Since election day:
Citi-down 81%
BofA-down 79%
Wells Fargo-down 60%
O is off to a good start. It's not like those are/were important companies. No doubt the media would inform us of stats like this were the president Republican.
but it's all going to get better now...just you wait and see....Barack is going to part the waters of Wall Street and magical golden unicorns will bring large sacks of money for us all.....Weimar Marks, that is.....
Understood Paul. But I was told all would be well once November 4th came and went. The Treasury Secretary was also Paulson, a Democrat, and the head of the NY Fed was Geithner. Sorry, Obama owns the market. Bush certainly did from the day the recount was settled. The media had no problem pinnning every downward move on the guy and burying every piece of good news.
Paul,
One more thing regarding the financials. If you think I was being unfair in giving the prices since election day, maybe we can just throw out the market's dismal September and October performance and re-do the election.
The ONE HOBO had nothing to do with those companies. Now you can see doctor and eat. He's just a victim like the poor people who had to use to survive at the bottom; where they rule cause life isn't fair and you owe. So, everyone had to hear the ONE HOBO under God, indivisible..........
Your still not broke yet and when your are the ONE HOBO's police will say they respect you. Then you can ask to see a doctor and eat.........
Markets may as well go through the floor, seeing as how O! will never have this recession pinned on him - no matter how long it lasts. The recovery, however, will be all his. Sucks for sure, but that's the reality of an awestruck and supine media.
I recall during the post-election, pre-inaugural period in 1992-93, Bill Clinton and the Democrats were unabashed in claiming that the growing signs of recovery were a result of the economy anticipating his presidency.
Of course, only later did we learn that the economy had expanded at a robust 4% rate throughout 1992, and that growth slipped to an anemic 0.5% in the first quarter of 1993.
I'm still getting the Prev/Next stuff at the longer threads, although presented in a slightly different way. The result is the same: you can't search within a thread; you can only search withing the page you're on.
"At the inaugural lunch, the McCains were between RB Ginburg and Rahm E."
You know, at first I thought that Democrats have the mistaken impression that John McCain is actually the leader of the Republican party, but Rahm Emanuel is too smart for that. If he and Obama are cultivating McCain, it's because nothing could suit them better than making McCain the go-to guy for Republicans, and nothing could help them accomplish that faster than making it look like he has an in at the White House. With Obama's favorables at the highest they'll probably ever be (read: "mandate"), and the rest of the Republicans on the Hill apparently believing that they're duty bound to give him his honeymoon, and his appointments, I'm expecting a regular tsunami of "reform" in his first 100 days.
I was just talking about political, not financial, realities -- although folks who want the government to own the market are coming out of the woodwork at the moment.
Obama's task A is to get that stimulus bill passed. Which is full of "we have 14 years to make up for" Democrat style spending.
McCain is many things (including susceptable to flattery.) But one thing he has always been is a deficit hawk. Do you really see McCain as the go to guy for GOP votes on a stimulus package? Seems unlikely.
I can see McCain being cultivated more for stuff like global warming and Obama's enforced volunteerism programs. The question is whether McCain is being set up for more "campaign finance reform" that will make the Obama model a little more legal, and anything the GOP is capable of doing less legal.
...In other words, I don't see McCain as being the GOP conduit to Obama's folks. Conduits are used to do deals, and McCain is niot going to be open to making sure the Southern States get their share of the stimulus pork.
Clinton is the conduit. McCain wasn't good for Raliegh Durham. Like Joe, she's payment for all that foreign aid cash. The ONE HOBO doesn't care about US cash unless it's free overseas.
He put a pay raise on those over 100,000. Congress already did this for their automatic raises. They're rich and paying their mortgages.
Too bad about Afghanistan. Harvard getting less cash?
I have a couple of specific questions I'd like to ask Geithner, starting with why did you ease oversight on Citi? Before Geithhner took over the NY Fed, the fed had ordered Citi to file quarterly risk reports. The ban on major acquisitions was lifted in 2005. Beginning in 2006, Citi agressively expanded into subprime, bought a hedge fund and a Japanese brokerage. Geithner had worked for Rubin at Treasury. Think Geithner's lax enforcement at the NY Fed is related to that? Also, as Citi's finances began to crumble in 2007 and take write downs, the NY Fed incredibly took no enforcement actions. A
So this guy, Geithner, who has the astonishingly bad judgment to not pay taxes he knows he owes, overleverage himself and let Citi run amok, this guy who helped create the mess is being put in charge of the cleanup. Rope a dope.
Linda K, would you mind reposting your 3:49 comment on the "Good Morning" thread? It is very relevant to discussion there. You really articulate the issues well.
