David Broder: Hillary as SoS would be a mistake

[Thrill]

It may be moot and it certainly is presumptuous, but I would be less than honest with readers if I did not say what I believe: Making Hillary Rodham Clinton the secretary of state in Barack Obama's administration would be a mistake.

I do not doubt that she could do the job -- and do it well. I have been a fan of the former first lady's since I covered her efforts for health-care reform 15 years ago. What I saw in the recent campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was convincing evidence of her physical stamina and moral courage, and of her capacity to improve her own performance at every step of the process. I admired her readiness to endorse and campaign hard for Obama after her own candidacy fell short.

Equally, I admire Obama's readiness to reach out to former rivals and enlist their help in the governing enterprise he is launching. His serious discussions with Clinton, John McCain and Bill Richardson, among others, are testaments to his sincerity in wanting to move beyond the partisanship and personal differences that too often poison the atmosphere in Washington.

What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It's not the best use of her talents, and it's certainly not the best fit for this new president.

What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America's interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.

Of course, he will benefit from the counsel and the contacts that his secretary of state can offer. But remember, he provided another and probably more expert source of that wisdom when he picked Joe Biden, the veteran chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate. The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.

Even if Hillary Clinton were ready to play such a subordinate role, which she might be, in return for a promise that her voice would be heard in the most serious policy debates, the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife's responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802882.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[redstate_democrat]

1. true

k&r

[TexasObserver]

2. Paying attention to David Broder would be a mistake.

First of all, isn't he dead?

Second, even if he's not, who cares? He hasn't written anything worth reading since Ronald Reagan was in knickers.

[nichomachus]

46. People you like aren't always right and

people you don't like aren't always wrong.

[TexasObserver]

90. Let me guess. You read that from a fortune cookie.

What were the numbers? I want them, too.


Broder sucks. End of message.

[MarjorieG]

53. The craziness at DU and in the press proves Clinton as SoS a distraction, impediment to solutions.

Been said Kerry and Obama share a foreign policy DNA, his Iraq policy and others in Obama's language, and shots of Kerry appearing in Jerusalem prior to Obama's trip. Like paving the way.

Along with diplomacy needed on climate change, the conversation should be on effectiveness of SoS, the trust in message delivery, not team of rivals crap as paramount.

[TexasObserver]

91. I don't understand why Obama doesn't have you running things.

Have you told him you need to be running his appointments, because you understand this better than him?

[MarjorieG]

99. This isn't negative against Clinton, or that Kerry would prefer it to the SFRC. I trust Obama, but

Hillary is always press fodder, and she might prefer being her own person on leading the health care task force.

Just wish people got how great and qualified other candidates for it are, like Kerry, so yes the back-handed dismissal of Kerry always annoys.

[Cosmic Charlie]

79. believing rumors and leaks is a mistake

especially when their entire purpose was to influence Obama's decision.

[TexasObserver]

92. I'll have to take your word for it, since I don't do that.

[Phredicles]

3. If Broder's against something, that inclines me to think it's a good idea;

Mr. Inside-the-beltway is wrong only slightly less often than William Kristol...

[BootinUp]

17. exactly, turn 180 degrees before proceeding. lol.

[jenmito]

72. But Bill Kristol and other neocons are FOR her getting the job. n/t

[Phredicles]

94. Ah, good point: I do sometimes fall into the lazy habit of seeing who's on

a given side of a question, and then going with the opposite if they're contemptible buffoons, as both Kristol and Broder are. But now, dammit, I'm gonna have to make up my own mind.

Admittedly, of HRC, Richardson, and Kerry for secretary of state, she would be my third choice. But I think she can do the job. And Obama has shown he's NOT the "Obambi" some of the commentators make him out to be.

[nolabels]

96. HRC would be a good choice for our own health

Health insurance that is :-)

Having a generic senator in that seat would speed things up on universal single payer health care. It would be a big loss for the insurance industry to be sure :shrug:

[blm]

83. yes, let's side with Kissinger, Kristol, Eagleburger and Pat Buchanan.

