I think because she really doesn't look it, people forget that Hillary is 61. Which means she'll be 69 in 2016. That's rather old. There really is nothing wrong with Hillary deciding to put in a few years at Sec of State and then go into semi-retirement.

I would imagine that no other politician knows the fallacy of planning for presidency more than two years out than Clinton. Assuming that her Iraq vote was such a calculation, that didn't work out so well.

For a policy wonk like her, there can hardly be a more enjoyable role than Secretary of State. And she'll be very good at it.

But is she qualified for the job? Does she have a thorough and deep understanding of international relations - both current and historical? Can she explain the balance of power system in 19th century Europe and how the alliance structure contributed to WW1? Does she have a firm understanding of the historic, cultural, and political currents running through other parts of the world that would allow her to use that knowledge to craft win/win negotiations between various parties? And how about her diplomatic and negotiating skills? What conflicts has she helped resolve? She certainly didn't resolve the rampant conflict withing her own campaign between the various warring factions. Why should we expect her to do any better on a global stage?

What really pisses me off about all the chatter on this is how it's all focused on the politics of the decision - bringing her inside the tent, removing her as a potential power centre outside the administration....oh it's just so politically savvy! As if the underlying qualifications are simply assumed to be there.

I do think that Hillary as Sec. of State would be a good move... though I know I'm not theonly one who wonders if Bill's various interests are going to prevent it.

Also, am I the only one finding his silence on the matter odd? It's almost like he wants to hold his wife back or something.

Why would Obama make Hillary the war monger (she voted for the war in Iraq) secretary of state?

It just goes to show that you do not know what you will get when you vote.

Ezra's analysis applies perfectly to Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd. But not to Hillary Clinton. If she wants to run in 2016 (and of course she will barring health problems), she will instantly be the front runner. It's quite presumptuous to assume 8 years from now there will be another new politician like Obama to take the nomination from her again. Charismatic figures like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama aren't dime-a-dozen or else Democrats wouldn't routinely nominate people like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry and lose to the likes of George Bush and son.

"It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton."

The precedent here is Richard Nixon, 1968. He was finished in 1962, and a lot of momentous stuff happened in between, and after six years, but somehow the most relevant electable Republican had become/remained Nixon. Stuff like that does happen. Even just like in your office or whatnot. Stasis sometimes sets in. Having said that, I do think that if she takes the job, she's done as Prez. Obama runs in 2012 no matter what, and if Obama loses, then in 2016 she's implicated in his failure.

I'm going to second David68's complaint. Ezra's right. There has been a lot of speculation about what this would mean for Hillary 2016. There has been some speculation about whether Obama is trying to remove a powerful rival. What I've seen very little of, beyond boilerplate quotes about how Hillary "has the experience" or is "on a first name basis with world leaders" is whether she's actually the best person for the job. On what foreign policy issues has she showed insight, leadership or unique understanding?

Going a bit further, the only three names I've heard recently for Secretary of State or Clinton, Richardson and Kerry. I don't really like any of those choices. First of all, what happened to Obama's pledge to not just end the Iraq War but to end the mindset that lead to it? Second, why aren't Obama's top foreign policy advisers from the campaign being mentioned - Susan Rice and Tony Lake for example? If they were really not in the running, why not?

Why haven't the MSM or the blogs discussed this much?

Being a Sec. of State is not at all the same thing as being a professor of International Relations. The position of a cabinet secretary IS a political one, not a scholarly one, and that's as it should be. They have aides to keep them briefed on the 19th-century balance of power, etc.

After all, Rice, who IS an ex-professor, has been the most utterly useless Sec. of State in living memory.

The Guardian is reporting that Hillary Clinton has accepted the Secretary of State gig. The New York Times is reporting that Bill is still tangled in the vetting process. So it's hard to say where the negotiations stand.

Err...with the Guardian being wrong? If a British news source and an American news source print opposite things about American politics, the British news source is always wrong.

But an overwhelming amount of the commentary has been about what the position means for Clinton's assumed presidential ambitions. So here's my addition to the genre: Nothing. It may even mean that she's given up on those ambitions.

I don't see how it can mean anything other than that she's given up on presidential ambitions. Who was the last former Secretary of State to run for president? As far as I can gather it was James G. Blaine in 1892 (Elihu Root got some convention support in 1916, but appears to have been uninterested in the honor).