"Are we talking about who owns the market, or who people think owns the market?"
Who's "we?" For my part, I was talking about Bill Clinton's suggestion that he owned it sufficiently to be responsible for its rise. I have no idea what
Mr. Paul Zimzek is talking about, and not much interest in finding out.
Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then? That seems unlikely to me somehow. The case of Bill Clinton might be interesting to discuss with someone capable of doing so without being a dick about it.
Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?
Then? Yes. Now? Probably not.
A fruitless trillion or two spent on the windmills of Al Gore's mind and the new shovel ready soil powered autos Barry promises coupled with the eventual bill for all our new toys may have people assigning Obama any number of unpleasant responsibilities.
I don't know if the story I have LUNed has already been posted, but I thought it would be of interest to the JOM cosmos. It raises the question as to whether the NY Guv really was going to appoint Caroline K before she dropped out, or was agreeing to play along with that story so as not to get the Kennedy family annoyed that she is being passed over.
Paul, Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?
I don't. But the media surely will credit his account with any positives and debit any negatives. He has the power, after all, to stem the tides. If no one was willing to call him out on that, why should we expect to get an honest accounting of anything, positive or negative, that will occur?
You know on the one hand, I hate that Obama has chosen to satisfy the god of Moloch' the
Mexico City rule; close down Gitmo, bring the detainees into the court system (although to be fair only Sarah as President could have prevented that, and that wasn't going to happen; I'm reading the Leonard Downie roman a clef, featuring a Democratic version of John and Sarah; with the 'one heart beat' theme) open unconditional negotiations with Iran,et al. Then again, I'm glad because it will dissabuse people of said illusions about him; too late though, but let the
recriminations begin.
Of course, if you want to see pure delusion, you have to to Naomi Wolf, who was last fearing that Sarah would bring us some new
fangled Nixonian police state,(don't tease us with promises you can't fulfill) and that people were stealing her mail, so her latest
offering in the Guardian href*<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/obama-inauguration-no-more-fake-optimism>
"Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?"
He's absolutely responsible for effects on the market that would not have occurred had he not been elected. In fact, there is no question whatsoever that the markets had discounted for the effects of an Obama presidency from the moment he became the likely nominee, and those effects became greater as the likelihood of his being elected became greater. To deny this would be simplyfoolish.
What were the net effects of such discounting? We can argue about their scope, and even their direction, but I warn the faint of heart that I really like to be a dick about it when I'm winning.
So I saw on another site, that Jon Ensign, the 'supergenius' of our Senate contratempt
last November, would you be surprised that he took digs at Sarah too, in the closing days of the campaign; really what a shock,wants to cooperate more fully with the One. Onsensible policies yes, but on counterproductivepolicies
no, and that seems to be the standard as far as the eye can see. On Geithner, Hillary, Holder might take a while longer, an ill contructed and counterproductive stimulus. Maybe Norah O'Donnell did put her finger on it, when she said the GOP have no 'boxes'; you know what I mean.
In fact, there is no question whatsoever that the markets had discounted for the effects of an Obama presidency from the moment he became the likely nominee, and those effects became greater as the likelihood of his being elected became greater.
Well, to be utterly pedantic -- the markets accounted for the effects of an Obama presidency from the moment he became the possible nominee (probability greater than zero); the markets did not wait until he became the likely nominee (probability more than 50%).
Somebody showed the graph with the prediction markets' probability of McCain winning together with the stock market, day by day, from Sept 1 through election day. They track each other uncannily...
You're quite right, CathyF, and that's not being pedantic at all--I was just a bit imprecise in my language.
I'm not at all surprised about the correlation between the election futures markets and the stock markets. While there may be those who would argue that there was something about the prospect of an Obama presidency that would increase investors' estimations of the discounted present value of their holdings in equity securities, I simply can't imagine what that something might be. In the aggregate, investors' assessments of what Obama will mean for equity securities have not been rosy.
A technical point, hadn't KSM and a number of others already pled guilty before this; it was only a matter of sentencing, so is he going to throw out the pleas as well. Well with the likes of Johnson and now Lederman as advisors it wouldn't surprise me.
Hey, clarice, call it the "Shoreham" -- Omni is just the name of the company that bought it.
(I went to kindergarten across the street from the Shoreham. It makes me feel terribly old to think that it has been so successfully taken over that even the name has basically disappeared!)
I call it the Shoreham, too, out of habit, but as narciso is unfamiliar with the area I didn't want to confuse him. I recall that you gre up there, cathy.
Nevertheless, I was delighted to find such lovely and reasonable B & Bs practically next door to the hotel and a whole lot cheaper and warmer in atmosphere.