.

[ginnyinWI]

4. spot on. He makes some very good points. n/t

[napi21]

5. Did he say the same thing about Poppy Bush's travels and

foreign policy influence on Shrub? Nooo, he didn't!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Dontcha' Know?

EVERYTHING the Republicans do (or say) is ALWAYS ALWAYS moral, ethical, above reproach and NEVER to be questioned, challenged, stopped, avoided, etc.

:eyes:

Us Democrats on the other hand............................................

[Beausoir]

6. In other words, Broder believes Obama is a weakling push-over.

It's an underhanded slam at Obama...nothing more.

[Mist]

7. I think he's saying that HRC isn't likely to want to play too much of a subordinate role.nt

[Beausoir]

9. People, by nature, don't want to be sub-ordinate. That's what leadership is all about. Broder is

just slamming Obama's leadership capabilities.

Nothing more.

[KittyWampus]

13. NO he isn't. He makes it about Bill Clinton and HIS inability to keep his mouth shut.

your interpretation is odd.

[karynnj]

22. It has been CW for some time that Clinton will not leave the stage

I remember that said leading up to both Gore's and Kerry's conventions. In 2008, it was different because HRC ran and lost and he was actually not clearly a net plus. Still, there was concern about what he would do - until he gave a good speech. (A speech the Obama people vetted before it was delivered.)

[Beausoir]

25. LOL. One trick pony.

The only thing "odd" is your inability to let-go of the Clinton bashing.

Very odd indeed.

Broder's an ass and his column is a backhanded slam at Obama.

[LostinVA]

36. "Broder's an ass and his column is a backhanded slam at Obama"

Exactly -- and the lying, Rove-lover is using his decades-old hatred for the Clintons to fuel it.

[Beausoir]

34. And you gobbled it up..hook line and sinker.

:spray:

[Jennicut]

8. Someone remind me the last time David Broder was relevant

[JamesA1102]

10. Broder made a name for himself by lying

about Muskie crying back in 1972. The man can't be trusted.

[ProSense]

11. Hillary showed "moral courage" during the primary?

She hired Mark Penn and launched a series of despicable smear campaigns against Obama.

That's the opposite of "moral courage."

[cboy4]

12. Oh here we go.

You just can't stop yourself can you?

[ProSense]

26. Either Broder is full of shit or he isn't.

You can agree with his assessment if you want to. I believe that his characterization of Hillary's primary performance as a sign of "moral courage" is BS.

[cboy4]

32. Yes ProSense, you made that very clear during the primaries

and it's sad you can't seemingly let it go.

[ProSense]

35. It's sad that you're policing the board to decide where to inject your opinion of other posters.

Stick to the topic, present a counter argument if you disagree.

[cboy4]

14. David Broder must be furious that nobody gives a shit what

he thinks.

[ClarkUSA]

15. David Broder is wrong. Henry Kissinger and Pat Buchanan are right!

Or as Joe Scarborough says, "Hillary for SoS all the way, baby!"

[BootinUp]

20. I'm ok with ignoring all three. nt

[Thrill]

21. Madden the Repuke Strategist said Republicans like the idea because

they feel comfortable with her view of the world as opposed to Nancy Pelosi's. In other words, they know Hillary thinks like a lot of conservatives with her world views. They don't like her domestic views. But they love her world views

[ClarkUSA]

23. Absolutely. According to an approving McCain staffer, neocons believe she's one of them.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7889715&mesg_id=7889715

[LostinVA]

37. HRC is not a Neocon

[ClarkUSA]

57. Her IWR "aye" vote, Kyl-Lieberman "aye" vote, and "Obliterate Iran" threat must've been a head fake.

She sure fooled Henry Kissinger, the foreign policy godfather of American neocons. Boy, will he be disappointed!

