I haven't been able to stomach very much of the Democrat convention speeches. There's too much drivel. But I did hear most of Hillary Clinton's address (transcript).
Many in the mainstream media are characterizing Clinton's speech thusly: a "generous, powerful speech" that "erased the bad blood". But reading between the lines, I was struck by Clinton's astonishingly faint praise of Obama.
The speech was merely an argument to elect a generic Democrat over John McCain. Practically the only words of praise for Obama himself are about what he supposedly "understands" and what he supposedly will do. Nary a word about what he has actually done, but for the vaporous:
Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down.Listening to Clinton, one almost gets the impression that Obama has never actually accomplished anything other than getting elected! Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 26, 2008 10:43 PM | Email This
You know, I'm -- I'm here tonight as a proud mother, as a proud Democrat... as a proud senator from New York... a proud American... and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.
Anyone else struck by what was missing?
HINT: it should have come after, and in relation to, "I'm here tonight as a proud mother".
And yes,I also watched Hillary. She wasn't bad, but I tried to watch some of the earlier speeches today by the less well known democrats, and they were really pathetic. I actually began to feel sorry for the speakers, because it was all so shallow and uninspiring.
The more interesting angle of this convention has been reading about the rifts between the Clinton supporters and everyone else who supports Obama. Maureen Dowd actually had an interesting piece on the whole tension involved, linked off Drudge. I highly recommend. Very strange convention. Many of the democrats admit to feeling some kind of impending doom for the campaign.
Posted by: Michele on August 26, 2008 11:41 PMfine, you don't like the dems. but answer this:
after 8 years of bush, and 6 years of a republican congress, why do the republicans deserve 4 more years in the white house?
if you believe in accountability, you will answer this question cogentely, without resorting to the 'dems are worse' tack.
funding a war with tax breaks,
deficits,
increase in the size of the federal govt,
regulation of social/moral values,
torture,
suspension of habeus corpus.
please respond.
i'm tired of talking heads and 'tactical' anaysis. deal with facts.
quit pretending you are a paid guest on cnn/msnbc/fox.
It's funny because Porgressives are convinced that everyone is ready to join their movement, that the Republican party has folded, etc.
What has rally happened is that most Americans have dumped both parties and moved more towards the center. Politicians are an ineffective class in good times. Now in large part we have a bunch of incompetent fools who are worried about their careers because they know that without elected office they wouldn't be able to make any money in the real world. They cover each other's butts and make cross party deals if it helps to protect their jobs.
Americans are unimpressed. But it's worse on the Democrat side because the angry nuts on the Left will take to the streets and show what has become of the Democrat party, leaving the average voter with an easy decision to tack right.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 27, 2008 12:06 AMThe dems can't wait to raise my taxes and I pay more than my fair share. I'm probably paying your share, too. Obama wants to increase not just income taxes but capital gains tax, even though it was pointed out to him that a lower capital gains tax increased revenues from this tax (not to mention that people got to keep more money in their pocket from their investments--what's so bad about THAT? a win-win. That's a GOOOD thing).
I also don't like their party planks pushing abortion including taxpayer funded killing of these babies. Your man Barack is an absolute extremist of the worst kind on this issue--arguing that babies born alive should be left to die, which is absolutely horrifying.
I'm no fan of gay marriage--which is a big item that Obama is selling to the gay lobby bigtime (his wife has been talking to these same groups, telling them O will get rid of DOMA).
Also, the democrats seem uninterested in protecting this country from terrorists. They are more interested in protecting terrorists than americans. And how come gas prices are way higher than they were before dems took over congress? Didn't they tell us gas prices would be lower if they took over? Wasn't that a crock of bs, in the end? They prohibit harvesting more domestic oil, knowing full well it will increase our dependence on foreign oil and drive up prices, and that's exactly what we've gotten. Then they have to nerve to complain about it. We see right through that.
