You are wrong about this Obama video. It will be copied every year for the next century. It is not simply a piece of music, but a multi media art production.
Bob Dylans son, Jesse, was the director and editor of this video. Ask yourself, why, (even if you think the music is mediocre) is this film so emotionally moving for so many people?
It takes the words of one of the new century greatest orators, Barack Obama, combined with some truly beautiful voices into a very moving art work.
You missed the forest for the trees. This is an original work, put out at a time in this country when the zeitgeist of this country is calling for a change in direction with some very simple words.
"Heal this nation, repair this world" is the new rally cry.
Too bad you missed it.
Yes, We Can?
In 1976, Bob Marley released Rastaman Vibration, which included what has become of his most memorable songs, "War." In it he took the text of Ethiopian king Haile Selassie's 1963 UN Conference speech and set it to music. The song (like the speech itself), while geared toward the liberation and uprising of Africans who had been colonized by European forces for nearly a century (and enslaved for many more), featured universal sentiments about social and political freedom. Notions such as "lasting peace," "world citizenship" and "international morality" were entwined with reminders about the social and political stability of Mozambique and Angola, making the universal and the particular inseparable. Such was Marley's legacy, turning political empowerment into sonic sorcery. His music was truly an agent of change, as the man behind the sound involved himself heavily in the plight of his peers.
Outside of the importance of content is the music itself -- "War" is a damn good song: hard horn stabs, lax and precise hi hat behind a pounding bass drum, the easy swagger of Nesta's skanking guitar. And of course, that undeniable and irreplaceable growl. Marley knew that the message and the medium were one and the same; he could not, as politically motivated songs have the knack of doing, compromise the musicality for the meaning. He knew that the musicality is the meaning, and to reach the hearts and minds of his audience, musical integrity was the primary concern.
Perhaps we cannot expect so much of musicians -- Bob Marley was, in so many ways, unique unto himself. And yet when listening to the Barack Obama-inspired speech/song, "Yes We Can," I can only shake my head at what is, from a musical standpoint, a blatant attempt of reaching the lowest common denominator. Such "superstar" cause songs are not new, and in this number's glossy strains and overly impassioned vocals one is reminded of "We Are the World," a record which exposed America to the famine trouble in Ethiopia -- the same land Selassie once ruled over -- while playing for the widest possible audience via radio waves and MTV.
In itself, popular music is indefinable. It has recognizable traits, and relies on certain formulas, though just exactly what "pop" means is rather elusive. When considering it, I always reflect back on what bass player Bill Laswell told me a few years ago: the four-minute song is not music, but a business idea. Of course, this does not apply to every four-minute piece of music; "War" clocked in at 3:37, for one. But the 4:30 "Yes We Can," produced by Black Eyed Peas member will.i.am, certainly falls into that category. While it may be argued that it is a political, and not business, idea, I cannot see the difference between the two.
From California underground hip-hop aesthetic complete with breakdancing, b-boying and seriously credible music to the incessant cogs of a marketing machine, no greater example of the gentrification of the rap village exists than the Black Eyed Peas. They used to be real deal; now they pretend it by becoming cartoon caricatures of themselves to sell faux-chocolate Snickers bars as sweet and lifeless as their music. And while will.i.am has produced some credible tracks and offered nice guest spots on recent albums, he is anything but unpredictable -- as "Yes We Can" demonstrates. As media critic Neil Postman wrote in 1985, "In America, the least amusing people are its professional entertainers."
I often wonder what Postman would think of the Internet's global dissemination, and the role it has played in the current election. The biggest flaw of his otherwise poignant book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, was his lack of foresight regarding computers, an instrument he considered destined to be secondary to the overwhelming broadcasting power of television. Then again, it would have been difficult to guess that computers would become our televisions just 20 years ago. One of the major points of his work -- that political philosophy cannot be discussed on television, because the form works against the content -- remains desperately important in this current election, though little championed. That News Corp-owned MySpace should be one of the major destination points for the highest political office in the United States is proof enough.