There's just no way that this results in putting Clinton in a good position to run in 2016.

Beyond that, I don't see why she'd want it. With Clinton at State, is there any doubt that Obama is going to run a White House-centric foreign policy? Does Clinton really want to be William Rogers or Al Haig? I just don't get it. Yeah, she doesn't have senority in the Senate. But I'd guess that she could spend another twenty years there if she wanted, which would amount to a fair bit of seniority by the end. On the other hand, Secretary of State is generally a thankless job, and one that is often frustrating for its tenant. Few last more than 4 years.

I guess we'll see, but I still don't get it.

i just dont understand this choice.
wouldnt hillary clinton make a wonderful secretary of health and human services, during an administration that wants to accomplish radical changes in health care, advocating for children and women' rights?
isnt that where her passion and expertise is...i dont think she is the best or wisest choice at all for secretary of state.
how can she assume a position as secretary of state, when the clintons have been involved in dealings with sovereign wealth funds that represent the leaders of governments, and an international foundation that functions through fundraising initiatives and favoritism?
it seems like the very thing we were hoping not to see in this administration. and there will always be drama and conflict, and possible conflicts of interest.
it seems like an unhealthy," politics as usual" choice.
i was hoping for kerry or richardson...both were early, TRUSTED and steadfast supporters...both have expertise in foreign affairs and would represent us with dignity and loyalty to barack obama.
no bosnia tales, no bill clinton interfering and adding drama and weekly shenanigans to the no drama-obama express.
i think it is a very unwise decision.

what next...
sarah palin as head of the department of the interior?
:-( :-( :-(

my first choice would be DR. SUSAN RICE as secretary of state. i think she would do a brilliant job.
i would rather see her take the mantles of a new era than going back to the future with the clintons.
that would be change we can believe in.

Steve - "Being a Sec. of State is not at all the same thing as being a professor of International Relations. The position of a cabinet secretary IS a political one, not a scholarly one, and that's as it should be. They have aides to keep them briefed on the 19th-century balance of power, etc."

That's fine, although the likes of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, and Henry Kissinger all had strong foreign policy credentials even though they weren't academics.

I just don't think foreign policy is Hillary's thing. She's never shown a particular interest in it and all her public life has been spent on domestic issues. And even if she was interested, besides being Hillary what relevant skills does she bring to the table? Conflict resolution, negotiating, etc. I'm not saying she would be horrible, but given her lack of FP experience, her lack of any notable position on any foreign issues other than Iraq, I'm struggling to understand what it is about her that would make her an effective SoS. In fact I think Bill is more qualified for the job than she is.

the comment regarding dr susan rice was from me.

i think she would be an excellent secretary of state.
she is extraordinarily bright, skillful, patient, hardworking, low-keyed temperament and loyal.
what a wonderful representative she would be for us.
i am sorry to see susan rice passed over in favor of the high profile political choice of hillary clinton.

I'm mostly with Ezra. Clinton is restrained in the Senate by lack of seniority for a powerful committee chair. That's where clout counts.

As for healthcare, Obama, Kennedy and Baucus will be calling the game. And her previous failure hasn't been forgotten, and won't be.

Secretary of State is one of the few cabinet roles with some actual freedom - limited only the Pres, Nat. Sec. Advisor, and sometimes, the Sec'y of Defense.

Although Obama has some clear goals in mind, his personal attention will most often be directed to domestic issues because he can't be reelected with a bad economy and his platform is heavy with declared positions on those issues: Taxation, Education, Energy/Global Warming, etc. Having Hillary to carry out the foreign policy agenda frees Obama's time and energy for domestic items. And it is clear that the President (including Obama) is Foreign Policy decider #1.

I'm not hot about Hillary as SoS, but Kerry and Richardson aren't any better and probably worse for various reasons.

We'll do OK with Hillary as SoS, but she will not truly be a free agent. She'll certainly have more freedom that Sec'y Rice has had under Bush and is likely to have more impact as the symbol of a renewed US.

Can she explain the balance of power system in 19th century Europe and how the alliance structure contributed to WW1?

I would assume so, given that this ability is a basic expectation of your average college freshman who's taken class in European history and/or international relations.

