Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

That was educational nimh. Esp the last but one.

I'll take 7 to 4.

0 Replies

nimh said

Quote:

That Crowley article we all just discussed should leave little doubt that, well, she is calculating and ambitious - and that she's set up a machine that's just that bit more calculating and ruthless than those of her opponents apparently are. Now you can say, OK, but thats simply what we need right now, like you basically did I believe (and like I'd at least halfway agree). But you cant praise her for being the kind of ruthless and calculating operative the Dems just need at this moment in time, and yet take offense when people point out that she is, well, calculating and ruthless.

Just take the adjective "ambitious". How does that word become construed as a negative personal characteristic here, particularly in the mind of many folks on the American right. In the American myth tradition, ambition is apple pie at its best. It's a key to what has made America great. The lack of it, conversely, is seen as the cause of wasted and parasitic lives. So why is it a bad thing in this one person?

Or look at 'calculating'. The word clearly applies to Karl Rove, to Bush dad and Bush sons, to Rupert Murdoch, to Bill O'Reilly, to Rudy, to every candidate of either party running for the presidency or any high office. Why does the combination of Hillary and calculating produce such a unique negative?

I truly cannot find adequate explanation for all of this outside of gender stereotypes. Women aren't supposed to be calculating to achieve power over men, they are supposed to be calculating household expenses so as to make their husband's role easier.

I'm certain she is 'calculating', 'ambitious' and 'ruthless'. But she's not at all unique in these (think Gingrich, DeLay, Schumer, and on and on). It's her gender that is unique.

It seems likely, as your writer detailed, that Hillary treated the press in 92-93 and up until the present, with detachment and perhaps even disdain on occasion. Of course, they would see this in contrast with others who acted more transparently and with more friendliness (eg McCain, a perennial press favorite). One can understand their problem and their response. Clearly, its a weak point for her. But I don't see it (in itself) as a serious character matter at all. It seems to me a PR or presentation weakness (like Kerry's stiltedness).

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Just take the adjective "ambitious". How does that word become construed as a negative personal characteristic here, particularly in the mind of many folks on the American right.

That's nothing new. American voters often have had a weakness for those who succesfully made the impression that they'd be perfectly happy doing something else too -- that they wanted to be Prez, but that it hadnt been a life quest or anything. See Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush.

For better or for worse, Americans just dont like 'strebers' - those who are just a little all too visibly eager or even uptight about it. Fred Thompson may be taking his snooze act a little too far, but "calculating" is certainly one of those associations that's holding Romney down, for example, too: a little all too eager, a little all too willing to switch any position he needs to in order to get that office or endorsement.

You can learn everything you need to know about this dynamic from the Bush vs Gore race in 2000. Gore was perceived (and portrayed!) as the striver who'd always sat at the front of the class, whereas Bush's wholly non-political, and not particularly successful early wanderings in life, conversely, didnt seem to play against him.

And note, both men.

blatham wrote:

Or look at 'calculating'. The word clearly applies to Karl Rove, to Bush dad and Bush sons, to Rupert Murdoch, to Bill O'Reilly, to Rudy, to every candidate of either party running for the presidency or any high office. Why does the combination of Hillary and calculating produce such a unique negative?

Well its funny that you mention only people by name whom you yourself clearly loathe. Apparently the word triggers an initial, instinctive negative reaction in you too, before ratio kicks in and you add the "every candidate of either party" bit.

Again, yes of course, in reality, every politician needs to be calculating, at least to some major extent. But rationally or not, American voters don't want to be reminded of the candidate's calculus too overtly.

And how does Hillary stack up, there, in comparison with "every candidate of either party"? Do you really think Obama is quite equally calculating as Hillary? Isnt one of the reasons you've brought up here for thinking Hillary is better suited for the fight against the conservative machine the fact that she does seem to have better 'calculated in' and prepared for all the various possible lines of attack?

The Crowley article certainly seemed to show up a distinction in quite the hostile calculation involved in Hillary's press and campaign organisation and that of the other Democratic candidates.

blatham wrote:

I'm certain she is 'calculating', 'ambitious' and 'ruthless'. But she's not at all unique in these (think Gingrich, DeLay, Schumer, and on and on). It's her gender that is unique.

Fine, but dont you at all see the contradiction in your reasoning here that I just outlined? Because you seem to have sidestepped the brunt of my argument: that if you actually praise Hillary, in various related words, for that dose of ruthlessness and sustained planning that sets her aside from her perhaps less resilient Democratic competitors, you dont get to then turn around and blame gender stereotypes and Republican talking points when somebody else calls Hillary, well, ruthless and calculating.

