The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

I appreciate your candid remarks and setting the facts straight. My only issue is with your "Pinocchio" score. Since when is "lying" equivalent to "significant omissions and/or exaggerations?" I think it is really sad that we have become inured to lying by our elected representatives. Isn't it reprehensible that our political leaders -- the ones who make laws that we are all supposed to follow -- aren't expected to tell the truth?

"The Hill" gets four Pinocchios in my book.

Well, first the positive. It's good that you even picked this story up. It's been bubbling on the blogosphere for a little while now... Now, for the negative: Why just 2 Pinocchios?? Where I'm from, a lie = a "whopper". This "single digits" stuff is definitely a whopper of a lie. " So, call them on it. This fact checker is meant to keep campaigns honest, right?

I agree. There was no mistake here - this is deliberate and dishonest spin. Does your rating scale allow for five Pinocchios?

I agree with the above. Two pinocchios seems awfully light.

Remember - Rudy got four for his cancer survival rate claims, when the figures he produced had SOME basis in fact, and Fact Checker's 'experts' produced not the correct figures but mere bromides about the virtues of socialized medicine.

Two for Rudy and four for Hillary would make a lot more sense.

All that means Obama goes into this state's compressed contest with a target on his back a situation he has managed to avoid due to media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, now he's earned the right to be mercilessly scrubbed and scrutinized. Will show he is something of a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn't ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate will finally come into play nationally; facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home. Votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater. Voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush Admin to suspend any troop withdrawal! keeps our troops in Iraq for a long time to come? Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies. Obama voted with Republicans to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally...

Hillary came in third because she is a third rate ploitician.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Theodore Parker, quoted by Obama, who adds, "But you have to put your hand on it to help bend it." Iowa bent it toward justice, and Hillary's spin machine demonstrates why Iowa did the right thing. "You can fool some of the peopke all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time...."

I recall that it was anticipated early last year that Hillary Clinton would not do well in Iowa, just like husband Bill. This was widely asserted in the press. The stories I saw attributed this to the fact that Bill had not participated much in Iowa, so Hillary's campaign had to start from scratch.

Just because Hillary polled well early on in Iowa doesn't mean she's lying about this. Why don't you check the old news reports before you speak?

Um... so this outright lie only gets 2 pinocchios???

With this logic, I guess Bill would only have gotten 1 for the Monica debacle huh?

How has my candidate Barack Obama never been challenged? Was he not intuitively accurate on both Iraq, and Iran? What could be more important than this, alligned with domestic agendas, for our national security and international leadership? Has not his campaign message remained the same as others lamely copy it because such genuine aspirations appear massly congruent? Please do not listen to the voice that sounds like attack ads. Please remember the futures we were once promised. The negative spins only work if the American Public is too stupid to get their information from different sources and decide for themselves, with neighbors and family, what all these strange winds accumulate to communicate.

If Clinton loses in NH, it is all downhill from there. She will still have lots of money, organization and support, but coming off 2 big losses will show that she is not the best politician in the race, and many undecideds will swing towards Obama that could lead to this race being over by February 5th.

I don't want to overly demonize Clinton for this "single digits" talk, because we've all seen politicians spin a defeat to some extent--it's what they DO. But what frightens me is how easily she does it, instantly changing her tune from "I'm the frontrunner." to "I'm the underdog." without missing a beat. It points to her continuing pandering and flip-floppery. I sincerely think that she will do or say ANYTHING to become president...a scenario that began with her plan to replace Moynihan as a Democratic shoe-in, instead of running for Senator from Arkansas or even her native Illinois. I just can't tell if her heart is in the right place on the issues or if it's just blind ambition that drives her. That scares me!

Oh you have GOT to be kidding me! TWO nose-growers for this one? This is just more proof that this Pinocchio Test is biased. I understand "spin"... but this is an outright L - I - E!!!

There are some remarkably similar character traits shared by HRC and Romney, all having to do with a disrespect for truth. She, like Romney, deserved the trouncing and probably several more Pinocchio icons.