Other than that, this pick is a basic contradiction of Obama's desire to "change the mentality" that got us into the Iraq war, unless Hillary is actually a closeted anti-hawk (hah!) or Obama thinks that he can overrule Hillary's worst instincts and expect her to obediently go along with them (hah hah!).

Those who are arguing that Hillary shouldn't be SOS should look at the other two candidates for the office. Bill Richardson supported the Iraq war, and only came around to supporting withdrawal very late in the game. On top of that, the man is a buffoon. Much more likely to say something stupid than Biden. And he has a habit of being a little too "friendly" with his female co-workers.

Kerry also supported the war, and while he is not a buffoon, he has never exhibited any particular insight into world politics.

I'm sure we all could think of someone in the country who we think would be a better SOS than all of these people, but if we restrict ourselves to the universe of individuals that Obama is actually going to choose from, Hillary is as good or better than any of them.

The rabid Clinton-haters will just have to accept that Obama is not one of you.

is this a "done deal" yet?
:-(

if bill clinton has to agree to giving up speeches and fundraising for his foundation for the next four years, i think he is going to have lots of time on his hands for writing books and organic gardening.
it sure looks like we are going to get lucky and have two secretary of states for the price of one.
:-( :-(

(

I'm surprised that no one's considered that the leaks about the drama of vetting Bill's financial ties could put totally intentional.

If Clinton's then nominated and word's leaked that she and Bill caved into Obama's rigorous vetting procedure (coming on the heels, mind you, of the details of the sorts of documents he's looking for for all positions), it takes a lot of heat off Hill in the future if someone tries to bring this up again: "Well, Obama looked into it, and you know how concerned he is, and he didn't find anything to be worried about!"

Playing up the importance of vetting Bill could actually work in the Clintons' favor if Hill wants to run again in 2016, or Obama makes her VP for the second term, etc.

And there were plenty of other people to choose from who had a demonstrated interest in foreign affairs. Holbrooke, Richard Haas, and so on. It's her previous lack of interest, plus the documented lying, that make her not a serious choice from the point of view of the interest of the American people. All of a sudden the phrase "team of rivals" is all the buzz. This smells more like a deal of some kind. From the point of view of Bill Clinton, this is good, because he received lots of cash advances from interested foreign entities in return for his having some access to U.S. foreign policy, the thought being as first spouse. This may be a better fallback for him than being the husband of a junior senator. But the motivation of the president elect is what remains here a mystery. He's smart enough to know the she cannot have the conceptual framework within which to fit various issues and crises as they arrive. You need that here as you need it in treasury. It's simply not enough to be "smart", as we are always reassured she is.

Just to quibble,

That's fine, although the likes of George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, and Henry Kissinger all had strong foreign policy credentials even though they weren't academics.

Before joining the Nixon Administration, Henry Kissinger was a professor of government and international relations at Harvard.

By 2016, there will be many politicians like that, most of whose names we don't know. It's very hard to imagine that eight years in the future, the party will want to move back to Clinton. Indeed, if Obama fails in governance and loses in 2012, there will be a new politician articulating a theory of relevance to that failure, and that moment. If he succeeds, then the party will look to a more logical successor -- not his predecessor.

You seem to assume that it is impossible for old humans to have new, cutting-edge ideas. That's pretty insulting.

It's also counter-intuitive. Experience is a plus in just about every facet of human affairs. Do you avoid doctors who have been at it for 30 years because you think they're using treatments from the 1970s? Hell no, they're generally the most highly valued members of their profession.

"the rabid clinton haters will just have to accept that obama just isnt one of you."