0 Replies

On a side note, FWIW:

Google hits for <"George Bush" calculating>: 231,000
Google hits for <"Bill Clinton" calculating>: 200,000
Google hits for <"Al Gore" calculating>: 176,000
Google hits for <"Hillary Clinton" calculating>: 160,000
Google hits for <"Barack Obama" calculating>: 122,000
Google hits for <"John Edwards" calculating>: 105,000
Google hits for <"Rudy Giuliani" calculating>: 75,900
Google hits for <"Mitt Romney" calculating>: 75,600
Google hits for <"Nancy Pelosi" calculating>: 65,900

I dunno. Colour me unconvinced.

0 Replies

Quote:

you seem to have sidestepped the brunt of my argument: that if you actually praise Hillary, in various related words, for that dose of ruthlessness and sustained planning that sets her aside from her perhaps less resilient Democratic competitors, you dont get to then turn around and blame gender stereotypes and Republican talking points when somebody else calls Hillary, well, ruthless and calculating.

Odd how we can't seem to bridge on this one. Perhaps it is just that there is a mix of things in what we are looking at and certain parts of that mix stand out for me while other parts stand out for you. This can all get a bit ephemeral and very difficult to measure.

Let me try one last thing.

Would you consider Hillary to be more ambitious than Bill? More calculating? I don't know how we could say either of those claims would be true.

The direction taken in the attacks on Bill's character (in this realm) was that he "triangulated". That suggests 'calculating', for sure. But notice that this framing doesn't fault him for 'ambition'.

In any case, we can now watch to see how her candidacy gets framed by folks on the right. We know a lot about that already as it has been going on for a decade and a half. I suggest that gender will continue to be a central component in the manner of 'cold, ball-cutting bitch'. She doesn't poll well with white males and there's a gender turmoil underlying that.

Truce.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Would you consider Hillary to be more ambitious than Bill? More calculating? I don't know how we could say either of those claims would be true.

The direction taken in the attacks on Bill's character (in this realm) was that he "triangulated". That suggests 'calculating', for sure. But notice that this framing doesn't fault him for 'ambition'.

No, I dont think Hillary is more ambitious or calculating than Bill was in his time, I mean, when he was running for President resp. running the Presidency. I'd say they were both ambitious and calculating, and they certainly have both been framed as such. You must remember the whole meme of "the Clintons" as ruthless power machers who go over dead bodies if necessary (umm, as we say in Dutch)? That rightwing meme has always very much profiled Bill, too, as more than an equal partner, with Hillary as a sinister auxiliary or something.

Perhaps it's stuck a little less with him among middle of the road voters because of his famed almost cuddly kind of charisma - he just loves people, and so people just love him. Hillary doesnt have the luck of such an aura, but the meme of ruthless machers has certainly been targeted at both of them with vigour.

blatham wrote:

Odd how we can't seem to bridge on this one. [..] Truce.

I'd love to offer one, but can't you at least try to address any of my points? I mean, I have responded to your thesis on pretty much a point-by-point basis a few times now, but it's a little frustrating - it doesn't seem like you actually hear what is said back. I mean, I dont mind if you dont agree - thats not the point. But it'd be nice to at least see an explanation of why you think my respective points regarding your thesis do not hold -- rather than just a new repeat of the thesis itself.

Let me use my last two longer posts (in a flexible kind of way) to summarise, basically, three points - with apologies for the doubling both of those posts, and within each of the reorganised "quotes" below. I suppose there's roughly three broad points, as follows:

Quote:

[How does that word, "ambitious", become construed as a negative personal characteristic here, particularly in the mind of many folks on the American right?] That's nothing new. American voters often have had a weakness for those who succesfully made the impression that they'd be perfectly happy doing something else too -- that they wanted to be Prez, but that it hadnt been a life quest or anything. See Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush.

For better or for worse, Americans just dont like 'strebers' - those who are just a little all too visibly eager or even uptight about it. Fred Thompson may be taking his snooze act a little too far, but "calculating" is certainly one of those associations that's holding Romney down, for example, too: a little all too eager, a little all too willing to switch any position he needs to in order to get that office or endorsement. [And he's a man.]

You can learn everything you need to know about this dynamic from the Bush vs Gore race in 2000. Gore was perceived (and portrayed!) as the striver who'd always sat at the front of the class, whereas Bush's wholly non-political, and not particularly successful early wanderings in life, conversely, didnt seem to play against him. [Same with Kerry, for that matter. Note, all men, the lot.]