Whereas television completely changed how we view our leaders and, in turn, made our leaders those who are viewed with the most aesthetically pleasing qualities, the Internet has turned on younger generations with the clickable power of rhetoric. We feel empowered because we can blog about our political woes; whether or not that means we're actually doing anything about the situation is an entirely different story. In its defense, more people are voting in our country than previously, in large part thanks to this technology. That cannot be argued. We just have to wonder if we're voting for the candidate with the greatest capability to lead, or the flashiest website and number of MySpace friends. The content of political speeches, appealing to the widest possible audience without actually invoking any actual change, is reflected in our mainstream arts, and vice-versa: they are easy to digest and do not require much thought. Yes, they are.
You can't blame Barack -- he had nothing to do with the video, and on the bright side, the fact that over 10 million YouTube viewers have witnessed it is certainly an indication of the way our relationship to our government has changed. Just like Jesus was given an unforgettable American veneer with Walter Sallman's "Head of Christ," Barack has a slickly produced and melodically infectious theme song that now relates content to form. For me, though, I have to stick with another Barack-inspired track: Extra Golden's eight-minute Kenyan/American rock fusion, "Obama." Comprised of members from Kenya alongside Washington, D.C.-based band Golden, the senator helped two band mates attain touring visas a few years back. In honor, they wrote a beautiful, guitar-driven African dance song that was released on their latest album, Hera Ma Nono.
From a radio standpoint, the band made two major mistakes. First, it's not sung in English. That immediately discredits it from possible airplay. Everyone knows the riskiest you can be is having Shakira sing four bars of a hip-hop song. Second, eight minutes is two songs to the American attention span. Never mind that it is passionate, heartfelt and honest. This is major media we're talking about! At best, it will be considered novelty, like a vaquero hat or Hawaiian shirt. The form of this sort of music does not befit the content of our media.
I have to wonder: Is this the best we can expect of our entertainers, ones that talk about global impact while they really mean "Hey world, check out our music and be like us?" Has the bar sunk this low, to a point where the melting pot becomes a cauldron for liquefying the integrity of foreign influence in an Americana stew? Is the lowest common musical denominator really three chords and an unforgettable hook? Is the same for politicians talking about change without actually initiating any? Truth be told, I have faith in Barack -- at least more faith in him than the other jokers trying to shove their way to the center of the stage. But rhetoric is rhetoric, whether or not there is music behind it. I want to hear specifics, not idealizations. I want the experience of life, not the possibility of it.
I readily admit, "Yes We Can" is heads above the ungodly Hillary theme song, and has inspired the very humorous "No We Can't" anti-McCain smear. Yet whenever I hear it, I can't help thinking about Postman's observations regarding the prophecies of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, from his Foreword: "Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance ... In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." Change implies that our artists, like our politicians, quit playing to the happiness of whatever audience they happen to be in front of, and create something that is capable of appeasing a global audience, as that is the point of history we have now entered. Is that a possibility at this point in the game? Well, I hope they can.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Also, if you did not think Herbie Hancock played some brilliant piano on this film, then you know nothing about music. pay attention.
Marvelous article. Excellent points, both about politics and the state of our culture.
I want to respond to a post made by jsarets:
Your comparison of Obama to an Apple commerical is very apt. A cursory glance reveals the unfortunate fact that modern campaigning is no different from advertising, and politicans have made themselves into brandnames.
However, I think you're missing the point of the entry somewhat. I understand exactly what you mean when you describe the conformity of Generations X and Y's fake individuality. But you seem to claim there's only one reason a young person would support Obama, and it's because of the rhetoric he's using.
Ultimately, Obama is a politician. A helluva politician, but a politician. Too many people are basing their decisions on their "feelings" and not on policy. This is NOT to say that Obama doesn't offer up his policy ideas like anyone else--I have NOT bought into the "lack of substance" meme and actually find it very annoying. I'm just pointing out that voters seem to be making decisions based on how a politician makes them feel (hope, inspiration) or based on some abstraction used in the media ("Ready on day one," "lack of substance").
Don't get me wrong, Obama's speeches give me goosebumps. But goosebumps are only a reasonable basis for deciding what art and music we enjoy, not who'd make a good president, and so I remind myself to do a little extra work and determine which candidate has policy ideas that best align with what I believe are our greatest challenges. I'm not ignoring Obama's message any more than Clinton's, I'm just focusing more on policy than on message.