Pictures are pretty.
Posted by: bad | January 21, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Wow. He came to a basketball game in a tie?
Pictures say a thousand words: I bet he thanks his lucky stars Palin wasn't there.
Let's all ask Meghan McCain what she thinks!
Posted by: section9 | January 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Those Secret Service agents have sure let themselves go.
I blame Bush.
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | January 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Did the Hoya's win or lose. Makes a big difference as to McCain's appearance.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM
All senators are offended by the smell of crowds. At the inaugural lunch, the McCains were between RB Ginburg and Rahm E.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Aw come one, what is this, Gawker? I'm not a huge fan of McCain the politician but I'm not going to give him a hard time over this.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 21, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Just get him our of the Senate and out of our lives.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Since election day:
Citi-down 81%
BofA-down 79%
Wells Fargo-down 60%
O is off to a good start. It's not like those are/were important companies. No doubt the media would inform us of stats like this were the president Republican.
Posted by: Chris | January 21, 2009 at 11:38 AM
but it's all going to get better now...just you wait and see....Barack is going to part the waters of Wall Street and magical golden unicorns will bring large sacks of money for us all.....Weimar Marks, that is.....
Posted by: delerium tremens | January 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I don't know how to break this to you, Chris, but during the period in question the president WAS Republican.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 21, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Understood Paul. But I was told all would be well once November 4th came and went. The Treasury Secretary was also Paulson, a Democrat, and the head of the NY Fed was Geithner. Sorry, Obama owns the market. Bush certainly did from the day the recount was settled. The media had no problem pinnning every downward move on the guy and burying every piece of good news.
Yesterday was historic in more ways than one.
Posted by: Chris | January 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
If those pictures were taken when Esherick was coaching, those would be empty seats at center court.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Paul,
One more thing regarding the financials. If you think I was being unfair in giving the prices since election day, maybe we can just throw out the market's dismal September and October performance and re-do the election.
All three were down around 30% yesterday alone.
Posted by: Chris | January 21, 2009 at 12:25 PM
The ONE HOBO had nothing to do with those companies. Now you can see doctor and eat. He's just a victim like the poor people who had to use to survive at the bottom; where they rule cause life isn't fair and you owe. So, everyone had to hear the ONE HOBO under God, indivisible..........
Your still not broke yet and when your are the ONE HOBO's police will say they respect you. Then you can ask to see a doctor and eat.........
Posted by: ChineselikeONEHOBOallot | January 21, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Markets may as well go through the floor, seeing as how O! will never have this recession pinned on him - no matter how long it lasts. The recovery, however, will be all his. Sucks for sure, but that's the reality of an awestruck and supine media.
Posted by: Barbula | January 21, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Nobody owns the market.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 21, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Paul Zrimsek:
"Nobody owns the market."
Sure they do. Republicans own it when the news is bad, and Democrats own it when the news is good.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 21, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Paul forgets that Bush was blamed for the dotcom meltdown, which actually started in late 1999.
Posted by: SaveFarris | January 21, 2009 at 01:31 PM
I recall during the post-election, pre-inaugural period in 1992-93, Bill Clinton and the Democrats were unabashed in claiming that the growing signs of recovery were a result of the economy anticipating his presidency.
Of course, only later did we learn that the economy had expanded at a robust 4% rate throughout 1992, and that growth slipped to an anemic 0.5% in the first quarter of 1993.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 01:32 PM
I'm still getting the Prev/Next stuff at the longer threads, although presented in a slightly different way. The result is the same: you can't search within a thread; you can only search withing the page you're on.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Are we talking about who owns the market, or who people think owns the market?
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 21, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Ralph:
"At the inaugural lunch, the McCains were between RB Ginburg and Rahm E."
You know, at first I thought that Democrats have the mistaken impression that John McCain is actually the leader of the Republican party, but Rahm Emanuel is too smart for that. If he and Obama are cultivating McCain, it's because nothing could suit them better than making McCain the go-to guy for Republicans, and nothing could help them accomplish that faster than making it look like he has an in at the White House. With Obama's favorables at the highest they'll probably ever be (read: "mandate"), and the rest of the Republicans on the Hill apparently believing that they're duty bound to give him his honeymoon, and his appointments, I'm expecting a regular tsunami of "reform" in his first 100 days.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 21, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Paul Zrimsek:
I was just talking about political, not financial, realities -- although folks who want the government to own the market are coming out of the woodwork at the moment.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 21, 2009 at 02:40 PM
JMH:
Obama's task A is to get that stimulus bill passed. Which is full of "we have 14 years to make up for" Democrat style spending.