And lastly, did you SEE your candidate at Saddleback? I don't think any of us were prepared for the astonishingly revealing look at the two choices put before us. John McCain showed depth, knowledge, experience, and such a huge readiness for this job. Barack Obama was shocking by comparison--exhibiting no depth, and a strange kind of loss for words on the answers, and clearly was someone just running on extreme far-left dogma rather than real life approach to issues. It wasn't even close. Obama is running on image, not substance. Even democrats are privately saying this, according to reports in the Times and elsewhere.
Posted by: Michele on August 27, 2008 12:21 AMPass the popcorn.
Posted by: Michele on August 27, 2008 12:33 AMi'll try to respond, pargraph by paragraph:
"the dems want to raise my taxes": who is going to pay for the deficit spending passed for 6 consecutive years by a republican led house and senate and signed by a republican president? if you spend on a credit card, at some point the bill comes due. who's going to pay that bill?
abortion: nobody likes it. it's a necessary evil. i don't see people readily adopting unwanted children. increased funding for orphanages?
gay marriage: the govt should stay out of regulating social values. the arguments you use to support your anti-gay marriage stance are identical to the arguments used by those who prohibited interracial marriages just a few decades ago. also, sporting a 52% divorce rate doesn't give straight people a monopoly on the marriage argument (not to mention henry viii's need for divorce and the henceforth creation of the anglican church). love is not a monopoly of straight people.
terrorism: invading a country and deposing it's admittedly horribly, but contained, leader who WAS NOT involved in 9-11 was also not in our interests in defeating terrorism; nor was supporting musharraf and turning a blind eye to a. q. khan's nuclear marketplace. defeating terrorism requires something beyond a military response. take a trip abroad (despite the devalued dollar, which some euros call the 'american peso') and you'll find that america is neither revered nor feared as it once was. the germans/chinese/russians/indians/japanese/koreans/english are confident they can kick our ass in any given field. what are we doing in response?
all that said: if you believe in accountability, what have the republicans done in the last 6/8 years that demands that i vote for them in november?
Posted by: dinesh on August 27, 2008 12:42 AMI really think the democrats could have put up a better candidate than Obama. A lot of them think so, too, from what I'm reading. I'm going to bed, now. But Obama is a very flawed candidate with scary connections.
Posted by: Michele on August 27, 2008 02:24 AMWhat if experience is not the best or only measuring stick?
Posted by: JP on August 27, 2008 03:34 AMThat statement nails it for me...I'm someone who completely supports Hillary and like Stefan I read more 'between the lines' in last nite's speech than is readily apparent. Luke warm support is probably the apt term.
I simply can't (at least at this point) bring myself to support the Dalai Obama with (like Michele says) 'so many red flags'. While a fan of Hillary, I'm no fan of Bill - so it doesn't matter to me what he says tonite. Yes 'rags' pretty telling that Hillary apparently laid no claim to being there as a 'proud wife', eh. :)
What would you prefer to measure it by? Hope? Change?... or some other rhetorical empty platitude. We all use experience as a measuring stick in our everyday lives. Don't you, JP? Do you hire the flower arranger to file your taxes? Do you call the plumber when the cable goes out? No, you don't.
The problem with Obama (aside from his Marxist philosophy of course) is not that he can't be an effective leader, but that he has no demonstrated executive experience. He believes in his mind that he's ready for the job and that's good enough for him.
This far in his life, he's only diplayed an affinity for being a rung climber, and one that missed every other rung to get to the top step at that. He's used controversial figures to help push him up there (Rezko,Phleger,Wright,Ayers)and now would like nothing better to have those associations just fade away so that he can realize his dream. He's finding out a hard lesson in life he should have learned long ago..."Show me your friends, and I'll show you your future".
Obama's future might have twilighted yesterday.
Posted by: Rick D. on August 27, 2008 05:59 AMHe better get his rear out and start earning the millions she will need for her 2012 run.
Posted by: gs on August 27, 2008 07:18 AMMore than a few McCain supporters (particularly the lukewarm ones like myself) watched Hillary last night and thought "thank g*d she is not the candidate".