I agree with the some of the folks who have commented here that Hillary Clinton's camp appears to be lying about the facts and then it would it reasonable to assume that you would give them 4 Pinocchio. In the end this article becomes what it does not want to be, part of the Clinton spin.

dyck21005:

"His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate will finally come into play nationally;"

This is the kind of logic that we need to eliminate in our politics and national discussion. Obama was against the war....but he was in the minority. But unlike the other Dem's, becoming anti-war after the decision had been made, Obama realized even if he was against the war, it didn't change the fact that the country was at war.
It is those who voted for the war and against funding you should be attacking. Obama did the right thing by funding and supporting our troops even if he didn't believe in the war they were fighting.

Here's another reality check from last night. Hillary and her supporters continue to tout her experience. In fact, during her speech last night she claimed to have 35 years of experience "doing this." If I'm not mistake, the office she currently holds (New York Senator) is the only elected office she has ever held. How can she claim to be experienced? It's sort of sweet justice that this claim has backfired, at least in Iowa, where the status quo was solidly rejected.

more reasons to dislike hrc.

It can't be hereditary that they are both such facile liars. Do you remember the whopper Bill told about how he was against the war from day one? Now she tells another whopper and it just slides out like silk.
If he was so against the war why did little Hillary vote for it? Aren't they in sync about these things? In fact, Mrs. Billary is a neocon who thinks like the rest of that gang that war solves all international problems. She never had to bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate that had information on WMD in Iraq. She went on shows claiming that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the world because of all his WMD. Shw knew; she knew, she knows all. So she voted for the war and stayed in solidarity with Bush until the war became an obvious mess. At that point she had to save her political aspirations. She did not want to be associated with a catastrophe so she subtlety sought to remove her name from this loser by attacking Rumsfeld so openly as to make people believe she had been against the war from the outset. Her political future depended on how she was going to pull her estrangement from the war to achieve an anti-war status. Today it is she, she claims, who will get us out of Iraq. The very war she adored and did everything possible to get us into. Forget the deaths, forget the costs, forget the destruction. But how can she turn around like this? Because she is a natural liar. She has no sense of honesty. IN her mind (she has no conscience) she justifies any mistatement as long as it works for her. What is expedient is what is right for her and Bill. They never stop to think that they might get caught in a lie and suffer the circumstances. When he was lying to her about his sexual carryings-on she believed his lies because he's and expert in the game of lying. They are both tops when it comes to being glib. The lies they tell they protect with other lies to make the whole thing sensible.

This is just one more in the series of lies, exaggerations, revisions of history, myths, obfuscations and prevarications that the Clintons are famous for.

This is a four Pinocchio tale.

Secondly, it is not "understandable" that she would portray herself as the "underdog" when she worked so hard to portray herself as the inevitable incumbent.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And to dyck21005:

I've been waiting for weeks to be able to tell you this:

STFU! Hillary got her a** handed to her on a paper plate. Stick a spork in her, she's done!

Why so much negative talk about Mrs. Clinton? She is no worse or than the other candidates campaigning for the presidency. What baloney, if she loses in NH that the race will be over next month!! That is the kind of talk that keeps people away from the polls and the voting process that we treasure in this country!! Fact is, I trust her, and believe me I had no such feelings for her when Mr. Clinton ran for president the first time around. However, I, and many others grew to like, respect and trust his judgement and of course we all know he ran away with the election for a second term. The Republician party and the far right media have dogged this couple for years. I say leave her alone!! We don't need another maniac like George Bush in the White House and believe me, Obama scares me!!

Would someone please enumerate specifically what experience Sen. Hillary Clinton has had that prompts some to think that she has soooo much more experience over Sen. Barack Obama? This is a genuine question posed in the true spirit of my efforts to be an informed voter. Thanks in advance.

