Obama the Subtle

To give an example of the Subtle Obama Dynamic I talked about yesterday, I wound up yesterday evening covering my first ever Obama mega-rally in Washington Square Park. At some point during his address, he starts talking about experience. First he notes that he actually has a lot of experience of various sorts. So then he says that people who say he doesn't have experience (but he never says who these people are) must mean experience in Washington. But, he notes, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had great resumés before taking jobs in the Bush administration. "Experience," he says, "is no guarantee of good judgment."

At this point I heard one television reporter remark to a confused camera operator "that's a dig at Hillary." He then moves on to recounting the dispute with Hillary about talking with foreign dictators.

And there's the rub. The camera operator was watching the speech. If Obama wants to make a dig at Hillary, the camera operator ought to realize that without someone else pointing it out to him.

Translated from the Obamaese, he's first noting that Obama actually has more experience than Clinton in elective office and in activism -- Clinton's experience is mostly being Bill Clinton's wife and thus being in the vicinity of powerful people. Second, he's noting that Clinton, who likes to tout her experience, joined the also very experienced Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in advocating for the invasion of Iraq. He's arguing that this wasn't a one-off, that it suggests Clinton is the kind of person likely to make poor judgments in the future, possibly including decisions relating to Iran. Obama will try diplomacy; Clinton may once again show poor judgment by rushing to war.

That, I think, is what he's trying to say. But he's not really saying it and I'm not quite sure why.

Photo by IowaPolitics.com used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Perhaps because he doesn't want to tighten the noose yet? I mean, I'm not expert on timing the roll-out of various attacks, but I've yet to see a good argument why this attack would be a good idea now. Nobody's really paying attention yet.

Posted by nolaboyd | September 28, 2007 8:55 AM

"Experience," he says, "is no guarantee of good judgment."
....At this point I heard one television reporter remark to a confused camera operator "that's a dig at Hillary.

Oh. I understand completely now. He should've avoided subtlety and simply declared: "Hilary Clinton has no credibility because she voted for the Iraq war, and because she continues to vote to support it."

So is there anyone out there who can explain to me why he wouldn't want to say that? I mean, I can't possibly imagine why a straightforward approach wouldn't enhance Obama's credibility--both with voters, and with the media (who--as readers of this blog know--always respect that kind of politician.)

Posted by James Gary | September 28, 2007 8:55 AM

Matt, I don't understand why this is hard for you to see. If Obama started swinging at Hillary the press would cover it as "Obama's gone on the attack" and, likely, "Obama is a hypocrite" after all his talk of a new kind of a politics. He's laying the groundwork for the last weeks of the campaign, when he can sharpen these comments towards Hillary and whomever else is left standing.

Posted by right | September 28, 2007 8:59 AM

Being that subtle is the sort of thing a frontrunner can do. And I suspect it's either Obama's style personally, or Axlerod's style or something like that. But Obama has (at the moment) fallen into a bad sort of O-mentum (yes I know that's a real word...)--and his current script doesn't seem to be digging him out of it. So maybe let's think--what's the worst thing that could happen by his being more specific and is it worse than what's happening now?

Posted by JMS | September 28, 2007 8:59 AM

So maybe let's think--what's the worst thing that could happen by his being more specific and is it worse than what's happening now?

What's happening now? That the media is a bit bored with Obama, so they're writing stories about how Hillary is a lock, or Biden is surging, or Edwards is flailing, or whatever? Obama has plenty of funds, lots of passionate supporters, and is tied in Iowa. Would he like to be a couple points closer nationally? Probably, but this is playing out about as well as he could have hoped.

No reason to panic, there's a lot of time left in the race.

Posted by right | September 28, 2007 9:03 AM

How do you fight for a nomination without mortally (or less so) wounding a competitor, leaving a nasty pile of excrement on the doorstep for voters to step over on their way into the polling booth? What if a less hawkish, "moderate" (is there such a thing?) Republican gets the nod and Obama has cemented the notion that Hillary is a closet warmonger? Do Democrats lose votes in the middle, does a war weary country pull a few extra levers for her eventual opponent?