[As for "calculating"?] Its funny that you mention only people by name whom you yourself clearly loathe. Apparently the word triggers an initial, instinctive negative reaction in you too [- even as you assign the word to various men. All of whom - see the Google numbers for a very rough idea - have often enough been attached the word too, sometimes more so than Hillary.]

Quote:

That Crowley article we all just discussed should leave little doubt that, well, she is calculating and ambitious - and that [there is a real] distinction [between] quite the hostile calculation involved in Hillary's press and campaign organisation and that of the other Democratic candidates. [S]he's set up a machine that's just that bit more calculating and ruthless than those of her opponents apparently are.

[O]f course, in reality, every politician needs to be calculating, at least to some major extent. But rationally or not, American voters don't want to be reminded of the candidate's calculus too overtly. And how does Hillary stack up, there, in comparison with "every candidate of either party"? Do you really think Obama is quite equally calculating as Hillary?

Quote:

Now you can say, OK, but thats simply what we need right now, like you basically did [here] I believe (and like I'd at least halfway agree). [..] Isnt one of the reasons you've brought up here for thinking Hillary is better suited for the fight against the conservative machine the fact that she does seem to have better 'calculated in' and prepared for all the various possible lines of attack? [..] But you cant praise her for being the kind of ruthless and calculating operative the Dems just need at this moment in time, and yet take offense when people point out that she is, well, calculating and ruthless. [D]ont you at all see the contradiction in your reasoning here [..]?

[..] If you actually praise Hillary, in various related words, for that dose of ruthlessness and sustained planning that sets her aside from her perhaps less resilient Democratic competitors, you dont get to then turn around and blame gender stereotypes and Republican talking points when somebody else calls Hillary, well, ruthless and calculating.

I'm not even sure whether you are aware of it, or whether it's some kind of cognitive dissonance. You repeatedly go quite a long way yourself in describing Hillary as the right candidate for taking down the conservative machine, once and for all, in terms of how she is, well, [determined] and ruthless - to an extent the other candidates just dont quite seem to be up to. But then when other people call her things like ruthless and ambitious, you have this instant rebuttal ready about how we should all be aware that it's gender stereotypes that make us see her in those terms, or it's what the rightwing machine wants us to think. That's a nice way to stack the cards - [..] but its not quite honest [..]. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

0 Replies

I think we are getting stuck on some not-particuly-meaningful either/or issues involving general observations that, while least partly true, don't really illuminate the questions we are debating.

Gender stereotypes are but one of these difficulties. There is little doubt that, to some degree Hillary Clinton' public image is somewhat affected by such stereotypes (though whether this is a net plus or minus politically is an arguable point). However, the proposition that liberals are less affected by them than "the right" is frankly laughable. This is a good example of the medieval cant that is so liberally produced by the cult of political correctitude. In the first place there are indeed observable differences between men and women: some vary by degree among individuals, but certainly many of the the distinctions are at least statistically meaningful and therefore subject to identification in our vocabulary. Modern 'thought police' would have us suppress all thought and action that could, however tenuously, be as the result of such stereotypes. However, we should recognize such practices as alien to our tradition of individual freedom. Rejecting and prohibiting action provably based on the class prejudgement of people of any group is certainly wrong, and is usually punishable by law or at least subject to civil claims for damages in the courts. However, people's thoughts are ultimately unknowable and should remain beyond the reach of either legal action or political criticism.

It seems obvious that, to some degree, any successful political leader of any political persuasion must be both ambitious and calculating, probably more so than most people. So, on the face of it, this criticism of Hillary may well be unmerited.

I think Nimh made an excellent point that Americans (and perhaps the voters of other democracies as well) tend to be a bit suspicious of people for whom politics and political power appears to represent the central preoccupation of their whole lives, preferring those who have devoted substantial time to other pursuits. Perhaps they fear those who may be excessively interested in political power. It is an interesting question, but, while there are numerous historical examples of tyrants who did indeed crave power above all things, I believe there are also many counter examples of generally benevolent and democratic leaders who also exhibited such cravings. A hard case to make generally, though I do believe both Clintons have excited negative feelings among many based on these things.

0 Replies

nimh

Quote:

I'd love to offer one, but can't you at least try to address any of my points? I mean, I have responded to your thesis on pretty much a point-by-point basis a few times now, but it's a little frustrating - it doesn't seem like you actually hear what is said back. I mean, I dont mind if you dont agree - thats not the point. But it'd be nice to at least see an explanation of why you think my respective points regarding your thesis do not hold -- rather than just a new repeat of the thesis itself.