At this point, Obama's campaign reads like something published in the Onion (to steal a comment from a McCain aide). I have to believe he will pull it together as the presidential campaign proceeds, but he has a lot of bad press to paper over. If he has to spend his time fighting his gaffes of the last 60 days instead of selling his (generally) unpopular and historically unsuccessful policy positions, he will be in deep trouble come election day.
I still think the MSM did the Democrats a real disservice by giving this lightweight baby a pass for the Democrat nomination.
Posted by: iconoclast on August 27, 2008 07:42 AMThen the alleged Good Intentions are about all that's left, and we know what sort of pavement those are.
12. The problem with Obama (aside from his Marxist philosophy of course) is not that he can't be an effective leader, but that he has no demonstrated executive experience.
Actually, he has six years of executive experience, so far deliberately ignored and covered up by the MSM. At the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he presided over the disbursement of over $50,000,000 for 'community organizing' - that is, subsidizing the creation and activities far-left groups who supposedly worked to improve the academic performance of school children. The final report of the CAC showed no improvement at all - but those lavish funds sure feathered some political nests, most likely in organizations that later floated Obama's political career.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on August 27, 2008 08:09 AMIndeed, Obama hasn't accomplished anything other than being a serial candidate. His alleged speaking "skills" are found in every constitutional law class exhibited by a few antisocial personality disordered students convinced the rest of the class is impressed by their droning loud mouths, and shallow intellects. Those students generally had no friends or job successes, bur were poltically connected. They had objects thrown at them in class, while orating, for wasting other students' tuition dollars. Obama has achieved nothing substantive. Everything, except shilling for his fellow mattoids, is above his "paygrade." He is, simply, inferior, immensely undeserving, and is wasting the nation's valuable time.
Michele,
Great posts.
Posted by: The Pirate on August 27, 2008 09:59 AMI would tend to agree with Michelle on the majority of issues, but here are my comments on your statements:
"who is going to pay for the deficit spending passed for 6 consecutive years by a republican led house and senate and signed by a republican president?"
Cut spending by getting rid of some of the bloated government programs that we have. Start by eliminating all un-Constitutional programs.
I am not advocating doing this to support big-spending, I do not believe the Republicans have been fiscally conservative either.
"abortion: nobody likes it. it's a necessary evil. i don't see people readily adopting unwanted children. increased funding for orphanages?"
Abortion is not a necessary evil. What is it "necessary" for Dinesh? Don't take my tax dollars and make me fund something against my beliefs. Give the vote on abortion back to the states and it would disappear.
"gay marriage: the govt should stay out of regulating social values. the arguments you use to support your anti-gay marriage stance are identical to the arguments used by those who prohibited interracial marriages just a few decades ago."
Society needs a moral standard to keep from descending into chaos. The Democrats appeal to the "morality" of providing children with Healthcare. Don't you see the double standard? If Republicans can't legislate morality, why can Democrats? The real issue is the fact that morality has turned into something that can be defined by any person and his "morality" is just as good as his neighbors - no matter how perverted or depraved it may be.
The arguments against gay marriage are in no way akin to what occurred with interracial marriage. First of all, blacks are born that way and cannot change, and they have the same rights as white people. Gays change their mind, and their sexual preferences, they are not born that way, and thus it is not a civil right. They too have the same rights as I do - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, this does not involve perverting morality or one of the world's oldest institutions.
"terrorism: invading a country and deposing it's admittedly horribly, but contained, leader who WAS NOT involved in 9-11 was also not in our interests in defeating terrorism; nor was supporting musharraf and turning a blind eye to a. q. khan's nuclear marketplace"
I supported going into Afghanistan and the inital attacks on Iraq. Like many Republicans, I have regretted how this has dragged on all these years.
"all that said: if you believe in accountability, what have the republicans done in the last 6/8 years that demands that i vote for them in november? "
I certainly believe in accountability. The Republicans were held accountable in 2006 when many lost office "because of Iraq". The President should be one of those persons, but the Democrats took office in 2006 and have failed to live up to the promises that Pelosi made, thus their terrible ranking (below the President). This has opened up the door for Republicans. The problem is people have equated Republicanism with Conservatism - these are two different philosophies. I'd say the current administration has been anything but conservative on a variety of issues and it is hurting the Repubilcan brand.