McCain is many things (including susceptable to flattery.) But one thing he has always been is a deficit hawk. Do you really see McCain as the go to guy for GOP votes on a stimulus package? Seems unlikely.
I can see McCain being cultivated more for stuff like global warming and Obama's enforced volunteerism programs. The question is whether McCain is being set up for more "campaign finance reform" that will make the Obama model a little more legal, and anything the GOP is capable of doing less legal.
Posted by: Appalled | January 21, 2009 at 02:45 PM
JMH:
...In other words, I don't see McCain as being the GOP conduit to Obama's folks. Conduits are used to do deals, and McCain is niot going to be open to making sure the Southern States get their share of the stimulus pork.
Posted by: Appalled | January 21, 2009 at 02:47 PM
Clinton is the conduit. McCain wasn't good for Raliegh Durham. Like Joe, she's payment for all that foreign aid cash. The ONE HOBO doesn't care about US cash unless it's free overseas.
He put a pay raise on those over 100,000. Congress already did this for their automatic raises. They're rich and paying their mortgages.
Too bad about Afghanistan. Harvard getting less cash?
Posted by: It'sjustONEHOBO(hisfootoldiersarecomingout) | January 21, 2009 at 03:04 PM
"Nobody owns the market."
A fairly compelling case can be made that Mr. Andrea Mitchell owns both the dotcom and the housing bubble markets.
Posted by: Barney Frank | January 21, 2009 at 03:22 PM
I have a couple of specific questions I'd like to ask Geithner, starting with why did you ease oversight on Citi? Before Geithhner took over the NY Fed, the fed had ordered Citi to file quarterly risk reports. The ban on major acquisitions was lifted in 2005. Beginning in 2006, Citi agressively expanded into subprime, bought a hedge fund and a Japanese brokerage. Geithner had worked for Rubin at Treasury. Think Geithner's lax enforcement at the NY Fed is related to that? Also, as Citi's finances began to crumble in 2007 and take write downs, the NY Fed incredibly took no enforcement actions. A
So this guy, Geithner, who has the astonishingly bad judgment to not pay taxes he knows he owes, overleverage himself and let Citi run amok, this guy who helped create the mess is being put in charge of the cleanup. Rope a dope.
Posted by: LindaK | January 21, 2009 at 03:49 PM
Linda K, would you mind reposting your 3:49 comment on the "Good Morning" thread? It is very relevant to discussion there. You really articulate the issues well.
Posted by: bad | January 21, 2009 at 04:16 PM
"Are we talking about who owns the market, or who people think owns the market?"
Who's "we?" For my part, I was talking about Bill Clinton's suggestion that he owned it sufficiently to be responsible for its rise. I have no idea what
Mr. Paul Zimzek is talking about, and not much interest in finding out.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 05:17 PM
First prize is no weeks in Philadelphia.
Posted by: Robert Speirs | January 21, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then? That seems unlikely to me somehow. The case of Bill Clinton might be interesting to discuss with someone capable of doing so without being a dick about it.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | January 21, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?
Then? Yes. Now? Probably not.
A fruitless trillion or two spent on the windmills of Al Gore's mind and the new shovel ready soil powered autos Barry promises coupled with the eventual bill for all our new toys may have people assigning Obama any number of unpleasant responsibilities.
Posted by: Barney Frank | January 21, 2009 at 07:11 PM
I don't know if the story I have LUNed has already been posted, but I thought it would be of interest to the JOM cosmos. It raises the question as to whether the NY Guv really was going to appoint Caroline K before she dropped out, or was agreeing to play along with that story so as not to get the Kennedy family annoyed that she is being passed over.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 21, 2009 at 07:12 PM
Paul,
Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?
I don't. But the media surely will credit his account with any positives and debit any negatives. He has the power, after all, to stem the tides. If no one was willing to call him out on that, why should we expect to get an honest accounting of anything, positive or negative, that will occur?
Posted by: Chris | January 21, 2009 at 07:13 PM
You know on the one hand, I hate that Obama has chosen to satisfy the god of Moloch' the
Mexico City rule; close down Gitmo, bring the detainees into the court system (although to be fair only Sarah as President could have prevented that, and that wasn't going to happen; I'm reading the Leonard Downie roman a clef, featuring a Democratic version of John and Sarah; with the 'one heart beat' theme) open unconditional negotiations with Iran,et al. Then again, I'm glad because it will dissabuse people of said illusions about him; too late though, but let the
recriminations begin.
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 07:59 PM
The things think they can use other people.
Well, the hobo is probably.