Posted by steve duncan | September 28, 2007 9:14 AM

I don't get the whole why is he not attacking Hilary nonsense. He doesn't need to. It is the media (like that lunatic Chris Matthews) that is itching for a fight so that they have something interesting to write/yak about. The main problem with Obama is that he is (still) too abstract. Talking about hopes, dreams, ambitions, reconciliation etc. is OK to begin with. But he has got to do a better job of breaking it down to practical everyday things. Kind of dumb it down a bit and stop being so cerebral. If he can do that he will be fine. A lot of people (me included) are rooting for him.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | September 28, 2007 9:16 AM

Gee, we are into subtlety here. I guess voters can't handle plain straight forward stuff. They can't see a dig for what it is. What happened to good old fashioned straight talk? Articles written by guys and gals who have never run for high office often have a special know it all quality. Why are they notin a campaign where it is a tough slog and see if their armchair musing can be translated into votes.

Posted by Alan | September 28, 2007 9:20 AM

Count me as a strong Obama supporter, but one who largely agrees with Matt on this point. Obama should be able to refer to Hillary by name, do so respectfully, and point out the differences.

By the way, I think one of Hillary's strongest moments in this campaign came at the recent debate, but I think that moment can be used effectively against her on the experience issue. I'm referring to when Hillary rebuffed Tim Russert's effort to highlight a statement that conflicted with Bill Clinton on torture, and she said, "He isn't the one standing up here tonight." Obama, when questioned about comparative experience, should say something like, "I agree with Hillary that the positions taken by her husband should not be attributed to her. She is her own person and the CEO of her own campaign. But from 1993-2001, it was of course Bill who was the one standing at the presidential podium and making decisions -- he was the executive, not her. So just as she should not be accountable for Bill Clinton's statements on torture, she should not be credited with Bill's achievements. She did not accumulate eight years of executive experience from 1993-2001; she was an advisor while I was a state legislator making judgments on the record every day on which I can be evaluated.

Posted by RaymondA | September 28, 2007 9:28 AM

Whoa, that chick on the left is hot!

I like what Obama's doing. He can criticize without making it seem like a personal attack.

Of course, you're probably right that that means that 90% of people don't know what the heck he's talking about.

But, hey, it appeals to me. And you can't win without appealing to anonymous people.

Posted by Anonymous (not Joe Klein) | September 28, 2007 9:31 AM

The style of Senate-floor rhetoric revolves around clipped, shorthand references to insider-Senate issues and a hard and fast rule that no senator attack another directly (or by name).

The invariably hurts senators who become presidential candidates because after years in the senate, this rhetorical style is so ingrained that they can't make a switch to the rhetoric necessary for the campaign trail, which requires very straightforward soundbites and direct attacks on one's opponents.

The hope was that the reason Obama was running so soon after being elected to the senate was so that he did not get corrupted by the system and hit the national stage while he was still fresh and unencumbered by "senate culture." The problem seems to be that he is a best fit for the senate. The rhetorical style demanded of senators is where he seems to fit in best. So what the heck is he doing running for president?

Posted by Tyro | September 28, 2007 9:32 AM

That's all well and true, but the obvious point he's trying to make is equally important.

He's being accused of being inexperienced, when what people really want is judgment. If the race becomes about who has the best judgment, then people don't need to get the dig against Hillary.

They can apply the judgment criterion themselves; perhaps that's even more devastating.

That and the fact that Obama can slide along as he raises his ID and his positives until the phase when the gloves truly come of. My opinion is that if you have a couple of good arguments or lines of attack, it's better to use them and try to set the agenda with them, at the time when it's most crucial. And that's December and January.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | September 28, 2007 10:15 AM

Translated from the Obamaese, he's first noting that Obama actually has more experience than Clinton in elective office and in activism

This is why the "convential wisdom" is so stupid. CW is that Obama is too "inexperienced". In fact, in terms of the organizational experience needed by someone who is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States government, Obama is possibly the most experienced of the candidates. Heck, he has more relevent experience than our current President who claims to have been an actual CEO.

In terms of the Constitutional roles for the President and VP, Obama should be President (smooth speaker = good head of state; community organizer = good CEO of USA gov.) while Edwards (trial attorney = good at getting people, juries so why not Congresscritters, to vote his way ... so good President of the Senate) should be VP.

Of course, IMHO, given the realities of today's expanded Presidency, it seems to me the Pres/Veep responsibilities need to be shuffled a bit. In particular, we need a Head of State who is not the CEO ... maybe make the Pres. the CEO and the VP our head of state (i.e., to function in a ceremonial capacity as well as on the bully pulpit)?

Posted by DAS | September 28, 2007 10:17 AM

Not an Obama supporter, and to me he sometimes comes across as a mix of Kerry's "nuance and subtlety" and Bush's "self-confidence and sense of specialness." I just don't see much "there" there.