Sorry. Haven't meant to frustrate or avoid. I think we just read the topography of all this differently. As to disagreement, it seems the only real disjoint between us is on 1) the degree to which observers/citizens have been influenced in their notions of Hillary by the PR campaign the right has waged, 2) whether gender issues, perhaps particular to the US, play a part in the design of that PR campaign and its successfulness, 3) whether words like 'calculating', 'ambitious', 'cold' or 'ruthless' - even if accurate in the sense that the person talked about has more of those characteristics than others in her sphere - are relevant or important in a modern American president and how they might be relevant. And when I say that all of this is pretty ephemeral, it isn't to avoid anything, rather to just point out the difficulty of measuring it.

I'll try one more time. I'll do my best to restate the thesis in each of your three paragraphs, then respond.

Para 1... Americans do not trust people who evidently clamber towards power.

Para 2... Hillary seems to demonstrate such a design/motive more than the other Dem candidates and possibly more than the Repub candidates.

Para 3... I am doing two contradictory things at the same time; praising Hillary for necessary ruthlessness while claiming that this 'ruthlessness' is actually a meme planted or fostered by the right wing's propaganda folks.
**********

Quote:

Para 1... Americans do not trust/like people who evidently clamber towards power.

That's clearly true. But it is also very deeply not true. Both things are at work here and we get it badly wrong if we don't appreciate this. And the ambivalence is completely understandable in a democracy. It's the difference between a leader and a tyrant, between an achiever and a bully.

There's another important element here...the level of partisanship, particularly in a two party system. A clamber towards power, with ruthful intent, is more excuseable and less disagreeable if the observer holds allegiance with the climber. Many people on the right are big fans of everything Rove has done. Many people on the left hope Emanuel or some other will be so effective, even if as ruthless.

And because its gooder if it is your guy and badder if the other guy, then campaigns will push the friendly, down-home image for their guy and the elitist, unfeeling, soulless manipulator for the other guy.

Quote:

Para 2... Hillary seems to demonstrate such a design/motive more than the other Dem candidates and possibly more than the Repub candidates..

"Seems" is a key word here. This meme has been pushed by opposition PR. That we do know. But also, is looks to be true (in the senses I've acknowledged previously) at least in relation to the other dem candidates. I am less bothered by this than you appear to be. I know a totally fine fellow who is now operating at the top levels of the Canadian government and he knew he wanted to do that from the time he was 12, thus never did any drugs with the singular intent of keeping a clean closet. None of these people we are talking about are without such ambitions, designs, motives. We are getting an idea now, with information from the Kerik indictment and the Regan lawsuit, of just how long Murdoch and Ailes and Giuliani have been designing and facilitating his move into a presidential race.

But clearly this has been a design of hers for a long time and that's shown by (at least) the team that she has built around her and the steps she has taken to get herself in this position. Obama? Well, hard to know. But a real life difference here is their ages and experience...she's had much more time to fill with calculations. In ten years, if Hillary or someone else gets the nomination, Barack will look rather less fresh and virginal.

Quote:

Para 3... I am doing two contradictory things at the same time; praising Hillary for necessary ruthlessness while claiming that this 'ruthlessness' is actually a meme planted or fostered by the right wing's propaganda folks.

Guilty. Both seem to be matters of fact. As I tried to say before, the important aspect of this is degree and connotations. I have no quarrel with anyone who might state that Hillary (or another) is "ambitious and calculating". Because it is true, and true for all. "Ruthless" goes further into negative territory but in the present time and present situation, I think it is a necessary understanding of the processes and stakes of modern american politics. "Cold" I don't buy because of accounts from folks I've read whom I trust which hold this to be an inaccurate description (eg David Guergen).

Above and beyond this, are the elements of gender. But I'll leave that for now.

This is about the best I can do, nimh. I don't hold a particular allegiance to the lady.

0 Replies

Was it just me that noticed the looks of disbelief and skepticism, plus an occasional slight rolling of the eyes at Hillary by virtually all of her opponents at some time or another during her answers to the questions? None of her opponents seem to take her seriously in terms of her giving honest and credible answers, and I am interested to see if her numbers continue to decline. I think she is in trouble. I hope so anyway.

She seemed clearly in over her head, just my opinion. At least some of the other candidates could at least approximately explain their positions, whether you agree with them or not. For one example, Obama stabbed her through the heart when he pointed out that deducting social security from more than $90,000 income was only 6% of the population, hardly the middle class as she was claiming. Her reply was a mixed up few sentences of impertinent and dis-jointed statements on the subject, none of which addressed her obvious misrepresentation of the facts.

0 Replies

Here's a quote from that student, about that inane last "question":

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN...I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance. CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question."

And I find myself in the rare circumstance of agreeing with Okie about something - that segment where Obama got very specific about paying for healthcare and social security, and Hillary got more and more "soundbyte" vague - was his best moment in the debate.

