Barack, You’re Lying, and I’m Calling You On It
By SusanUnPC on January 21, 2008 at 9:30 PM in Clinton, Obama, Ronald Reagan
A lie is a lie is a lie. You can’t rewrite what you said to fit whichever audience is in front of you. Especially when your original statement had the intent of 1) winning an endorsement from a conservative editorial board, and 2) trying to woo Republican voters to you.
You especially can’t rewrite what you originally said to make yourself again palatable to Democratic voters who are furious with 1) your expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan and 2) with your specious claim that the GOP has been the “party of ideas” for the last 10 to 15 years.
What he said tonight: Barack Obama lied in the CNN debate tonight. He told Hillary Clinton, in a heated exchange (I backed up my DVR and typed each word):
You just said I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. That isn’t what I said, and I will provide you with a quote, what I said was is that [sic] Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to because while I was working on those streets, watchin’ those folks …
What he really said: Here is exactly what Barack Obama told the conservative editorial board of the Reno Gazette, via Matt Stoller at Open Left — who provides both the video and a transcript:
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT that, as Barack claims tonight, he said that Reagan “was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests”? No. Because he never said that until TONIGHT.
Here’s Paul Krugman’s take, and the kicker line is bold-faced. From “Debunking the Reagan Myth,” Paul Krugman, New York Times, January 21, 2008:
… [T]he furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.
Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”
Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
[HERE's THE PUNCH LINE.] Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?
Exactly.
Here is the video from last Monday, via Open Left:
Again, I give you what Barack attempted to say was his real statement, countering Hillary Clinton who, of course, doesn’t have the benefit of YouTube at her podium (how I wish she did):
You just said I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. isn’t what I said, and I will provide you with a quote, what I said was is that [sic] Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to because while I was working on those streets, watchin’ those folks …
I backed up the DVR when I heard that exchange! WOW
Dam SusanUnPC you’re fast!! Thanks for posting the transcript…Great political theater isn’t? Noting like a politician with Texas upholstery for a hide.
Cool. Don’t you love having a DVR. It is my favorite electronic device, and I can’t imagine not having it. If I get a phone call or have to go to the bathroom, I can pause whatever I’m watching, and resume listening whenever I want. I tape every show I watch, and begin watching about 20 minutes in so I can skip every commercial. And I can tape shows that are on in the middle of the night — such as BBC World News on BBCAmerica — and watch whenever I want to.
Last night, it was essential because I knew it would take at least a couple hours for CNN to get its transcripts up. (CNN is far and away the best, along with PBS Newshour, about getting its transcripts up. MSNBC’s transcript service sucks — sometimes they don’t get their Friday show transcripts up until the following Tuesday afternoon.)
Listening to Obama, is anyone else reminded of Glenn “Dare to be Great!” Turner besides me?
Lotsa profile, not much courage, as we used to say.
Poor Obama…it’s an Ambush. There are TWO Clintons! Only one is as slick as Obama, but both are measurably better debaters.
And if you think Hilla the Hun and Slick Willy are biffing him up, imagine what the republicans have in store for him, even as we speak…
You don’t REALLY think Rove is quietly writing his momoirs, do you?
I expected the Ken Starr treatment from the GOP. Not from Hillary and Bill.
Obama said “One could hope!”
HillBilly said “My health care even covers Karl”
Edwards “Can’t you guys focus?”
As Obama said last night:
Hillary = women
Obama = black man
Edwards = angry white man.
Voters = ignorant cave dwellers.
George W. Bush is the biggest spending liberal to ever sit in the white house. Even adjusting the amount his administration has spent by the devaluation in the American dollar during his administration, his budgets have way overspent anything the Clinton admin spent, anything the Reagan administration spent, anything all the previous administrations added together spent.
I am glad to see that Hillary and Obama and Edwards all agree that it is necessary to spend even more.
Bush had done more nation building than Clinton too.
But CK you say, he doesn’t talk librul.
Who cares what folks say, talk is cheap. Look at what is done. Actions speak, actions also have consequences. Hillary does not believe in the first amendment, she will vote aye on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as will her buddy Lieberman and most of the rest of the Senate. Afterall the bill is a librul bill introduced by Rep. Jane Harman ( D-Isr ) and passed through the house already with massive BIPARTISAN support.
She does not believe in the second amendment.
She does not believe in the 4th- 10th amendments.