Fortunately for America and the world (if the SoS job pans out) both Clintons will have to obey/follow/support President
Obama's "naive" foreign policy in public or else they can hit the road and go back to Chappaqua. :)

[LostinVA]

60. HRC is not a NEOCON

[ClarkUSA]

61. LOL

Of course she is... but she'll have to implement President Obama's "naive" foreign policy as his SoS whether she/Henry Kissinger
likes it or not. Team O must be chuckling over that. I know I am. :)

[BootinUp]

75. Attention: everyone give this poster her due for spin supremacy.

This is a spin in favor of Obama bringing a Neocon into his cabinet as Secretary of State no less. (Not that I agree with said poster's description of Hillary)

[ClarkUSA]

97. How defensive can you be that quotes from approving neocons about Hillary is so threatening to you?

As to her history of pro-war votes and pro-war statements, that's not spin, it's the truth, a difference that followers
of Mark Penn and Harold Wolfson wouldn't understand. Actions have consequences and tell voters what they want
to know. There's good reason why ObamaIs44 now. :)

[BootinUp]

100. I don't have a clue where you are going

it probably has something to do with the ferocity of spin in that post.

[ClarkUSA]

101. You could have left off the last four words and made more sense.

That's okay. I understand that babbling about spin when confronted with verbatim quotes sourced with links
is the last resort of Mark Penn/Howard Wolfson aficianados.

[BootinUp]

103. babbling about spin, yeah just dismiss all of it, lol.

[ClarkUSA]

106. All of what?

You're as nonsensical as Howard Wolfson on a conference call.

[BootinUp]

16. It should be a big red flag when DU starts putting stock in Broder's

opinion.

[Bucky]

102. Another red flag is when we assume posting a story means endorsing a story

It's a tragic world we live in when something becomes newsworthy just because David Broder said it. By the logic that anything coming out of Broder is ipso facto newsworthy, we should start reporting his turds as news items as well. Talking about "getting a big scoop"!

But sadly, David Broder's position in life, acquired by a disciplined and unrelenting commitment to being an intellectual windsock, has made anything he says worth being repeated. The fact that he's going off on Hillary Clinton again isn't terribly interesting news, but it is news.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. David Broder? David fucking BRODER? Good lord...

[karynnj]

19. Obama has generated excitement world wide as the leader of the US

His SoS should be someone who is seen as already speaking out for the same type of Foreign policy or someone who is a career diplomat who will be seen as Obama's spokesperson. Why give that up?

I think that it is hard to believe that Bill Clinton could really remain off the main stage. We only have one Pesident at a time.

[Beausoir]

29. Senator Clinton is a woman in her own right. If you are unable to separate women from their husband

then you might want to rethink your views on sexism.

She's a brilliant, tough, formidable woman in her OWN right.

It's getting more than tiresome to see a small handful of people here on DU measuring a woman's worth based on her husband's employment.

[wisteria]

38. The Clinton's are a package deal. Right or wrong it is always about both of them.

And, if you want to discuss sexism and separation, tell me why Mrs. Clinton continues to use her husband and his name as a spring board for what she wants to accomplish. Where is the Rodam in any of this talk of sexism. Fact is you can not separate the Clinton's she is who she is through her husband not from her own making.

[Beausoir]

40. Only in fairytale land.

Add yes, if you truly believe what you just posted, you are in need of professional help to sort through your deeply misguided views of women.

[wisteria]

44. Try media land and I am waiting for this list of major accomplishments

Hillary has manged on her own.
Oh, and don't lecture to me about women's rights. I have marched and fought for them for years. I know a user when I see one and Hillary has used the Clinton name and legacy to get everything she has. She started out well, but soon accepted the easy road.

[LostinVA]

41. Your meme about her name was already disallowed by MOds during the Primaries

I thought this was a sexist -- and disingenuous -- argument then, and I think it also is now. THIS is bashing, not criticism.

AND IT'S "CLINTONS," NOT "CLINTON'S."

[wisteria]

48. Excuse me, but you must have me mistaken for someone else.

I vertually stayed out of the primary wars. Oh, and I stand corrected. It is the CLINTONS that are a package deal for better or for worse. And, she is one of the CLINTONS and this is why she is who she is. It is not bashing, it is the truth. If I wanted to bash her I have a whole list of things about her that I dislike.