0 Replies

Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington -- and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.

When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists -- she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.

Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party -- more money than any Republican candidate.

She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.

She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

We have a duty -- a duty to end this.
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/

0 Replies

"Last night's debate was important because it showed distinctions between the candidates on issues that really matter to Americans. One moment from the debate stuck with me - when Senator Clinton was asked about NAFTA and she tried to joke about charts and laugh about it.

"For the one million Americans who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, this isn't a laughing matter. And for me, this isn't about charts - it's very personal. I grew up in a mill town, and today in hundreds of towns just like Robbins, people's lives hang in the balance because of bad trade agreements. When that mill closed down, it meant less food on the table, not being able to pay for your home or your health care, and financial hardships that were devastating for families.

"One of the most important choices for Democrats in this election is whether we're going to continue to pay lip service to workers while we put the profits of big multinational corporations first, or if we're finally going to show some backbone and strength and stand up for American workers."
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071116-clinton-laughing-off-nafta/

0 Replies

John Bolton, the war-mongering madman, now out of his post at the UN and touring to market a book and forward his extremist ideology said recently, "I think this will be a very consequential election." He's right.

This is a portion from Krugman's final chapter in his new book. It states concisely my own sense of the present situation.

Quote:

On Being Partisan

The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish...

To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan - at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism - leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us making our society better.

0 Replies

Bernie love-

That is all based on what "progress" and "making our society better" means. It's a simple tautology.

The partisan progresives think that their idea of progress will make society better, whatever that means, and the partisan conservatives think that their idea of progress, and you can progress backwards as any lady will tell you, will make society better, whatever they mean.

Meanwhile Destiny rolls ever onwards on the cusp of life becoming history and there's no denying that progressives have been winning hands down and thus Mr Krugman's moaning must be a plea to speed progress up even faster so that he can start up foreplay by remote control driving towards his tryst and thus save him the bother when he gets there.

I hope you didn't think we would think his piece meant anything. Dear me.

And if you are going to do meaningless statements the new benchmark for class is the one the Dover science teachers put out. I only sniggered a bit with Mr Krugman.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

This is about the best I can do, nimh. I don't hold a particular allegiance to the lady.

OK. I appreciate that post.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

This is a portion from Krugman's final chapter in his new book. It states concisely my own sense of the present situation.

Quote:
On Being Partisan

The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish...

To be a progressive, then, means being a partisan - at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism - leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us making our society better.

He articulately speaks my mind here as well. <nods>

0 Replies

Blimey!

0 Replies

Well I read Krugman's quote, posted above by Blatham. Quite remarkable for its self-righteous tone, stridency and the demonization of its chosen opponents. Perhaps we should call him an 'evangelical progressive'.

Now I guess I know where the phrase "movement conservative" that Blatham uses so much comes from. Krugman's quote evokes the impression of a zealot who will not be satisfied with compromise or accomodation with those who disagree with him - indeed he says as much in his determination to achieve complete domination of all organs of government. This is hardly the disposition of a wise and detached searcher for the truth and right understanding.

What is so sadly bemusing about all this is the degree to which he and his advocates here so closely mimic the attitudes and behaviors they so earnestly ascribe to their dreaded enemies on the "radical/evangelical right". To me they both appear tiresomely similar.

0 Replies

nimh

You may have caught the recent policy/news release from the conference of catholic bishops wherein there seems to be a slight softening of the prior stance (2004) on how catholic voters ought to evaluate a polititicians stance on abortion (other moral considerations can be weighed against or along with the abortion matter).

The significant question in this is whether the appearance of Giuliani as a possible or likely Republican candidate is the most immediate reason for this change.

In 2004, when Kerry's bishop declared he would not offer communion to Kerry because of his abortion stance, there were many others who held the same hardline position. Still other senior church officials in the US had a less stringent view, tempering that concern with other moral issues.

But there are, and have been for a while, serious liason activities between the Republican Party and the Catholic church leaders. The Federalist Society is involved in these liason activities (see HERE)

The thing to watch, I think, is whether Giuliani will be excused by senior church officials/voices in contrast to what happened with Kerry. My expectation is that he will be.

0 Replies

ps

I hope folks are reading digby. She's terribly smart and a hell of a writer. On the CNN pundit preamble to the debate (empty empty empty...god it was horrid) she adds some of this transcript and then comments...

Quote:

Have you ever heard anything this vapid in your lives? It's like Howard Cosell on valium.

One has to know/remember Cosell, of course, but if one does it is just a brilliant analogy.

0 Replies

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know