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 27, 2008 10:45 AMThe obvious answer to this is everybody, but not via raising more from everybody. As is, too many people are already paying enough to pay for all the debt. If you run a household and some emergency caused you to spend more than you can afford, you must cut other spending. If your household is anything like US government, there are so many places with bloated budget and so many unnecessary programs that government should be involved such as paying for art, supporting abortion, public TV, etc., and cutting off most, if not all, of the fat will allow you to balance the budget and then allow positive cash flow to erase the debt.
Your simplistic thougth process, and democrats do seem to think this way, always fall into the mental trap that the only way out of debt is to raise/earn more money, and you really need a paradigm shift to reducing spending and living within means.
Posted by: DopioLover on August 27, 2008 11:01 AMUnless you're making over $250,000 a year (and maybe you are) or you are lucky to have significant investments, Obama's tax scheme will be MUCH better for you than McCain's. (See the recent report by The Tax Policy Center.)
And Obama made it perfectly clear why he cast the votes that he did in the past on abortion. I understand that Obama supports access to abortion, and McCain does not; but Obama never argued "that babies born alive should be left to die." He was quite clear that he expected any doctor would try to save a baby actually born alive during one of those extremely RARE procedures.
Unlike you, I AM a supporter of marriage equality; and I am thrilled that Obama has called to repeal DOMA. However, Obama has repeatedly stated that he does not support marriage equality; and McCain has made it clear that he supports allowing states to make their own decisions, which presumably means he'd allow repeal of DOMA as well.
And I'm tired of hearing how "the democrats seem uninterested in protecting this country from terrorists." It can be objectively argued that we are much LESS safe and LESS respected in the world now than before Bush launched his "War on Terror." (See the recent Russian-Georgian conflict.)
I generally don't like the government meddling with private business, and when it does it should be limited... but gas prices would be MUCH lower if we added back some regulation to limit the rampant speculation that drives up the price of oil. And the oil companies have plenty of domestic land that they could tap for new oil sources, but it is not currently profitable enough for them to do so. That is why they want permission to explore more in ANWR and off-shore -- not a lack of oil sources.
Jeez, people... I can come up with rational reasons why someone might prefer McCain to Obama, and plenty of issues to disagree on. What I don't get is how so many Americans fall for completely ridiculous arguments coming out of the mouths of many Republicans; and I definitely don't understand how anyone thinks the son of a single mother who went to college on scholarships (and probably a good dose of affirmative action) is somehow richer and more eltitist than the white son of an admiral who is married to a rich heiress and owns multiple investment properties.
I used to have much respect for McCain, but his capitulation to the far right religious leaders he used to criticize, his willingness to now support the kinds of torture methods that were used (unsuccessfully) on himself, and his feigned ignorance of the negative campaigning being run by his supporters is a bit much to take.
Posted by: Mickymse on August 27, 2008 11:12 AMWTF?
Posted by: Frank Black on August 27, 2008 11:22 AMI get that you don't support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. I can even concede opposition even if sexual orientation isn't a choice; but let me be perfectly CLEAR that gays and lesbians do NOT "change their mind, and their sexual preferences" and there is just about zero evidence to support that and ever-increasing evidence supporting the opposite and showing biological proof of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I might also remind you that if it's okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians because you believe it's a "choice," then I suppose you'll have to allow government to discriminate against religious people who make a "choice" as to what god(s) to believe in and what scriptures to follow, and against married people who make a "choice" to stop being single. Shall I expect Alito and Roberts to make rulings accordingly, or follow well-established case law around classes being discriminated against?
Posted by: Mickymse on August 27, 2008 11:23 AM1)She so obviously wants to be president that if Obama were to win her next chance would be 8yrs out. Not a nice thought for her and how old would she be?
2)If Obama loses she can say, "See? I would have won."