[LostinVA]

55. HRC is not a NEOCON -- and yes, it is bashing

[karynnj]

62. Of course, HRC is a woman in her own right

and I was NOT measuring her worth because of her husband - but the fact is that he is THERE. My comment in no way reflected on HRC's abilities. That said, it is no more sexist if I were to say that so far HRC has just been a mediocre Senator than it is when others say the a male Senators. It would be an opinion that you could disagree with and dispute using accomplishments.

I do see that she is tough and she is obviously a formidable person. I do NOT see brilliance - I do see someone who is very smart. (To me brilliance is a very high standard. It requires original ideas and insights.)

There was and is nothing sexist in what I wrote. You can't have it both ways - saying that the world's respect forthe CLINTONS is why she should be picked, then say that it has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. That is really the oposite side of the same coin. The fact is that without being Bill Clinton's wife, she has very little foreign policy experience. She did not choose to be on SFRC.

Good evening

[LostinVA]

24. Why would DUers give Broder the time of day or ANYTHING???

[zulchzulu]

27. NYT article paves way for Hillary to NOT accept SoS position

She will stay in the Senate and she'll say it was her decision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[LostinVA]

28. A very brief bio of David Broder, and why we shouldn't listen to him on this

He likes and admires Bush and seriously admires Karl Rove (as well as thinking Rove's been treated badly by the Dems).

He thinks it was okay for Federal employees to be fired because of being Dems.

He has never liked the Clintons. Ever.

He has taken money and junkets from business entities and then written pro OP/Ed pieces about those entities (while also critiocizing journalists who take freebies) -- this was against the Post's policy, btw.

Lots of other stuff, but these points will suffice.

So, we're supposed to pay attention to what he says about ANY Dem, or Obama's pre-Administration WHY???

[Beausoir]

30. It's a small but vocal minority at DU who will side with ANYONE, Rush, Broder, Hannity, in order to

bash Clinton.

And, it will never end.

[wisteria]

42. I don't have to side with anyone. I have formed my own opinions on the Clinton's.

And, I think they have had their time and it is time for them to GO AWAY!

[Beausoir]

43. Well, fortunately, Obama disagrees with your "opinions" and you will just have to come to terms with

that.

Unless...you don't REALLY support Obama and just exist on this website to spread sexist manure.

[wisteria]

50. Ah, use the sexist excuse. Trouble is I am a woman and I can chose not to

like another one if I wish. This has nothing to do with sexism. Please. I don't like Mrs. Clinton and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. As for Obama, I am questioning his judgment on this selection and that is my right to so do. You don't have to agree but you have to come to terms with that and the fact that my dislike of Hillary is not sexist.

[Beausoir]

52. You posts speak volumes on the subject of sexism.

But, by all means, carry on.

[wisteria]

56. LOL. I am a member of NOW and I have matched for women's rights.

I also call them as I see them and Hillary is not a poineer in my opinion. You are free to believe what you like, but don't go using that tired old idea that everytime someone questions someone's ability to do the job it is sexism. The history is there to prove otherwise in the case of Hillary Clinton. Did you watch the primary unfold? Bill Clinton was uncontrolable at times. Do you think it will be any different if she is SOS? Do you really believe that Bill Clinton will not have a little to much to say on foreign policy matter given that he is the ex-president?

[Forkboy]

67. Everything is sexist to this poster.

After awhile it just becomes funny to watch the flopping about. ;)

[Beausoir]

85. What an immature comment. Downthread you are lecturing us about "maturity".

And then you drop your pants and piss all over yourself with a stupid comment like this.

Sexism is REAL. It exists and I speak up when I see it here.

[Forkboy]

86. Yes, it is real. But you see it everywhere, even where it doesn't exist.

Save the shame attempt. Coming from you it really has zero effect.

[Beausoir]

87. Another broadbrush statement from Mr. Maturity.

:hi:

[Forkboy]

88. Another true statement.

:hi:

[Beausoir]

93. Self delete.

Not worth it.