And if Bush were to find some way to violate the third amendment ( for the children of course ) she would be fine with that.
She is PNAC personified
In her life and in her husband’s neither has produced one damn thing that is a value added item to the populace. Edwards at least held some specific miscreants feet to the fire and as a result of those personal injury suits he won lives have been saved.
Obama Hillary McCain Guiliani Romney Tweedledee tweedledum and dumber. They are exactly the same in what they believe.
They are all so 1990. The world has moved on. There is little left to pilfer from the productive pockets because there are very few productive ones left. Over 50% of the population produce NOTHING, they sup at the tax theft trough but put nothing into society but their scabarous snouts. Where did the value added go? China, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia and those places and peoples have little interest in the populace of the USA or the demands of the various organized victims here. Much as the Israelis are doing the Warsaw Ghetto on Gaza this week, the Chinese and other productive nations will do that to the USA in the near future. When the USA starts to have permanent rolling blackouts and then permanent every other day gasoline rationing.
Triage on an empire and within a failing empire is going to be very ugly. Enjoy your PNAC candidates.
HEY! CHEER UP!
I am so cheered. 3/4 point rate cut this morning.
More inflation, more fiat currency. OBL said he would bankrupt the USA. Seems the script is being followed perfectly.
I am cheered that it has only taken 3 weeks for the Clintons to turn the dialogue from Obama the candidate who was also black; to Obama the black candidate — this years Sharpton/Jackson.
I am cheered beyond words that McCain is soooo strong on economics, ( he did alright during the S&L crimes Good old Keating 5 McCain ).
Doing the snoopy dance I am, doing the happy hamster strut that both Huckabee and Guiliani have had to ask their staffs to work for free.
And when today’s rate cut has no effect, how soon to the next one? How soon until the US government prints more worthless paper to give each and every American an 800 taxable rebate?
I am cheered up.
“Bush had done more nation building than Clinton too.”
Is THAT what you call it?!
Shirin:
I do cynicism … romantic cynicism
I do skepticism but only in a doubtful way
I do sarcasm and sardonicism and anti-clericism reverentially
I do solipcism but never self referentially.
I do anarchy but only the regulated kind.
I voted for Ambrose Bierce for president in 1916 after he died.
I believe that H. L. Mencken was too damn liberal.
Bush has done to Afghanistan and Iraq and Somalia much more “building” than Clinton did to Kosovo and Bosnia and Serbia.
I believe that the Universe is at least 61 years and 9 months old. Anything beyond that age is hearsay.
I am a degreed economist and have advanced degrees in other idiocies and fallacies.
I believe that Ginger Rodgers was a better dancer than Fred Astaire. Afterall she did everything he did backwards and in high heels.
I suspect that this fall the sheeple will get to vote between Tweedledee and TweedleDum.
I expect George W to nuke Iran sometime before he leaves office. I know the USA is in for a depression that will make 1929 look like a walk in the park with rose petals and government subsidized tv converters for all.
I truly truly believe that electing either Hillary or Barack will give the USA four more years of Bush with either different skin tones or different genitalia.
:o}
Couldn’t agree with you more on that last point. Except, there is one way either would be an improvement over Bish. There will finally be someone in the White House who can speak English intelligibly, and whom Americans can take out in public without dying of embarrassment.
I believe that Ginger Rodgers was a better dancer than Fred Astaire
And she did it with grace.
She was GAY?! Oh, come ON!
Happy is knowing that both NATO and Russia have both embraced first strike nuclear attacks; one to prevent “people who disagree with us from having nuclear energy”, the other to protect itself and its allies.
Back when I was writing in Ambrose Bierce for president the european world had to major alliances. The Entente Cordial and the Triple Alliance. Bush tried to recreate that with the Axis of Evil but that petered out. Maybe the new alliance of Iran, Russia and ASEAN will have more staying power.
Gay is dancing around a maypole ( outrageous phallic symbol) backwards in Rudy’s hand-me-downs.
To? Two too. Desmond Tutu isn’t.
Having a well spoken president is not really high on the list of reasons to vote for either of them for.
Now if you want a well spoken president allow me to link to the LAST GREAT AMERICAN President.
http://www.archive.org/details/coolidge_1924
No, it is not a reason, but when you are desperate…….
And you have to admit that it IS preferable to having someone who is clearly several degrees lower on the IQ scale than the character in Being There.