Basically, I don't care who you vote for, but I really do care when I ask someone why they're voting a certain way and they respond with a catchy slogan or media buzzphrase or an emotion. These are unreasonable bases for voting decisions and indicate profound laziness.
For all you Obama supporters who say that you like to research ideas and policy etc. If you are not just "buying in" to the hype, I challenge you to do some research.
Check out the Church that Obama belongs to. Check out what they require for membership. Check out the requirement that it's members live by "Black Values." That Africa is at the heart of all they do. Check out that Obama's Pastor love Louis Farakahn (sp) and that they believe Israel is illegal occupying Palestinian territory, and I don't think they just mean the Gaza Strip.
I challenge you to use your powers of reason and see what kind of "movement" you have actually joined in to.
While I agree with cynara, you are spreading some missinformation here. Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, the UCC, the most racially diverse Protestant church. One of my best friends belongs to this church in the SW.
They use not only the Bible but also other great leaders as moral guides in the inclusion of civilised thought, like Budda and Ghandi.
It is an inclusive and humanitarian church that believes in Jesus Christ. This is a good thing, Steve. It is an apolitical church. Not 'mega-church as a fund raising mechanism' for the religious right.
We have had enough of close minded American fundamentalists telling us that white men are the true saviors when they go to war. After all, Jesus was a Jew, and he would be appalled at what you are saying here.
I choose my candidates based on their voting records, not religious litmus tests.
it just amazes me how little voters give credence to historical fact. hasn't ANYONE examined his voting record?
And no, there is no one, save one candidate that has a record that matches rhetoric.
obama ain't it.
I give up? Who's record am I suppose to embrace? McCain, the I-fight-against-torture-then-vote-for-it candidate and the biggest supporter of bombing Iran? Or Hillary Clinton who, despite 8 years in the Senate did NOTHING to fight the Iraq war invasion, did NOTHING to fight Guatanamo or torture and voted for the Kyle-Leiberman ammeneement?
I know McCain and Hillary's voting records, and knowing them, I wouldn't want either one of them as president.
Yes, Barack Obama is, comparatively, unknown, but he can't be any worse on the issues that I care about than the two known candidates, so I'm willing to roll the dice.
The short record he's got is consistently liberal. He spoke out against the Iraq war, he did not vote for the Kyle-Leiberman ammendment, and he voted against telecom immunity. These three factors distinguish him from McCain and Clinton, and it is these three factors that got my vote.
In his three years on a national stage, in the Senate, Obama has done nothing to fight the Iraq war invasion either. He obviously has stirring oratory skills--did he use them to speak out against the war? No. He voted for every war funding bill, when if we had learned anything from Vietnam it should have been apparent that to stop a horrendously misguided executive war effort Congress has to cut off funding. Obama and Clinton both voted to approve funding for political reasons, obviously. As for Kyl-Lieberman, he didn't exactly vote AGAINST it, did he?
You are willing to vote for an unknown quantity, a blank slate, to take the chance that he'll represent you the way you want if he gets elected into office. I, on the other hand, see some definite qualities in his opponent that I don't see in him--her toughness, her superior intellect, her grasp of detail as well as the big picture.
Ideologically, there is NO difference between Clinton and Obama--both are moderate Dems. To you, HRC's vote on Iraq may have been the big stopper (remember, he wasn't there and he didn't vote AGAINST that one either), but to me it's his blank slate quality that's the big stopper. He is as you say, a roll of the dice; she isn't.
When I marched against the start of the Iraq war, with 15 million others, Barack Obama was with me. this is when I first remember him. He showed great leadership and courage to come out at that time against the war.
Harry Reed screwed him out of his vote against Kyle/Lieberman by changing the schedule at the last minute without telling Obama.
He was working on the issue of nuclear proliferation in the Senate when Clinton was working on the Flag burning amendment. Which one has the most potential to affect lives?
If you did your homework you would learn he is the better candidate. I have not heard Hillary come out and say she would close gitmo and restore habaus corpus, as Obama did.
But Mr. Obama actually taught Constitutional Law. Now, why do I think that would be a great qualification after all we have been through with Bush?