3)If he wins she will be able to point out in 4 yrs how bad he has sucked.
Her speech last night was obviously put together to NOT bolster Obama at all. It was tepid support for him at the very best.
Posted by: MrRcguy on August 27, 2008 11:32 AMMany experts have pointed out that we still have not captured Osama bin Laden and all the perpetrators of 9/11, we have not gained control of Afghanistan, and we do not have stability in Pakistan.
Some experts have argued that our invasion of Iraq is exactly what bin Laden desired, and led to an increase in folks joining al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (although thankfully, there seems to have been a definite decrease in support for these groups amongst the general Muslim populations who abhor senseless violence).
And situations like the recent tensions with Russia remind us all that we our military is currently over-extended and bogged down in conflicts which reduce our ability to respond effectively elsewhere.
Posted by: Mickymse on August 27, 2008 11:32 AMReally? Then please tell me how many terrorist attacks have occurred on our soil or against our interests in the seven years since 9-11-2001.
And then tell me how many terrorist attacks occurred on our soil or against our interests in the seven years prior to 9-11-2001.
You may not like the man responsible for it. And you may not like the methods employed. But you cannot 'objectively' look at the results and come to any other conclusion than it's working.
And that's despite the best efforts of the people and party you support doing everything they can undermine the effort in order to score cheap political points.
Posted by: jimg on August 27, 2008 11:40 AMThe problem with the current strategy is that "Terror" is not a group, it's not a country, and it's not an ideology. Terror is a tactic. You can't declare war on a tactic, and if you do, how do you ever know when you've won?
How have you or I been made safer by our military occupying Iraq? Or a better question might be, why is it okay for us to send troops into Baghdad to overthrow an elected leader, but not okay for Russia to invade Georgia?
Posted by: Mickymse on August 27, 2008 11:53 AMHow misinformed are you? Unless you make over $250K per year, your taxes will be the same or less under Obama's plan. In fact, McCain raises taxes on standard working folks in his plan. His taxing of company health care benefits is a tax, plain and simple. Have you looked at how much companies offset health care costs? Under McCain's plan, the middle-class get the shaft and the rich get even more breaks. Plain and simple.
"I get that you don't support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. I can even concede opposition even if sexual orientation isn't a choice; but let me be perfectly CLEAR that gays and lesbians do NOT "change their mind, and their sexual preferences"
No, I do not support legalizing this distortion of morality. Your refusal to see that people do change their mind about these things is not representative of the people that have changed their mind. This is the reason why it cannot be compared to the civil rights movement. Black people have not and do not change the color of their skin, or their racial heritage (Michael Jackson notwithstanding), but these people can and do change their orientation.
Mickymse wrote:
"I might also remind you that if it's okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians because you believe it's a "choice," then I suppose you'll have to allow government to discriminate against religious people who make a "choice" as to what god(s) to believe in and what scriptures to follow, and against married people who make a "choice" to stop being single."
Government has a responsibility to operate on some kind of moral standard. From the time of the founding of this country, that moral background for our government was Christianity. I'm not saying these people can't have jobs and should be fired. I'm simply saying you can't go around changing morality to suit a very extreme minority of people. On what basis would you object to polygamy? Some people seem to be happy with it? What about pedophiles (see N.A.M.B.L.A.) who feel as if they are born that way and the relations are consensual? Every person has a moral compass, and it is either based on something or created by him/herself.
The Constitution says nothing about what god(s) to believe in, it only says that the state will not adopt one (Christian) denomination above another (which must be understood against the European state).
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 27, 2008 01:29 PMHow misinformed are YOU? You do realize that talking point that you've memorized only applies to Social Security. You conveniently ignore the $864 BILLION dollars worth of programs that he wants to impose on us. How in the hell do you think he is going to pay for them if he (like Gregoire) won't cut anything? Oh wait. I guess he'll raise taxes! AND let's think about those over $250K people who are promised to be hosed by barry. Do you suppose they just might be business owners? Do you suppose that they just might like making what they make and oh gee, just might pass the cost of that increase down the chain?