Ginger Rodgers was gay?
lower on the IQ scale:
“I’ve been to war.I’ve raised twins.If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.”
Charleston, West Virginia;1-27-02
Desparate I am not.
I am voting for either Ron Paul or Ambrose Bierce again this year.
I like Dr. Paul, I like how he has voted for 20 years in office. I like that he doesn’t pander and sugarcoat.
I really like that when he is elected, the whole bunch of neo-cons in DC will be looking for work outside of govt.
I admire that his supporters raised another 2 mill for him on MLK’s birthday. With Fred’s steeping down this afternoon, and Rudy and Huck both forcing their staffs to work gratis, I admire that it will soon be two midgets and Dr. Paul vying for the Republican nomination.
I like Ambrose too but he has had little to say for the last 94 years.
http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/
Do you also admire his ties to White Supremicists and his adamant opposition to reproductive rights?
Ties? If they like him that does that make him one?
If we don’t anything about our toxic food and environment we won’t have to worry about reproduction.
Thank-you Larry! I was listening to the debate saying no way, that isn’t what he said.
Obama seems to do this every time. Says one thing in context A and then switches what he says in context B lies about it, saying that was what he said all along.
Sorry, SusanUnPC!! Thank-you Susan, not Larry
Is cool!
Say, I cross-posted this over at MyDD, and it’s at the top of the recommended list there.
He ALSO lied about his involvement with Rezko. He has a 17-year relationship with Rezko — it was not just “five hours of work” for Rezko’s project. Oh my god. The CHICAGO NEWSPAPER REPORTERS who’ve worked on this story for years must be HOWLING and SCREAMING.
I hope their howling and screaming gets heard! I think most of the audience TV and otherwise mumbled a collective “Huh?” at the Rezko question!
The media haven’t discussed Rezko enough. They still aren’t … the “pundits” on CNN were as clueless about Rezko as most Americans, sigh.
Here’s my story on Rezko and Obama’s 17-year association with this crook who goes on trial February 25th — the indictment was filed by none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, who’s back in Chicago heading up the U.S. Attorney’s office there.
Excellent post Susan… my question is how the heck did he expect to hide all this?
Although, I must admit, you havent seen much in national MSM to date.
Patrick Fitzgerald, who’s back in Chicago heading up the U.S. Attorney’s office there.
There’s no place like home!?
I’ll never understand why people lie.
Obama v Clinton/Clinton
January 21, 2008 8:13 PM
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told South Carolina’s The State newspaper that former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, are lying about him and his record purposefully.
“There is a concrete strategy by the Clintons,” Obama said.
Any objective review of how Bill and Hillary Clinton have been twisting comments Obama made about Ronald Reagan and the Republican party would concur.
As we’ve previously reviewed, Obama, asked by the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal, how his being the nominee might help down-ballot candidates, such as Senators and Congressmen, get elected, said: “I think that we’re shifting the political paradigm here. And if I’m the nominee, I think I can bring a lot of folks along on my coattails. You know, there’s a reason why in 2006, I made the most appearances for members of Congress. I was the most requested surrogate to come in and campaign for people in districts that were swing districts, Republican districts where they wouldn’t have any other Democrat.
“That was based on their read of the fact that, you know what, this is somebody who can reach out to independents and Republicans in a way that doesn’t offend people…I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times.
“I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60’s and the 70’s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is, people wanted clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamic and entrepreneurship that had been missing, alright? I think Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times.
“I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the Presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it’s the times. And some of it’s, I think, there’s maybe a generation element to this, partly. In the sense that there’s a, I didn’t did come of age in the battles of the 60’s. I’m not as invested in them.
“And so I think I talk differently about issues. And I think I talk differently about values. And that’s why, I think we’ve been resonating with the American people.”
You can watch the whole thing HERE.
Sen. Clinton twisted this into: “I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years.”
That’s not what Obama said.
And in Buffalo, N.Y., former President Bill Clinton twisted this into Obama “said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day he said, ‘In the 90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans. Which it’ll be costly maybe down the road for him because it’s factually not accurate.”
What’s factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said.
I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign.
Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion.
But let’s be clear — Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information.
There’s winning ugly, and there’s winning with honor.
Does it matter? Or is all fair in politics and war?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html
“Does it matter? Or is all fair in politics and war?”