Posted by Gene | September 28, 2007 10:23 AM

What makes you think the camera operator DIDN'T realize Obama's point? Just because someone mentioned it to him doesn't mean he didn't figure it out first. He just didn't see the need to jump up and down and raise his hand and scream, "Oooh. Oooh. I know the answer. That's a dig at Hillary."

Besides, although it may have been a dig at a Hillary, it wasn't necessarily a dig ONLY at Hillary, and that may have not been a point. The media loves a one-on-one matchup because it makes for a simple storyline, but Obama is not a running his campaign against Hillary -- he's running it against all thes establishment, against all of Washington. So it's actually a dig at a lot of people. More than that, though, it's a positive statement: If you vote based on experience, you get more of the same. If you vote for me, you get change.

Posted by Fred App | September 28, 2007 10:27 AM

So he's both arguing that he's *more* experienced than Hillary *and* that experience doesn't matter?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 28, 2007 10:43 AM

A couple quick points.

Living in Illinois it was interesting to watch Obama's campaign for the Senate, first in the primary, then in the general election.

His approach in the primary was equally low-key, not really getting in the digs until just before the election, and even then somewhat subtle. He has no desire to destroy his competition in his own party. And remember, a month before the primary he was not given much of a chance.

In the general he could have been even more aggressive, considering who he was running against, Alan Keyes. Instead he focused on what he could do and his policies. Won going away.

Granted the margin was partially due to the fact he was running against a nutcase, but the degree by which he won was still remarkable.

I think he believes (and hope he is right) that people, in time, get tired of being told who they will vote for, and will tend to rebel against that. He is positioning himself to pick up those votes at the last minute.

Posted by John | September 28, 2007 10:46 AM

"Clinton may once again show poor judgment by rushing to war..."

How could it be considered "rushing" if it was preceded by 5 years of fruitless diplomacy and at least two rounds of UN sanctions? It's one thing to be so soured by the Iraq War that you are against the use of military force in any case, but it's hard to argue that there has been any "rush" to strike Iran militarily. From the EU-3, to the efforts at the UN Security Council, to Bush's grand bargain offered last year, to the current attempt to enact further non-UN sanctions, what non-military means of persuasion have the Bush Administration neglected in its attempt to get Iran to stop enriching weapons-grade uranium?

Also, if the ultimate end point of non-proliferation diplomacy is effectively capitulation after ineffectual negotiations and weak sanctions, what does this say about the viability of non-proliferation efforts generally? If we are tacitly going to let Iran get nukes, aren't we essentially conceding that any other country willing to stall long enough will be allowed to get nukes? Have you considered the consequences of opposing bombing Iran if necessary at all costs? Maybe Hillary has.

Posted by Juan | September 28, 2007 10:59 AM

"Have you considered the consequences of opposing bombing Iran if necessary at all costs?"

I have, and those consequences are minor compared to the consequences of bombing Iran for any reason.

Posted by john | September 28, 2007 11:17 AM

"I have, and those consequences are minor compared to the consequences of bombing Iran for any reason."

OK, you've convinced me. It would be better for Iran to get nukes and then Saudi Arabia and Egypt to acquire nukes in response then for us to bomb Iran and prevent all three from getting nukes.

Posted by Juan | September 28, 2007 11:39 AM

I saw the videos of this rally posted over at Big Orange. (They were estimating the crowd at 20,000, and it would be nice to know what Matt thought the crowd was.)

I have to say that I thought Obama was personally very, very impressive. He looks good, he sounds good, he's very poised -- when a mike went, not even a shadow of irritation, he just waited for his people to deal with it. He looks ALIVE, in the present, in the way that the other candidates do not (with Biden and Clinton way on the other end of the "aliveness" scale, and let's not even go there with the top-tier Republicans). It's really something to take a mike and walk out into a crowd like that, and without all the pomp and circumstance that we're used to.

And I wouldn't take the cameraman's comment as anything other than wannabe Insider Baseball. FWIW, I don't think Obama needs to make any effort at all to differentiate himself from Hillary -- he's clearly from another, newer generation. The riffs on experience weren't directed at her personally, I would say, but at the entire political class, and especially the pundits.

And yet.... And yet....

The message of hope doesn't resonate with me at all, because it seems to be coupled with the idea that gosh, if only we all set aside our differences, and sit around the table, and sing kumbaya... You get the idea. (Now, all this could be chaff. Obama comes from Chicago, after all.)

But conflict free is content free. We're having conflicts because there are real interests at stake -- like real income being flat for thirty years, like the destruction of Constitutional government, like endless war, like a criminal justice system that treats sneakers as a deadly weapon when a black person is wearing them, and a whole sick Beltway syndrome that treats mentioning these issues as a lack of civility, and unserious.