assuming that you put me in that group, i want to respond, by saying that i, and others, do not hate the clintons.
i wish them a fulfilling and productive life, with abundance.
i just vehemently did not want to see them in the white house again.
i did not feel that they were a good choice. i feel the same way about choosing hillary clinton for secretary of state.
in fact, it saddens me that she might be the person chosen for that position.
we have great talent in this country...and a position like that could go to someone who does represent a new paradigm shift, that does embody a new kind of politics.....without dragging the baggage of the clinton era back into the headlines each day.
if that position is just meant as an act of political gratitude to a qualified person, then i would prefer to see someone that actually was loyal and helpful to the obama campaign during those rigorous months, than seeing this go to the clintons, who nearly shattered his political campaign and laid the groundwork for the mccain/palin campaign against him.
while we can feel goodwill and celebration, and wish the clintons well, i do not think they have earned a place in the cabinet. i appreciate very much that hillary clinton campaigned for barack obama, but honestly, what other choice did she have at that point?
she had to make a meaningful contribution to his campaign...they were even appealing to obama supporters to help with their debt.
how was that going to even happen, pragmatically, if she didnt work to undo some of the damage that was inflicted early on by her political campaign. it was the only politically expedient thing to do.
and pragmatically speaking, at that point, her campaigning for obama, only heightened the look of magnanimity among her supporters and contributed to her prestige and reputation for remaining on the political stage. what other move was there at the time? i dont believe it was motivated by altruism. it was the only thing to do. and i dont blame her, under the circumstances.
but why choose her for secretary of state?
i think it would be wrong to have anyone in the cabinet who can have potential conflicts of interest....who has been involved in separate financial dealings and has served in private, foreign advisory capacities with the prestigious clout of a senator and ex-president....i thought we were done with lobbyists, and the like?
and the clintons, by nature of being the clintons, are indivisibly, inextricably two-for-one.
i would love to see new, talented, gifted people brought in to the cabinet...if in fact, these are positions that represent anything more than figureheads, nowadays.
why hillary clinton?
she and bill clinton have proved themselves not to be gifted politicians and people of great diplomacy....if they were, they would never have lost this election. they showed impatience and poor diplomacy in the presidential campaign, and i am hoping for more for a secretary of state in the obama administration.
there are young and talented people like susan rice, who would work so hard in this capacity, not for glory, not with all of the glitter and drama of the clintons.....why do we have to turn the page back instead of forward?
i just dont understand.
i rest my case.

Jacqueline, I agree with you for the most part, but can you dispense with the frowny faces? It's hard to take anything seriously when it's followed with an emoticon.

To a 20-something pundit, 61 may seem to be old age. Actuarily, though, HRC can anticipate 20-25 more years of physical and mental soundness. Warren Buffett, T. Boone Pickens and Paul Volcker, to name three very high-powered 80-somethings, should point up the fallacy of assuming that people in their 60s have just a few years left.

persia

:-(
last one.

there are young and talented people like susan rice

What is the deal with the emphasis on "young"? Who gives a crap how old someone is?

As for "turning the page forward instead of back" you may have noticed that the new administration is shaping up to be chock-full of Clinton administration veterans, including Obama's very first pick, Rahm Emmanuel. Which is as you would expect it. The alternative is a group of naifs who have no idea how to navigate the ins and outs of the federal government, which in a time of emergency like the present moment is a recipe for total disaster.

Four years from now it is going to be conventional wisdom that Obama did himself an enormous favor by stocking his administration with people who knew what the fuck they were doing. Bringing Hillary into the administration also brings Bill into it, somewhat, and that's a good thing. If you're the new president, and you have a chance to have the most successful Democratic president since FDR on your team, you jump at that chance.

"to a 20-something pundit, 61 may seem to be old age."

well, it is old age.
i am verging on 60, and i would like to see brilliant, energetic, talented, young people, with ideas borne out of their unique generation, coming into the helm now.
sure, we still have something of value to contribute....but there comes a time to pass the torch as mentors, to new, young leaders.
the clintons, gingrich, mccain, lieberman and the rest...signify a kind of generational thinking.
their experiences were born out of a certain generation....many among us are mentors, but few are true visionaries.
there is a place for all of us... but i think it is time to turn the page.

and jeebus,
i respect, but do not share your opinion of bill clinton or his presidency. i dont want him as an "acting" secretary of state.

character matters. he continued to show vindictiveness and poor character throughout the campaign.
he only reaffirmed my poor opinion of him, so i dont want to see him in the white house or the cabinet.

he is active in the private sector, and i wish him well in his private pursuits....doing good improves his karma....and in my opinion, that is the best place for him now.

jacqueline:

You seem to imply it is time to turn the page on the baby boomers. I beg to differ. Some of us are washed up; some of us are in the prime of life; some of us are just getting started.