Regarding taxes, Obama says "we don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He also favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which also are subject to the highest state income tax rates. When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.
Do you sheep ever think outside the talking points. Does linear logic escape ALL of you?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 02:51 PMThere. Much better.
Empty Suit and Stuffed Shirt are toast. That a moron can and will vote for some nebulous "change" candidates (One of whom has changed a great deal over the THIRTY FIVE YEARS he's served... while convinced that his running mate isn't ready to be president); that they can actually support a ticket in a war time for this country that has absolutely NO experience in war, or the military... (Not to mention the oh-so-important deferments BIDEN used that none of you fringers care about now) or ANY service outside of political pretty much proves it: millions of leftists are falling for the ridiculous pap that you and your fellow fringers are spewing.
Since you asked.
Posted by: Hinton on August 27, 2008 03:21 PM"It can be objectively argued that we are much LESS safe and LESS respected in the world now than before Bush launched his "War on Terror.'" Posted by Mickymse at August 27, 2008 11:12 AM
29. "Oh, please... There can never be any evidence showing whether or not this "War on Terror" prevented any attacks. There has always been and will continue to be acts of terror committed by people all around the world."
Posted by Mickymse at August 27, 2008 11:53 AM
As far as SS taxing, unless you make over the maximum amount, which is around $100K, you will not see any increase in your SS withholdings under Obama's plan. Under McCain, you will see your future benefits cut and future additional withholding amounts to make up for the amount lossed due to his privatization efforts. One still has to pay out the benefits earned. If the base contributing goes down (i.e., privatization), then the amount of contributions for those remaining has to go up. I don't know if you have a 401K or not. Mine has lost 10-20% this year so far.
Posted by: tc on August 27, 2008 03:40 PMIf you don't bother to look at it yourself, that is your loss. Keep believing the lies.
I see. What YOU read are facts and what I read (WSJ) are lies.
Got it.
I stopped reading after that.
Keep bahhing Miss Muffets tune, little black sheep.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 27, 2008 03:51 PM
"My first problem with him is taxes, the second is experience," he explained.
Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a "phase-out." Economists have a different name for it--we call it a tax. Reducing a person's tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.
Obama's Income Tax Plan Draws Critics
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Facts are such a b*tch, aren't they?
Peter Ferrara notes that Obama's plan is to raise rates for just about every federal tax and then give tax credits to those who pay very little or absolutely nothing in income taxes, as long as they participate in different government activities
Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan
On the tax side of the ledger, the details released by his campaign last week confirm what a President Obama has in mind for our most productive citizens. The top individual income tax rate, for example, would be increased by 13%, to 39.6%; the next-highest rate would be raised to 36%. The top rates on capital gains and dividends would rise by a third, to 20%The Social Security payroll tax would be raised between 16% to 32% for families making over $250,000 a year. This means that the real returns these people get from their lifetime payments into the retirement program will be driven below 0%, according to my own previous research, which was published by the Cato Institute and elsewhere.
Mr. Obama also wants a permanent federal estate tax, with a top rate of 45%; his health-insurance plan includes a new payroll tax on employers; and he also contemplates several increases in the corporate income tax, including a new so-called windfall profits tax on oil companies.
hey barry! I have a windfall profits tax question for you! Will you impose one on Planned Parenthood?
(March 31, 2008) The newly released 2006-2007 annual report of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America reveals that the nation's largest abortion provider has exceeded $1 billion
dollars in profit for the first time in its history.
Excess of 1 BILLION DOLLARS killing babies.
I don't call that windfall profits.
I call that OBSCENE profits.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf
Posted by: tc on August 28, 2008 02:54 PMaccountability argument? or should we give bush a $250 million severance package?
i have voted for republicans. have you voted dem, ever? and trust me, you do not pay my share of taxes, but thanks for assuming.
Posted by: dinesh on August 28, 2008 10:38 PMBtw, If you're not paying some heavy duty B&O tax, then I probably AM paynig your share here in WA.
Posted by: Michele on August 29, 2008 12:35 PM