His voting record does not live up to his oratory in running for pres. His oratory in the Senate does not live up to his oratory in running for pres. It seems as if running for pres is the most important issue of his campaign. The wave of support he's getting is baffling to me. I'm not sure how the voters in this country pick their candidates, but right now it seems as if it's "I'll vote for the guy everyone else is voting for."
Right now a Serbian mob is breaking into the US Embassy in Belgrade, over the issue of Kosovo's independence. What would Obama do? Have peace talks with the mob leaders? I'm fairly certain HRC on the other hand has a deep and detailed understanding of the political situation there due to the Clinton administration's prior involvement in the '90's NATO action there. THAT is exactly what we need, not feel-good oratory.
YES WE CAN.....destroy the country more, now I understand Obama's slogan. After all, he is not saying what he can do, so let others figure it out.
Well, at least he is honest.....
Yeah I agree with you. Yes we can what, is what someone needs to ask. I have asked 20 times on here and never got one answer, not one.
It does not seem to matter to these people where they are going or how they are going to get there.
But it seems the guy was nibbling around the edges of something insightful about this movement. How technology has helped to hype this "movement" at an exponential rate.
Orwell is a good name to throw up, because much about what has happened here does have the surreal quality of one his cautionary stories.
The author reveals himself when basically calls Clinton a jerk, and that she "shoved" her way to center stage.
That is amusing considering Obama's ambition. He never could wait. He tried to run for Congress right off the bat, and lost. He ran for the Senate after only 3 years in state legislature. Then after promising he would serve out his whole term as Senator, just half way in to his very 1st term, He makes a run at for the most powerful office in the world.
It really amazes me that this author would try to say his opponents "shoved" their way to center stage. This guy is not ready for prime time!
I feel he and his cult-like movement are creepy and dangerous to this country. I would bet that will be a factor in the Super elegates "shoving him to center stage." They will fear "no justice, no peace."
Ironic as it is, these are supposed to be the people for peace, but I promise you it will not stay that way if they don't get what they want. They will become a violent mob.
Yes, Orwell is a very good name to bring up. This is not an exciting time in our history, we are in a precarious situation here that just about everyone fails to recognize.
I, and many other loyal Democrats will vote Republican this time around to try to squash this creepy, and alarming Orwellian movement.
I'm not voting for Barack Obama because of some "feel-good" movement. I'm voting for him because he is the most liberal candidate for office. He's spoken out clearly against the Iraq war, pledged to bring the troops home by 2009, in Congress he introduced legislation to bring the troops home by 2008.
McCain wants us to go to war, apparently forever, against Iraq, Iran, and who knows else...
Hillary had 8 years to build up a record of leadership. She sponsored the flag burning amendment, she voted to invade Iraq, she voted for the Kyle-Leibermen amendment. And in my opinion, these votes show a consistent lack of judgement in the realm of foreign policy.
Obama couldn't do any worse, but he might very well do better.
It can be assumed that you prefer Clinton to Obama, but out of curiosity, could you explain the nature of the fear of Obama becoming president that would lead you to vote McCain? What are the plausible scenarios (or even worst case?) of an Obama presidency as compared to Clinton or McCain presidency that you feel are so negative as to cause you to vote against the party to which you are avowedly "loyal?"
Some folks just can't STAND the guy.
I'm not one of them. ..............But given time, and the help of his loyal supporters, I may get there yet!.............................................tm
Fabulous post! One of the best I've read in a long time.
By the author's own standard, it's late in the game and Huxley has a commanding lead over Orwell.
Great job.....................................tm
Barack Obama has the multi-generational appeal to inspire people of all ages, shapes and shades to feel hope for ourselves and for our country. We know that we have to commit to this hope, work at it, have a willingness to "talk it out" instead of "duke it out". Obama has the leadership/communication skills necessary to show us what can be done and to guide us all in the same direction. To be the needed butt-kicker to rouse us out of our apathy. To get us to stop saying that we can't CHANGE our government so why bother. Our country it seems more like the "Divided States of America". Barack Obama can help us connect, move forward, to be once more a true "United States of America".