[Erin Elizabeth]

98. I shouldn't have read this post so quickly after eating lunch.

I can feel it coming back up. Eugh, chicken enchiladas.

[wisteria]

31. Add these assessments to the other reasons she should not have even been considered for this positio...

And, why she is not suited for it.

[LostinVA]

39. You listen to the assessments of a KNOWN admirer of Bush and Rove

Whose journalistic career is potholed with out-and-out lies and ethics violations???

I guess Coulter would be suddenly revelant on here if she penned a column denouncing Clinton as SOS.

This is ridiculous.

I don't even want Hillary to be SOS, but I'm starting to hope she is.

[wisteria]

51. I listen the all different points of views. Not everyone is always wrong.

And, not everyone is always right. I happen to agree with what he has to say. If you don't that is your right. Don't go attacking me though because I don't agree with you.

[LostinVA]

54. "Not everyone is always wrong" -- you have to be kidding me, right???

I'll say Rush, Coulter, Malkin, Savage, Hannity are always wrong. As was Hitler, my stepgrandfather-in-law, etal. Disingenuous or naive.

I'm not attacking you at all, but nice try to say I am. I do, however, disagree with ANYONE on DU giving an ear to a known Bushie journalist.

[wisteria]

59. Whatever- there is no reasoning with you. You are a Clinton kool-Aide drinker. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

33. The Broder Seal of Disapproval should be worn as a badge of honor

The man last had an original thought in 1977.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Well, he approvingly wrote one the most touching descriptions of an Obama rally I have ever read.

It described his cynicism about Obama's effect on crowds until he experienced it himself in real time again and again.

[nichomachus]

47. This is incredible -- a record even for DU

an entire thread of ad hominem attacks against Broder -- and not a single rational refutation of his argument.

[LostinVA]

58. Sticking up for Broder on DU? WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS PLACE???

Gosh darnit, guess we need to refute NOvak, Coulter, Palin, Rove, etal while we are at it.

Ridiculous and shameful.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

:)

[LostinVA]

64. One can't pick and choose dubious sources just because they like what they say

[ClarkUSA]

66. Oh, the irony of a Hillarylander saying that! And Broder happens to be right this time.

Of course, someone who only applauds those who revere the Clintons is always quick to demonize those who don't.

[LostinVA]

68. Excuse me? Why the personal attack -- and, please provide links for your fucked up remark

I don't use dubious sources.

You and others trying to stir up diviisve shit piss me off to no end. Craving discord like you do is clinically pathological.

[Forkboy]

70. You didn't, but some Hillary supporters did.

I remember Krauthammer, Brooks, and even Novak being praised here by some during the primaries when they attacked Obama. The embracing of lousy sources when we agree with them is hardly a new thing that's directed only at Hillary.

[LostinVA]

73. The post was directed at ME

They are being a jerk to ALL HRC supporters just like they have always been -- they just want to cause drama. You KNOW me, Forkboy -- why don't you tell teh poster that he's wrong about me? It's about ME, not some not-me HRC supporter. I'm not amd at you, but IU wish you ahd taken him to task and not me -- the only thing I'm doing is decrying using dubious sources to score a point -- espcially when teh OP and thread is full of Primary Warriors.

They are certain Obama Primary supporters who were jerks to me, but I don't tar ALL Primary Obama supporters with the same brush.

You know I debate and sometimes get heated, but I NEVER acted like an ass during the Primaries. I never attacked, never posted stupid sources or rumors, and I alerted on all kinds of crazy stuff by HRC "supporters."

I am TIRED of this shit on here. People need to leave middle school behind and act like a damned adult.

[ClarkUSA]

74. No, it wasn't. Stop with the victimhood. This is not all about you. Forkboy got it. You don't.

Your ranting is a bit over the top. Calm down and dream of Hillary supporting Obama's "naive" foreign policy as SoS. :)

[Forkboy]

82. Actually, you're not exactly being a voice of reason in this thread.

Hillary isn't a neocon, for instance, as you insist elsewhere. And I'm far from being a Hillary fan.