DYCK21005,
I have seen your the exact same post you made here on multiple blogs. Ive heard that the Hillary camp had people all over the blogosphere putting out anti-Obama rhetoric, but I had to see it to believe it.
Here is a link to the same exact speech/blog by another alias. I have read it in seven or eight different blogs on the internet by different made up alias including: DYCK21005, CLINTON2008, ANONYMOUS, ANONYMOUS21...ETC

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TD12NVAAKTDEBQIIG/p2

It's a shame. When I see this I know for sure Hillary Machine does not get my vote.

I'm an Obama supporter, and I think some of the anti-clinton remarks are going over the edge.
I think the Hill is giving only two pinocchios because I'm sure the poll that put her at 10 percent in Dec 06 had a margin of error (of probably +- 2%) so you could reasonably argue that the 10 was really 8 to 12%. Hence the Clinton camps single digit claim is not a lie, just a beneficial interpretation of the truth.
HOWEVER!
I just find it funny that the Clintons view any state where she is not handed an existing political apparatus by her husband means she is starting at a disadvantage. Obama started from scratch in Iowa and went on to win the whole shebang. Only Edwards went in with an existing machine- it did help to turn his little money into a second placing. Good for him!
Clinton logic:
level playingfield= disadvantage

Hillary began in Iowa with a presumption of
inevitability. She lapsed many times into a "When I am President" or the equivalent. Until very late in her campaign she seemed to believe that she would win. Thus it's disingenuous now to be claiming some sort of moral victory.

I remember a post here, a while back, that gave Obama 4 pinocchios for quoting a number that was slightly off. But Hillary lies and she only gets two? You preference is clear, at least you get credit for calling her on this.

You should also mention the other lies she's told during the campaign. How about the lies about donors to Bill's foundation? And then, there's her list of foreign advisors that included a tennis coach. Someone else mentioned Bill's claim to support the war. My personal favorite was that people who know Hillary are loyal to her, when many of Bill's foreign advisors have abandoned her for Obama (and of course, it raises the question of Bill's loyalty). Ok, the last one isn't really a lie, obviously, Alright and Clark are loyal.

I think that Hillary and Bill have become so accustomed to lying that they don't even realize it anymore.

The web has been amazing, though, where people have called her on issues that previous would have gone unheeded. It has changed the way she has had to campaign. I'm watching for an article on it.

I agree with Living2Sail, I have never seen anyone post a single achievement for Hillary. Obama, lots.

Fact-checker cherry picks polls to 'prove' his point. Don't you have any better items to fact-check than this?

FC selects an arbitrary start date and arbitrarily selects the ARG poll. A choice of other start dates and other polls would show different results.

It seems that I just this last weekend read about 5 tips for decoding those election polls (That would be this article by the Post's polling expert: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801898_pf.html )

FC ignores the tips.

The ARG poll seems to consistently skew high on Hillary. The choice of the ARG poll immediately following HRC's visit to Iowa isn't the first one in Pollster.com list -- the earlier one showed her at 26 in 12/06. FC chooses to start a month later where she is at 35 pct.

The poll cited earlier by cminmd has a margin of error of plus/minus 4 pct so the reported 10 pct for HRC is 10 +/- 4. The poll looks like an outlier, but this appears to be a reasonable poll of 600 people.

FC appears to use voters and Democratic caucus participants interchangeably. Are the polling numbers ALL LIKELY VOTERS or DEMOCRAT likely voters or some other mix.

Obama brought a HUGE number of new caucus participants to last night's caucuses.

Jon Cohen writes, "Obama's victory in the first official vote of 2008 came from a large influx of first-time caucusgoers and significant support from political independents. Nearly six in 10 Democratic participants said they had not caucused before, and they preferred Obama by double-digit margins over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and former North Carolina senator John Edwards. And while Clinton ran about evenly with Obama among Democrats, Obama outpaced both of his main rivals among independents, who made up 20 percent of voters and broke 41 percent for Obama, 23 percent for Edwards and 17 percent for Clinton."

Do you think that HRC may have polled Iowa earlier, but not released the results? And maybe those polls, you know, the ones BEFORE Hillary came to Iowa really did show her 'in single digits'.