Posted by: Onestroke | January 21, 2009 at 08:03 PM
Of course, if you want to see pure delusion, you have to to Naomi Wolf, who was last fearing that Sarah would bring us some new
fangled Nixonian police state,(don't tease us with promises you can't fulfill) and that people were stealing her mail, so her latest
offering in the Guardian href*<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/obama-inauguration-no-more-fake-optimism>
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 08:26 PM
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/obama-inauguration-no-more-fake-optimism>
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 08:38 PM
"Are there really large numbers of people out there who assign Obama the repsonsibility for what's happened since the election, then?"
He's absolutely responsible for effects on the market that would not have occurred had he not been elected. In fact, there is no question whatsoever that the markets had discounted for the effects of an Obama presidency from the moment he became the likely nominee, and those effects became greater as the likelihood of his being elected became greater. To deny this would be simplyfoolish.
What were the net effects of such discounting? We can argue about their scope, and even their direction, but I warn the faint of heart that I really like to be a dick about it when I'm winning.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 09:06 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/21/obama-inauguration-no-more-fake-optimism
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 09:27 PM
The question is whether McCain is being set up for more "campaign finance reform" that will make the Obama model a little more legal,
Is Appalled actually appalled about a real issue now?
Is a "little more legal" like being a "little bit pregnant"?
Posted by: Pofarmer | January 21, 2009 at 10:20 PM
So I saw on another site, that Jon Ensign, the 'supergenius' of our Senate contratempt
last November, would you be surprised that he took digs at Sarah too, in the closing days of the campaign; really what a shock,wants to cooperate more fully with the One. Onsensible policies yes, but on counterproductivepolicies
no, and that seems to be the standard as far as the eye can see. On Geithner, Hillary, Holder might take a while longer, an ill contructed and counterproductive stimulus. Maybe Norah O'Donnell did put her finger on it, when she said the GOP have no 'boxes'; you know what I mean.
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Well, the hobo is probably.
Just occurred to me that "hobo" seems to have replaced "lucifer" in the secret code posts. Hobo=Obama, lucifer=Bush?
Was this obvious to everyone before? Am I crazy for even wondering about it?
Posted by: Porchlight | January 21, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Somebody showed the graph with the prediction markets' probability of McCain winning together with the stock market, day by day, from Sept 1 through election day. They track each other uncannily...
Well, to be utterly pedantic -- the markets accounted for the effects of an Obama presidency from the moment he became the possible nominee (probability greater than zero); the markets did not wait until he became the likely nominee (probability more than 50%).Posted by: cathyf | January 21, 2009 at 10:24 PM
You're quite right, CathyF, and that's not being pedantic at all--I was just a bit imprecise in my language.
I'm not at all surprised about the correlation between the election futures markets and the stock markets. While there may be those who would argue that there was something about the prospect of an Obama presidency that would increase investors' estimations of the discounted present value of their holdings in equity securities, I simply can't imagine what that something might be. In the aggregate, investors' assessments of what Obama will mean for equity securities have not been rosy.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 21, 2009 at 10:31 PM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ensign-gop-will-look-toward-obama-for-cooperation-2009-01-21.html; for the whole discouraging tale of Ensign, what does it take for these people to be fired, replaced, et al; a meteor?
As for the brilliant Solon, who is our Vice President, praise be to the skies, how could Sarah compete with that level of brilliance?; heavens:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/biden-takes-shot-roberts-flubbinpresidential-oath/
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 10:51 PM
A technical point, hadn't KSM and a number of others already pled guilty before this; it was only a matter of sentencing, so is he going to throw out the pleas as well. Well with the likes of Johnson and now Lederman as advisors it wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by: narciso | January 21, 2009 at 11:09 PM
narciso, check your mail. I found three lovely and reasonably priced bed and breakfasts near the Omni for you to consider.
Posted by: clarice | January 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Hey, clarice, call it the "Shoreham" -- Omni is just the name of the company that bought it.
(I went to kindergarten across the street from the Shoreham. It makes me feel terribly old to think that it has been so successfully taken over that even the name has basically disappeared!)
Posted by: cathyf | January 22, 2009 at 09:56 AM
I call it the Shoreham, too, out of habit, but as narciso is unfamiliar with the area I didn't want to confuse him. I recall that you gre up there, cathy.
Nevertheless, I was delighted to find such lovely and reasonable B & Bs practically next door to the hotel and a whole lot cheaper and warmer in atmosphere.
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I found three lovely and reasonably priced bed and breakfasts near the Omni for you to consider.
Would you consider emailing those to me, too, Clarice? Thanks, if you can.
Posted by: sbw | January 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Happy to do that, sbw.
Posted by: clarice | January 22, 2009 at 11:04 AM