Each individual is different. It's foolishness to think that age 60 is too old to serve with distinction.

i definitely agree that people in all age groups and every human being has a contribution to make.
but i also believe that in politics, many people stay on too long and become corrupted by their power and political stature.
i think that many times, sadly, people stop growing as they age...they cannot grow past the frames of their own generations....they begin to represent the thinking of the past, rather than the future.
i feel that is true of many politicians from the time of the clinton administration.
it is just my own opinion, but when i look at bill and hillary clinton, newt gingrich, patrick buchanan, joe lieberman, john mccain....they simply do not represent the thinking of the future to me.
for instance, i am glad to see barack obama as president, rather than joseph biden.
younger generations are experiencing a very different world from people who grew up in the fifties and sixties....not to say that we dont have our wisdom and abilities to make great contributions....i just would like to see a brain trust of talented and brilliant, young people moving into positions of leadership.....a change....
rather than seeing the clintons, john mccain and joe lieberman moving back smugly and comfortably into the chambers of power without fresh oxygen.
sometimes, it is good to give others a chance.
just my thoughts.

Barack Obama is actually kind of old.

On the other hand, Hussein might screw up so badly (not entirely unlikely) that Hillary could play Ted Kennedy to his Jimmy Carter, and we could be in for 1980 all over again.

I am waiting for something to come out about BHO - he has some outstanding issues and he has been hiding - it ain't all roses.. so much for change - BHO is a party hack.

electing a baby boomer is an interesting way to turn the page from that generation

I am so thankful that Barack Obama is much bigger than the ignorant petty people like Jacequline who have bashed the Clintons for so long.

Jacequline do Barack a favor and stop. Every time you open your ignorant mouth and criticize Bill and Hillary Clinton you do diminish what Obama is trying to accomplish for this country. Obama realizes that all of that stuff he said during the primary was nothing but political posturing meant to fool ignorant people like you into voting for him. Now that he is in power he is more concerned with doing what is good for the country than feeding your irrational hatred of two people who have spent their entire adult lives in public service inspiring millions, helping countless people all over the world. Your writings are a disgrace and they make me worry that all the good Obama could do is going to be undermined by people like you and your ignorance and pettiness. Please go get a life, stop bashing the Clintons, stop questioning Barack's judgment, and stop projecting on to others your own pettiness and ugliness. You aren't fit to wipe Bill or Hillary Clinton's shoes and your judgmental and ugly attacks are an embarrassment to the millions of people who supported Obama in hopes of this type of ignorant ugliness being put in the past.

Congratulations, Ezra, for writing one of the few intelligent commentaries on Hillary.

Thank you, JT!

Gender politics. NOW is complaining about RUMORED names for crying out loud. Obama, observing his behavior post-primary, no doubt is walking on eggshells to keep good relations with the gals. He'd love to disregard such considerations but he's also a realist. What do Joe Biden, Robert Gates, Eric Holder and (probably) the next Treasury Secretary have in common? And imagine how much more delicate it gets if he has his heart set on Larry Summers for Treasury. A female SoS makes smart political sense. I'm fond of Samantha Power and Susan Rice but a commenter above is right: SoS is diplomat not just advisor. Hillary is, fairly or not, the great symbol of political gender equality for those invested in it. I don't think Obama would go to Hillary if he didn't think she was capable but I do think gender politics are at play. As Ezra has pointed out before though, Hillary is more experienced on Defense than Diplomacy, having earned good reviews on Armed Services Committee. What's more "Free to Be You and Me" than Hagel at State and Hillary at Defense? Ultimately, these issues are too important to go with anyone besides the best qualified person, politics be damned.

As for 2016, I can only assume the celebration of an historic barrier falling has only whet Hillary's appetite to run again. One product of Hillary and Palin will be more female candidates in future presidential runs, perhaps Klobuchar, McCaskill or Napolitano will run in 2016 so Hillary have to compete for the female vote. And, as Ezra suggests, with women who represent the future more than the past. Still, with Hillary's fame and money, she'd likely at least be in a front runner position like McCain 2008 since her age would be an issue. If she won, she'd be the second oldest president ever after Reagan. I wouldn't even be surprised if she'd have in mind trying to win and serve only one term. But I do think she'll be in similar positions whether she's an ex-Sec of State or a 16-year Senator from NY. And yes, there will be new candidates but first things first- let's worry about trying to give whoever wins in 2016 a smaller plate of problems than the guy who won in 2008 got.

