Bart, that’s a much better way of saying what I fumblingly tried to say earlier. Reihan is condescending to my people, thinking that Sarah Palin is how we see ourselves.
— sal mineo · Aug 31, 02:25 AM · #
JUST SAY NOBAMA !!!
Oh stop whining Democrats … for the past year, you’ve been trying every trick in the book to shove an inexperienced, empty suit, Barack Hussein Obama, down the throats of Americans. Sure, maybe you sweetened the bad taste by adding pretty speeches, big swooning crowds, and fireworks … but, you still tried to shove him down our throats, at every opportunity. Democrats, it was a lot easier to highjack the primary election than it’s going to be with the general election. Looks like America is going to elect McCain/Palin for President and V.P.. And, that means: No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Ayers, no Rezko, no mean Michelle, and, NOBAMA !!!
— Howard · Aug 31, 05:00 PM · #
“Yes, ridiculing Palin as a hick and a rube, and devaluing her experience, comes naturally to the kind of people who take Barack Obama seriously as a presidential candidate.”
This is hardly a fair point, Reihan. The argument against Palin has not been cultural in tone. No one is saying that being from Alaska, or having five kids, or eating moose should disqualify her from being vice president. You’re flame throwing a straw man.
The liberal argument is quite simple. It has two parts: 1) By selecting someone with her lack of experience, McCain has proven that his previous attacks on Obama for inexperience were purely motivated by politics. 2) This woman is so right wing she has basic problems confronting reality (e.g. global warming, evolution).
The former point is an attack not on Palin, but on McCain. And the latter point, while it reflects on Palin, also is an attack on McCain. He doesn’t get it. The GOP is out of touch. They have basic problems dealing with facts and realities, even those that are important for setting wise policies.
— Jonathan Dworkin · Aug 31, 07:16 PM · #
Just curious: when did Reihan turn into the ridiculous “conservative blogger” parody that wrote this post?
— miles · Sep 1, 08:40 AM · #
It is an insult to Obama to even be compared to Palin.
— sam · Sep 1, 12:36 PM · #
It is hard to understand the people who scream about Sarah’s inexperience and yet accept Obama’s inexperience as unimportant.
Sarah has run a state government, commanded the Guard in Alaska, taken on her own party politicians, lowered taxes,routed out corrupt politicians (her own party); declined pork intended for her state (bridge to nowhere);raised a family; worked in the public; run a business; refunded money from taxes to her state people; and made it her personal agenda to curb spending, and has indeed done that in getting rid of the coporate jet intended for her use; declined having chefs; and I could go on, but…..has Obama done a single one of these things? He was a community outreach leader and I would bet that involved a lot less than 600,000 people. She has had to make decisions that impacted hundreds of thousands of people, Obama only has to decide what suit to wear when he makes his fabulous speeches; Making lofty speechs about what people want to hear is not an accomplishment except in the speech itself. Sarah has many real accomplishments and Obama has zero. Who wouldn’t like some of his ideas………utopia for everyone, even the whole world, he would have you believe; and yet he cannot point to one important thing he has done. Most of his time in his senate seat has been campaigning for Presidential office. How stupid can some people be to want to elect to President of the United States someone with nothing in his background to even suggest that he could handle the job?
— Rosalie Bryan · Sep 1, 05:15 PM · #