I think we both know the answer to that, Cee.
They are all politicians, therefore they are all liars. It’s in the job description.
They are all politicians, therefore they are all liars.
I can’t take it!! And they pander. Barak (Angry Black Muslim) was forced into this religious debate by forces on the right and the Clinton camp which is why he went on CBN to talk about his faith. Get this! Clinton is now mouthing the same things. LOL!!
But he also took Democrats to task for failing to challenge the GOP among religious voters, for whom moral issues are important.
‘Democrats have made a mistake by not entering the debate,’ he said.
http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2008/01/bill-clinton-describes-possible-white-house-role-if-wife-elected
“But let’s be clear — Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information.”
Uh, that’s a lie.
Obama was strident and bombastic in protesting his innocence. Perhaps he even believes that his words to the Reno ed board said what he thinks he said, or what he meant to say.
He was certainly adamant that Hillary got his meaning wrong, his words wrong, and transcript be damned!
He could have said, “What I meant was…I regret if my conversation with the board was open to misinterpretation, etc.” But, in a way, that would have been very bad, as it would leave him out there as a politician who didn’t express himself clearly in a situation where he was meeting with an important state paper in order to explain clearly what his campaign for the presidency was actually about.
Monday’s debate meanderings left me very dissatisfied. He may soar as a hope and change orater, but as an everyday “explainer” he’s somewhat lacking.
Hillary borrows Romney & AuNold’s health care plan & we’re suppose to worry if Obama tries to bring a few moderate republicans & independents into the tent with a little sweet talkin’. I’m personally over rabid partisanship, race baiting & socialist worker’s party rhetoric (Edwards). I’ll admit it, I like hearing “We’re one America.” But there’s still things I really appreciate about Ron Paul.
Romney got steamrolled by the Mass senate and house which is overwhelmingly Dem. He cared for that as much as he did gay marriage. Now he only says tax credits, like the rest of the Repubs - they have no health care plan.
One third of those uninsured now would be uninsured under Obama’s plan. Which is fine - just don’t call it universal. Piss on us - ok - just don’t tell us it’s rain.
Maybe lester & I should start our own little club????
He’s not just a liar. He’s a goddamn inept liar. Jesus! And stupid to boot. An arrogant, ignorant poseur.
Sure, Larry, and he is a politician. Politicians lie, especially when they are campaigning for something. It’s part of the job description.
He’s not just a liar. He’s a tranquilizer.
On those few occasions where he has an actual point to make, he takes so long to get there my eyes glaze over and I descend into a stupor.
He spends excessive amounts of time dwelling on hope and change, says little if anything, then later spends more excessive amounts of time referring to his previous statements where he claims he said something he didn’t, or didn’t say something he did.
For a milder example, look at the paragraph Susan quotes above; “What he really said”. All that blabber just to say Reagan expressed a positive attitude. I’m surprised Wolf Blitzer didn’t fall asleep.
Maybe it’s a natural consequence of being the candidate who dreams for change; with the emphasis on actually really dreaming; as during sleep.
In street terms it is called “bullshit” and “shooting the breeze”. All talk and no do.
I’m surprised Wolf Blitzer didn’t fall asleep.
That presumes he has been awake to begin with!
Why hasn’t anyone else other than our friends here picked up on the stupidity trait?
The more I see of Obama the more I dislike him. He’s no match for Hillary which was evident during this evening’s debate. Just my opinion but he seems half-baked to me and immature. Again: Where’s the beef?
“A lie is a lie is a lie. You can’t rewrite what you said to fit whichever audience is in front of you”
Easy does it troops. When this shitstorm is over we all have to act like valiant comrades and defeat the odious foe.
The McGovern team got so distracted fighting the Humphrey people in the winner-take-all California primary that they didn’t properly vet Eagleton.
History repeats itself, kiddiepoos, fist as tragedy, thereafter as farce.
Very good point, Jim. However, I am 100% confident that Hillary won’t pick any Eagleton. She’s too smart, and has too many great staffers, for that kind of mistake.
When this shitstorm is over we all have to act like valiant comrades and defeat the odious foe.
Jim,
Too fuckin’ late. I’m going to have to figure out what I like about McCain if Hillary becomes the nominee.
Cee, there is a better option than either McCain or Clinton. Vote for a third party candidate. It’s the best way we have of saying “none of the above”, thank you very much.