[ClarkUSA]

95. Because I happen to agree with Broder and disagree with his demonization? LOL

Puhleeze... and speaking of middle school and hate, I stayed away from DU for nine months because I was tired of the Clintonian
BS around here and decided to join Team O so I wouldn't waste my time battling pre-PUMA trolls here all the time. Now I'm back
for awhile, until next year, just having fun. :)

As for that other thread, if Hillary isn't a neocon, she sure votes and talks like one. And I didn't "insist" she was a neocon though
I do believe she sure votes and sounds like one and is closer to Joe Lieberman's and John McCain's worldview than Barack's. Heh...
that doesn't matter now, because my guy is on top and everyone else - including the Clintons - know they have to fall in line or
hit the road. It's a good way to neutralize external threats to his agenda, doncha think?

Also, in that other thread you referenced, I responded to another poster by quoted neocons who approved of Hillary being SoS
and the same DUer who flipped out here couldn't handle the truth there, which is neocons love the idea of Hillary Clinton
being SoS. If someone engages me with their thin-skinned BS, then I'll take them on. Simple as that. Have a nice day.

[Forkboy]

80. Ok, the poster should know that I've never seen you use such sources.

Or support the use of such sources.

I wasn't trying to take you to task, and I'm sorry it seemed that way. I was just pointing out why the comment was probably made. It isn't fair to you, but it does apply to enough others to make the comment itself not far from the mark in general.

I am TIRED of this shit on here. People need to leave middle school behind and act like a damned adult.

This applies to a lot of people on both sides of this issue. Any Hillary thread draws the same haters and same lovers over and over. All of them need to act like adults, but let's face it, this is DU, and these things happen. The only thing you can really control is your own participation in said threads.

The people who dislike her need to chill and stop looking for any tiny thing they can to slam her with, and the people who like her need to stop taking offense at every single negative line uttered about her. I would have driven myself crazy (crazier) if I had defended DK from every stupid comment I saw here.

My opinion of both sides isn't very high, as you may have noticed, because they both act exactly the same while trying to convince others (or maybe themselves) that they are totally different and better. It's two groups of very immature and insecure people who thrive on drama and attention.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Oh, stop with the drama already.

Your idea of dubious sources is purely based on your Clinton bias and you know it. What's ridiculous and shameful is the constant
demonization of anyone and any source that dares criticizes the choice of Hillary as SoS. Spare me your self-righteous ranting.

[Bucky]

104. I'd call it "ironic" since Broder's opinions are themselves unburdened with reason

Since when do we need reason to respond to knee-jerk Clinton hatred. His argument amounts to predicting (based on nothing) that she won't be a loyal team player. Since conceding the race last summer she's done nothing but support Obama and the party. He's being deliberately obtuse.

[ProSense]

49. More on Hillary as SoS

here.

[Forkboy]

69. Meh. Broder. 'Nuff said.

[Sensitivity]

76. Broder must have some ulterior motive. I trust that Eagleburger, Kissinger and Kristol

have the nations interest at heart when they celebrate the prospect of a Clinton SoS appointment because the President Elect "doesn't know foreign policy from a hole in the wall."

[TwilightGardener]

77. Broder's not always right, but he's not always wrong either--and he isn't

bashing Hillary here. So, someone tell me what's wrong with his reasoning, other than it's got his name attached (which seems to set off DU into a hive mentality of dismissing anything he says)?

[Sensitivity]

81. Must be a fool cuz he dissagrees with all the big-name NeoCon Hillary SoS boosters

[Cha]

78. I don't care what anyone thinks if Hillary

takes the SOS..she works for Obama.

[11 Bravo]

84. David Broder? We're taking advice now from David Fucking Broder?

What's wrong, Rove, Zell Miller, and Sean Hannity aren't available?

[Sensitivity]

89. Guess you prefer Eagleburger and Kristol and the Neocon club are providing contrary advise

[opihimoimoi]

105. Who the Fuck is Dave Broder.....?? He is a POS....never was a MAN

Talks like a wussy wimp...walks like a sissy pimp, and looks like a smelly shrimp...

Never Listen to a PUNK....