It is possible that HRC is 'spinning like crazy' but it is also possible that she is telling the truth, that she was in single digits 'when she started her campaign' (Q: where was Fred Thompson in the polls when he started his campaign? A: when did he start is campaign?)

Clinton, Edwards and Obama each got more votes in Iowa than the GOP winner. (30% of 235,000 caucus-goers=70,500 votes vs. 40,723 for Huckabee).

And here is the Fact-Checker's Pinocchio rating scale

1. Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

2. Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

3. Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

4. Whoppers

*** Adjust score as follows ***

Subtract 1 Pinocchio if Republican candidate (2 if GOP front-runner)

Add 1 Pinocchio if Democratic candidate (2 if candidate last name is Clinton)

Change?

"We need a president who won't just call for change or a president who won't just demand change, but a president who will produce change -- just like I've been doing for 35 years," Clinton said, appearing with her husband, former President Clinton.

She went to Washington in 1973, so yeah, that's 35 years. But....if you've been part of national politices for 35 years, doesn't that make you part of the old-line, devisive political problems that people want to change FROM? And besides that legacy of being an entrenched Washington pol, it seems to me that HRC shouldn't be bragging about her 35 years of "changing things", since she's never really done anything in the first place--except approve the Iraq war.

This should be 4 Pinnochios.....and claims like this are why people should continue to reject her claim of experience--she may have a lot of one kind or another, but the results have not been beneficial.

One question I have not seen addressed is what is Hillary Clinton's 35 years of experience she keeps talking about that makes here ready on day 1 to be president far and above her Democratic opponents? What I recall is

Several more years as senator than her Democratic rivals
8 years as first lady where she made good efforts for a health care plan, but otherwise was not involved in foreign and defense policy (Are all first spouses considered to have the equivalent of presidential experience? She often says "we" when referring to matters President Clinton acted on.)
4-8? years as first lady of Arkansas
An attorney in Arkansas, probably involved in a variety of legal issues
Worked to advocate for children

I would like to here more about this. Am I missing something?

My gosh! Is it just the Obama supporters that read this thing? There's nothing on here but Obama, Obama, Obama. As much as I like Obama, it is not the right time for extreme change. We need a transitional candidate that can move us forward, but not push us forward. There's too much danger in the world right now. This is not the time for extreme change. If Obama gets the Dem nomination and McCain gets the Republican nomination - for the first time in my life, I will vote Republican. It is too dangerous right now to go with the candidate of extreme change.

Its all about spin, the whole spin and nothing but the spin. What're a few inaccuracies (lies)if the prize is 1600 Penn Ave? That's the Washington way; thats the mark of EXPERIENCE!

I just checked out the data a pollster.com. At no time was HRC polling in single digits. Someone's obviously not telling it as it is.

Hillary has gone from one 'venue' of attack and sleezy methods to now being 'poor little Hillary the underdog.'
If one considers her methodology one has to come to terms with her sense of reality outside of "winning" the office. And then what? How will she serve us and how will she be accepted as a Leader by the States, the Senate and the House? She's very transparent. If she didn';t have Billy boy to hang on to she would not have a chance,,,,or does she have a chance? God, I hope not. I am a Democrat and will vote accordingly but if its her I'll have major trepidations. Obama, to me, is sincere and real. At least he's had the courage to take a stand on some tough issues. Her's are always generalized and I have yet to hear her simply speak from her heart rather than her script.

Clinton wasn't in the lead when she started campaigning. She only emerged in the lead in the summer, and the "inevitability" tag (which was something invented as a sarcastic straw man by other campaigns and only after that picked up by the media) didn't really emerge until early fall. Polls swung in a different direction in December. Things can change quickly in politics, especially closer to polling dates.

Obama is a likeable person, but it scares me that he preaches instead of outlinings specific policies for this struggling country, we are headed towards recession. I don't want to follow a mass movement,and be inspired. I want a leader who has ideas we can believe in and the intelligence to carry them out. I am tierd of the word "Change," and rather prefer to hear of the ways we, "the voters" can expect change. I would hate to have a preacher in the white house, and not a doer. I hope people will pick a candidate they believe in, in terms of their concrete ideas about improving the country, and not solely on the likeability of a politician.