First as tragedy, thereafter as farce.
My Vegas drinking buddy is also going to vote for MCain if Obama gets the nomination.
Ah, the beauty of symmetry…..
LOL! I was just reading about McCain. Limbaugh and the neocons hate him. He must be doing something right.
I was thinking about what Shirin said about voting third party. I can’t do that. Roger Alies, Rupert Mudoch and others may try to give Hillary a manipulative vote nudge so my vote has to go to McCain.
I could feel sorry for Obama in some of this — if his camp, particularly Michelle, hadn’t spun Bill’s ‘fairy tale’ way beyond honest misunderstanding.
But then there was his statment last summer about taking troops out of Iraq and getting them on “the right battlefield in Pakistan and Afganistan.” Surely he meant into Afganistan, and Pakistan just got into the sentence by accident. But it got him burned in effigy in Pakistan anyway.
A president needs to speak more clearly. I thought Bush Jr’s bumbling was bad, but Obama’s is worse: it might be taken seriously.
Even if Pakistan was a slip of the tongue - and there is no actual evidence that it was, is there? - he has since insisted that he would find it quite acceptable to bomb Pakistan against the wishes of the Pakistani government. That’s a pretty huge violation of the sovereignty not of an “enemy”, but of an ally.
Pretty bloody stupid!
Hillery is no better about telling the truth. But if insane ,war monger MCain is the GOP front runner The men in this country will vote for him and Im sure as shitin not putting up with another damm Republican in the White House! Obama has his problems, I know. Thats why we need to look at Edwards alot more!
Wow, good work! I’m looking forward to hearing about the lies of the rest of the candidates as “The Presidential Candidates Lie” series continues!
You know, it’s really too bad that a candidate isn’t disqualified for lying. We would have no candidates left and the White House could sit empty for four years. That would certainly be better than the occupants it has had for the last 50 or so years…
Don’t count on having any of Hillary’s lies exposed here at ObamaSucksWeLoveHillary.com. Hillary can do not wrong here, and will get a free pass on everything, just as Obama can do nothing right and will be nailed for every misstep. Those are the rules.
Yeah, jeez, Susan and Larry sure seem hell-bent on dissecting Obama’s life with an unusually fine-toothed comb, and then interpreting for the worst wherever possible. Gosh, and on top of that, they’re painstakingly parsing each syllable of Obama’s speech to produce a meaning tangential to that he intended. What’s more, they are subjecting a single candidate to this myopic scrutiny, to the exclusion of other candidates.
Huh.
Maybe, there’s a larger lesson for us here.
Come on, guess what it is.
as usual susan you grab the goose by the nuts and squezzed … good job!
as for me, nothing makes me more crazy then when someone says something to me and later claims … no i didnt say that or you didnt hear me. that type of crap just drives me up the wall. as to obama, it is becoming more and more obivous that he is one of those people who will try his best to parse his way out of an unfortunate statement.
finally, his comments about unions and now ronnie raygun has convinced me he wouldnt support the rank and file when it comes down to a show down. like raygun he would roll over if he thought he saw a perceived political advantage.
Bama,
Sooooooooo Hillary drove you crazy during the debate when she brought up Reagan and later claimed that she didn’t mention him…by name? LOL!
Okay. The Obama-bashing that goes on here has reached new heights. This is, perhaps, the most disingenuous clip I have seen in the past few months.
Here’s the full link to the Reno Gazzette-Journal. The parts that everyone has been talking about occur between 18:45 and 21:30.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews
Obama is pretty clear about what he is saying. He refers to Kennedy as a transformative president as well.
If you don’t like Obama — fine. But the credibility of this site goes way down when it is used simply to push the fragile political attacks of one candidate against another.
I used to think better of noquarter. Perhaps I was wrong.
al
I watched the video and Obama NEVER says that Reagan got Democrats to vote against their own economic interests. That’s a new invention he asserted last night. And Hillary is correct in saying Obama complimented Reagan’s ideas which Obama said was “not true” last night during the debates. Clearly, after watching the full video it is true.
I don’t know why people have a problem with fact-checking Obama.
Please explain “fragile political attacks”.
[...] [Susan’s Note: THIS FOLLOWING STATEMENT about what he says he said about Reagan IS A LIE, which I pointed out in “Barack, You’re Lying, and I’m Calling You On It.”] [...]