I didn"t magically become an Obama fan from watching that video. I voted for Barack Obama because I feel that there is "an urgency of now", and I want to believe that there is more to life than just "getting by". Life is precious, we don't need to send any more of our people off to fight senseless "no win" wars. War is not a win/win situation any longer. We can't change the past, and should not forget it, but let's look toward the future. Don't you think it's about time we had a say in what goes on in White House? Go for it. For those you who are cynical, try listening to the words that "we" are hearing, and feel the concern, the love of country, and the passion for change that Barack Obama is offering us. He is asking us to feel "hope" instead of "hopeless". I'm just not ready to give up yet. BTW: I'm white, if that matters, (it shouldn't) female, if that matters, (it shouldn't) and I'm seventy-one. We should all look forward to better tomorrows, but it won"t get any better by moaning and groaning, and doing nothing to CHANGE it. There it is again, that word has gotten so popular, "CHANGE". OK. Yes We Can
Exactly what will he inspire people to do?
Turn the page on governing for only 50% of the country. the Clintons and the Bushs have used this strategy and people are tired, tired of it. The msnm has counted on this and people are sick to death of it. We are on to it, now. the old negative chatter will not work with Obama, either coming from the Clintons or the press.
He is a new political force because he really believes good change comes from the people, not from inside the walls of power. As we have seen from the changes brought about by the Bush years, he is absolutely right on this matter.
Obama will bring and build strong majorities to work on the issues facing this country. He will bring back a real Democracy, where people are engaged in the process. Look how his campaign has been run, it is an example as to how he will run this government.
They will never answer that question. They can't. That it is what is the most creepy thing about this "movement."
He inspires me to believe that a progressive American president, and by extent a progressive America is possible. He is the most progressive candidate, based on his voting record, and based on this - he's got my vote.
Great post, Derek. Right on target. Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a must read for Americans. And thank you for summarizing Huxley's concern (that information overload is numbing us as a nation). It can cripple people, and freeze them into INACTION -- I hope people will continue to participate in the democratic process. It is HOPE that brings such participation (but the entrenched bureaucracy's fears of ACTION can de-rail the positive vibe). -- Let's hope this medium can keep us alive.
Gawd you are such a depressive amd you sound like you hate people or at least don't have an ounce of faith in their ability to chose what's best for themselves.
It was just a music video.
What do you think about Obama Girl?
She's much more fun than the self-important "Yes We Can" video which I think will be looked back on as a bit too much- especially Scarlett Johanssen in the recording studio expressing her spiritual love for Barack. I mean I feel it too but really.
You probably would see nothing but Orwellian doom in Obama Girl.
Who actually bases their political opinions on songs? I don't have any data on that but I would hazzard to guess a tiny fringe if any.
Cheer up- we are going to have Barack Obama for President!
I wasn't basing my political opinion on a song - sorry if it came across as such. But I have been working in music journalism for close to 15 years, and I am very aware of how powerful music can be, in pretty much every realm of our lives. The thing with Obama Girl is it is a complete spoof on itself; just last night I watched "Superbad" and loved it, because its pure satire. I just felt that "Yes We Can" took itself much more seriously than that. The origins of this piece was a critique on the song itself, but as is often the case with writing, you get led in different direction as the piece makes itself known to you. And sorry if I sounded depressed, because I am anything but! This does not mean that our music, like our politics, do not deserve criticism, or that they always have to come from a "depressed" or "dark" place inside of us. - Derek
Great, man, so don't buy the cd?
I'm sure the LAST reason they put that song together was for artistic merit or to sell records. They're trying to reach out to people, to connect with people. And, as you mentioned, with multiple million viewers, its caught some sort of "viral", as they call it, momentum.
That doesn't mean its good, but it means its a hot topic, and thats all it intended to be.
But come on. be real.
No, no one cares how many friends someone's got on myspace, and no, no one cares how flashy the candidate's website is (unless its *terrible*, no way that'd fly today). So stop being so cynical and please stop perpetuating this bull. A good thing deserves a fair chance, and if you're voting his way then you want that too.
We can be a team *high fives* and when this whole thing is over we'll write the next Radiohead album, k?