And we begin the third Clinton term. They have Obama boxed in. Eric Holder was quite sullied by the Marc Rich pardon, yet he is attorney general? How about Eliot Spitzer for health and human SERVICES?

"two people who have spent their entire life in public service, inspiring millions....".

well, since i am not included in the millions of people who have been deeply inspired by bill and hillary clinton, i will continue to speak the truth as i see it and work very hard for the people and principles that i believe in.
maybe even our words here can resonate and make a difference.
we never know.
and as far as your suggestion to "stop questioning barack's judgement".....
why?
i value the freedom to question judgement and authority.
dont you?

Jacqueline-
I am glad you are free to question Barack's judgment. I simply am suggesting you choose not to because you are doing nothing to advance what he claims to stand for with your pettiness and ugliness. You may not like Bill and Hillary Clinton, but if you believe that you can accomplish any of the things Barack wants for the nation without those of us who do admire and respect them, you are simply foolish and ignorant. You accuse the Clintons of being selfish and attribute every evil motive in the world to them, yet it is clear that if anyone is selfish it is the people like you who rather than respecting and appreciating the contributions of all who are willing to work to make this country a better place, want to be petty, nasty, and ugly. I just thank god Mr. Obama is not like you. My opinion of him increases by the day, just as my disgust with people like you increases. If you feel so strongly about destroying Obama's vision for America with you vile and disgusting nastiness you are free to do so, but we are also free to call you out for it. Please go back to your ignorant hatefulness if you must. As long as Obama continues to ignore your kind of non sense and works to unite this party and country I honestly don't really care what you do. It would be nice if you could actually support him and his vision for the country, but you are right it is a free country and if you don't want to, so be it.

i support a vision for this country that can turn a page on the politics and ethics that, in my opinion, have torn at the seams of this country for years now.
and i am so very glad to know that your opinion of our new president~elect increases by the day.
it reaffirms to me that the hard work that so many of us put in to getting him elected is already paying off.
i may not agree with everything he does, but i am thrilled that he is the one who is our president~elect today!
how satisfying it is that you and i are in agreement on this!

Please go back to your ignorant hatefulness if you must.

One thing I have learned from reading Jacqueline's comments is that for whatever reason she is a person who is brimming with bile, hatred, and anger. Some people are just like that, I don't know why.

Jeebus, you are an effin idiot. There is no one gentler on this board than Jacqueline. On to the Clintons: they pioneered the idea that dissent = hatred. Not a good contribution to democratic culture. As to Bill's conflicts of interest, they are profound. Last year he went with Frank Giustra to Kazakstan, where Giustra won a huge energy deal for his business. Clinton praised, at a state dinner, the democratic practices of Kazakstan's rulers -- who are on the human rights abuses list. A month later, Giustra made a 31 million contribution to the Clinton Library. Nothing to see here, move on, move on, get a life, etc.

Wait, make that 131 million, per today's papers. Bill Clinton has been a lobbyist since leaving the presidency.

Jaceqeline- as long as Obama continues to do things that you disapprove of, I am sure I will be extremely happy he is our new president! The fact is those lies he sold to you in the primaries were just a ruse. He has shown that he now intends to invite the very people he falsely criticized simply to get win an election into his administration. I am glad he recoginizes the need to have effective and competent people in his adminstration as being more important than pandering to the fools like you who he lied to and made a fool of to get into office. You are showing yourself to be one of those some of the people you can fool all of the time. As long as you continue to support President Obama as he moves to where he and the country needs to be than I guess your criticism of him isn't that big a deal. I am actually gaining so much more confidence that he can be an extremely effective President just like Bill Clinton was, and I am not going to let you and your small minded pettiness ruin it.

"i am not going to let you and your small minded pettiness ruin it."

that makes me glad.
life is very short. i am just expressing my feelings here, but dont take anyone's comments here seriously enough to ruin your thoughts or your day.
we live in an imperfect world and we are all moving forward, hoping for the best.
i am genuinely pleased that you like our president~elect! i also have great faith in him, and i hope that he will make the world a better place.
let us all continue to work hard and wish for good things!
dear anonymous person, just be at peace in your day.

There is no one gentler on this board than Jacqueline.

Hyperbole proving the falsehood. You, sir, are insane.

دردشة