Do any of those who are commenting here have an original thought of their own? Every comment I have read is spouting one campaign other's spin and/or sound byte to justify their preference or condemnation of a candidate. THAT is what is wrong with the U.S., not one of the electorate is capable of thinking or analyzing anything on their own. That is what brought us G.W. Bush as President -- a man who should NEVER have been considered a viable candidate.

Thank you for checking facts...that is a valuable service and one that is desperately needed in today's campaign world. But readers and commenter, please, have a little self respect and think your own thoughts before you start spouting. Bring something fresh to the table for God's sake.

Senator Clinton proved the "experts" wrong!!! She really has shown that substance, experience, and her "proven" ability for enabling change, along with a lifelong passion and experience in actually helping the majority of Americans, is what the voters care more about when choosing the best leader for this next critical term as president! Voters are not listening to the slanted views of the media "pundits" who care more about drama and a "story", rather than reporting the truth... Americans are smarter than the "sheep" they believe we are! The NH voters proved this!!!...

Thank goodness people are finally waking up and realizing that although Obama is a brilliant orator and nice person, he lacks the actual skill, leadership, experience, and ability to truly make change happen and lead our country... talk is cheap at this point - Look at his record as a State Senator in Illinois and in DC!!! Whenever he is presented with a difficult vote, he doesn't even take a stand - he votes "present"!!! He voted "present," effectively sidestepping issues nearly 130 times as a state senator. On a sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the only vote in a 58-to-0 vote!! He barely has any record for doing much as a US Senator in Washington DC, but what is interesting is that he said he would vote against the Patriot Act, yet when he joined the US Senate, he voted for it!! He said he would vote against the Iraq war, and then voted for funding, AND, he SKIPPED a tough vote on Iran, distorted what the bill authorized, and criticized those who voted for it!! This does not show the true leadership that is required for creating the change we desperately need! He's not the "outsider" that his campaign is trying to make him out to be - yes, he has fantastic speeches, but his record shows otherwise...it proves that he is more of the typical "sidestepping" polititian and lawyer that we have seen before, who lacks the "real" leadership to get things done. The Republicans will have a field day with Obama if he ever got lucky enough to win the Democratic ticket!!!

Rookies are not needed right now to run the country in the most important job in the world.... Remember the last "rookie" who used "likeability" without substance or experience to get elected? Back then, people liked GW Bush, they didn't care that he lacked experience because he talked in generalities and made us feel good. Well guess what, he won the White House and got us into this mess!! - GW Bush ran a very similar campaign as Obama, and his inexperience has been a disaster for our country!!.... Gore and Kerry warned all of us, but we didn't listen. Obama can talk in generalities - anyone can do this, but he has no clear plan, no clear ideas, shows a lack of "true" leadership by avoiding difficult decision-making as proven by his actual voting record, and lacks the "real world" experience to deliver on his unsubstantiated promises and "generalities" for change...Hopefully people won't make the same mistake we made with Bush by believing in another rookie with Obama.

Americans will take this critical vote very seriously for 2008 by choosing the best person who has already proven she can lead with success, has already brought about "real" change, and can truly pull our country together to restore our reputation and our world position as the leaders we were once considered. With former President Bill Clinton by Hillary's side, we will all prosper from such an amazing team that will help bring our country back from the difficulties that we have encountered with the Bush administration... especially with the economic difficulties and international issues we are already facing today and will face over the next few years. No more rookies and false impressions, folks - let's put the best team in the White House!! Senator Clinton is the "real" change Americans need! Go Hillary!!! The country believes in you and your ability to "truly" lead and enable "real" change as our next great President!!!