I would have to disagree with the point about no one caring regarding the MySpace friends count. In fact, record labels sometimes use that as a gauge to see how secure they are in signing newer bands. I receive dozens of press release a day, in the mail and on email, and those sorts of MySpace awards are touted as the Grammys. I'm not saying I agree with it or pay much mind to it myself in judging what bands to cover, but it definitely has impact, and to say that would not impact other social networking users - politicians, for example - would be off-base. I do agree that it does not make a "huge" difference, but it is definitely there. - Derek
I voted for Obama because I like his policy and his capacity to bring genuinely fresh ideas to the office. I've honestly yet to hear either his campaign song or those of any of the other candidates.
Name one of his "fresh" ideas. There is nothing new about anything he has said. There is noting that has not been proposed. In fact, the ideas that are the freshest, are Bill Clinton's ideas. Public service to pay off college tuition was a Clintonn program.
Okay then, tell me, on what policy stance do you prefer Sen. Clinton over Obama? Her willingness to invade Iraq? Her willingness to invade Iran? There aren't many policy differences between them, but the ones that there are have cost thousands of American soldiers lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians lives....
Yeah, you think you want specifics, but you really don't. You think you're above the lowest common denominator, but you're not. You think you're somehow more intelligent and less superficial than the rest of us, but you simply aren't.
The defining characteristic of everybody from Generation X and younger is that we think we're so jaded and resistant to anything that smells like pop culture or mainstream media that we don't realize how wrong we are. We can't get over ourselves and our superiority complex. Like a good Apple commercial, Obama gets us to come together by catering to our desire to be different.
Obama understands how to communicate to people like you and me. Encourage us to express ourselves as loudly and proudly as we care to do, and eventually we'll all start playing the same tune. Because we ultimately crave togetherness and community. We desperately seek to become a part of something, to have a sense of collective purpose that involves as many like-minded peers as possible.
As loudly as we proclaim our individuality, we demand to be just like everybody else. Look at what you're doing right now, looking down your nose at Obama's mythical "lack of substance"... just like everybody else. Been there, done that, boring! Yeah, I'll show you boring. Listen to one of Obama's wonky policy speeches from last summer. That's boring.
Thankfully, he found a way to communicate to miserable people like us who swear by our own supposedly superior judgment, the ones who usually don't vote because we think we could do a better job than the idiots on the ballot. Obama's insight into our society is that if he gives everybody a voice, we'll wind up singing in harmony before we even realize it. We'll come together, because that's just how human beings work.
"you think you want specifics, but you really don't."
I want specifics about ALL candidates. And the specifics about the foreign policy hawk candidates - McCain and Clinton have convinced me that I don't want either one of them as president.
I also worry about the question of executive privilege. I think that Hillary, with her experience with White House maneuvering and her penchant for control would be more likely to continue Bushes executive power grab than Obama. She has said that she would continue use of signing statements. This bothers me. It is long time that the balance of power is re-adjusted and I don't see Hillary as the person that will make this re-adjustment.
I want specifics about Obama as well. I want to know which bills he sponsored, introduced, and how he voted on key bills. I know he voted against telecom immunity, I know that he did not vote for the Kyle-Leiberman ammendment, and that he spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, distinguishing him from the other candidates still in the race.
He wasn't my first choice, but out of the three remaining candidates, he is arguably the most progressive and after 8 grueling years of neo-conservative rule destroying our foreign policy, our environment and our justice department it is high time we get a progressive in the White House.
You know... that you actually think that anybody is supporting Barack Obama because of a song or some speach or anything as fluffy as that just shows that you don't know Barack Obama supporters.
Why don't go to Obama's website and spend a few days reading. You'll find out he is not a rock star but rather a nerd who gives a good speech. Obama lost an early race for Illinois State Senate because he was too detailed instead of speaking to connect to people. He connects with people who then find out what he has done and what he plans to do... in incredibly great detail.
I gotta laugh when someone repeats the complaint that Obama doesn't have enough substance when the fact is that anyone who ACTUALLY researches the candidates will find out that he is ALL substance.
Just because he does move people with speeches doesn't mean anything but that he moves people with speeches. The laws of the universe don't require that you are either a great speecher or full of substance.
For all of the Obama supporters, who tend to be educated or in the midst of their education... stop telling us that we are stupid sheep. We aren't the ones who don't read the actually information about what a candidate has to offer and thus don't know they exist.
And feel free to research Obama's work record as well. That is a good idea too.
Posted February 20, 2008 | 10:06 PM (EST)