Sure looks like this is a campaign strategy. Comeback kid. The resulting media frenzy in NH created a story where her very slight win made her the story. Fact check poll data and accuracy. Write a story about delegates awarded to each and what super delegates are about. The race comments look calculated. Fact check that.
The media is creating news in this campaign and not reporting it.

I found this great article on the topic at www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. It raises some great issues. Here is an excerpt:

"For the last couple of days we have heard incessant commentary in the mainstream mediums about the racial issues brought up recently in the Democratic side of this season's primary elections. This, amongst the vast criticisms that the Clinton campaign has received for supposedly sending out "agents" to spread rumors about Barack Obama's not too lustrous past, has Hillary's supporters scrambling for cover. Apparently, or so the press claims, there exists certain knowledge about a candidate's past that we are not supposed to discuss because they are "insensitive" or "negative". Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television and supporter of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, recently caught some heat when he made public references to Barack Obama's past drug use (cocaine and marijuana) for being "ugly" attempts to discredit Obama's reputation amongst conservative Democrats. Tonight, in Nevada's Democrat debate, we will probably get to hear these candidates respond to this so-called "mud slinging" charges, which up until now are being leveled against both camps, and probably witness a pathetic "coming together" in which both lead candidates leave all this controversy behind. An act which is only done out of pure self-interest since they both know that this "race and gender" discussion hurts both camps somewhat equally. Once again, instead of witnessing an actual debate on real issues, we will get washed down campaign slogans, ad nauseum. What is the information contained in this Fine Print that the Media keeps pushing us to ignore until the election is over?..." Visit www.SAVAGEPOLITICS.com to see the rest of the article.

anyway, back to the point... i agree that a 5-pinicchio rating is due here. it's unfortunate that many are susceptible to being mislead by slick, manipulative polls and poll manipulation. i am one of MANY californians for obama!

what do u think about gay rights

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! http://sreggndbjayaoo.com

jlikqnbxp anys vcthg zonkrg pqejrt bifqez jdstr

ohflwjpce lghoi zplbh mewjabr gsxlj srkayo bskadjy http://www.zfjya.ypcjwgfn.com

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://mp3qo.com/q5/lady-saw---me-and-my-crew-the-rae-prod--by-ward-21.html lady saw - me and my crew the rae prod. by ward 21

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://mp3qo.com/q5/lightnin-hopkins---you-got-to-work-to-get-your-pay.html lightnin hopkins - you got to work to get your pay

Useful site. Thanks!
http://mp3qo.com/q9/ultramagnetic-mcs---ego-trippin-mc-ultra-remix.html ultramagnetic mcs - ego trippin mc ultra remix

Useful site. Thanks!
http://mp3qo.com/q9/ultramagnetic-mcs---ego-trippin-mc-ultra-remix.html ultramagnetic mcs - ego trippin mc ultra remix

Useful site. Thanks.
http://mp3qo.com/q8/roxette---i-love-the-sound-of-crashing-guitars.html roxette - i love the sound of crashing guitars

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://mp3qo.com/q1/chuck-e--weiss---half-off-at-the-rebop-shop.html chuck e. weiss - half off at the rebop shop

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://mp3qo.com/q1/chuck-e--weiss---half-off-at-the-rebop-shop.html chuck e. weiss - half off at the rebop shop

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://mp3qo.com/q7/robert-fripp---the-gates-of-paradise-part-2.html robert fripp - the gates of paradise part 2

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://mp3qo.com/q7/robert-fripp---the-gates-of-paradise-part-2.html robert fripp - the gates of paradise part 2

Useful site. Thanks.
http://privates.vsemp.ru/?action=searchform&cat_id=3&dosearch=1 free cats

yfcqmhtnd cnkxjgys qybjr jqhnlc jzadmvhc vuksbqr aevp

yfcqmhtnd cnkxjgys qybjr jqhnlc jzadmvhc vuksbqr aevp

yfcqmhtnd cnkxjgys qybjr jqhnlc jzadmvhc vuksbqr aevp

yfcqmhtnd cnkxjgys qybjr jqhnlc jzadmvhc vuksbqr aevp