And I don't see Obama's message as dealing with those realities at all.

This is not any kind of endorsement, but this statement by Edwards really resonates with me:

[EDWARDS:] You cannot compromise with these people. They are very, very good. When you negotiate with them, they win. You have to beat them. You have to take them on.

Is Obama ready to take them on?

Take, for example, FISA or the Iraq funding. Any one Senator can bring the Senate to a halt. Why can't Obama use the Senate as a bully pulpit on those or any number of other issues, and halt the Senate 'til the issue gets dealt with? (I'd rather have them do nothing than what they're doing, so it all nets out just fine.)

Change the game. Kick over the board. Make a difference. Edwards might do that. Hillary will never do that. And Obama? I just don't know.

Maybe that's what the word "subtle" is getting at....

Posted by lambert strether | September 28, 2007 11:40 AM

If anyone on this thread thinks Obama has any chance of winning the nomination if his position on Iraq is basically the same as HRC's, please let me know what you're smoking. I want some.

He is a young, charismatic guy who started out with a huge advantage on the issue that meant the most to voters: he opposed the war from the start. But he has squandered that advantage. True or not, his position is being interpreted as fundamentally the same as Hillary's, which, btw, is becoming more and more like the position of their republican rivals.

An Obama who essentially agrees with HRC on the most important issue -- the war -- and has few sharp differences with her on health care, etc. has NO advantage over her.

Posted by Econobuzz | September 28, 2007 11:51 AM

What James Gary said.

Kind of Hillary-centric in approach, huh Matt? The meme is that Obama's a bit fresh behind the ears. That's what he's countering. It comes from a few directions -- so why should he be more specific than the circumstances warrant?

Posted by Leo Klein | September 28, 2007 11:51 AM

I second Lambert Strether.

Posted by RKU | September 28, 2007 12:08 PM

Obama's pulling his punches because he's running for VP now, not President, and doesn't want to alienate his potential running mate.
How hard was that to figure out?

Posted by heatkernel | September 28, 2007 12:39 PM

RKU is right that Lambert Strether is right.

A big difference between Edwards and Obama is how they developed their negotiation skills. In politics, it is frequently possible to give your political opponent something that costs you little or nothing. That is a good negotiation strategy.

But Edwards is used to negotiating in a zero-sum world. Compromising, in a personal injury setting, invariably means getting less for your client. You don't negotiate against yourself and you don't take money out of your client's pocket.

Unlike Hillary (or Bill) Clinton or Obama, Edwards understands that compromise is a means not an end.

We are living in a world where most of the political opposition does not act in good faith. Edwards understands that. Obama? So far not.

Posted by space | September 28, 2007 12:43 PM

Clinton would never pick Obama as his running mate.

Posted by Korha | September 28, 2007 12:53 PM

He has upwards of $50M in the bank. I assume about three to four weeks ahead of the Iowa caucus he will unload with very pointed, hard-hitting ads pointing out Hillary's Iraq War vote and then tying her recent Iran War vote to it. He's already laid the groundwork for his "trust my judgement vs. her DC experience" frame. There is a bit of danger in going negative (it seemed to cost Dean and Gephardt in 04 in Iowa).

Posted by jjmckim | September 28, 2007 1:12 PM

space is correct that RKU is on-target about Lambert Strether being right on the money.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 1:53 PM

"But Edwards is used to negotiating in a zero-sum world. Compromising, in a personal injury setting, invariably means getting less for your client. You don't negotiate against yourself and you don't take money out of your client's pocket.

Unlike Hillary (or Bill) Clinton or Obama, Edwards understands that compromise is a means not an end."

His voting record, and not just on the war, suggest otherwise. He didn't exactly have the most liberal voting record and was loved by the DLC.

Posted by Reality Man | September 28, 2007 2:06 PM

"Clinton would never pick Obama as his running mate."

Yup. And I find it difficult to believe Edwards would pick anyone other than Obama as his running mate.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 2:11 PM

"But he's not really saying it and I'm not quite sure why."

Hmmm. Seems to me he sounds like you, Matt, on the Iran war.

You haven't really said anything about it either. You just sort of nibble around the edges. You never have come out and explicitly said, "Attacking Iran is a bad idea, at least they clearly have a nuclear weapons program." Even that would be dumb, but at least you would have a position somebody could point to.

At this point, you've said bupkis about:

1) How many troops do YOU think should be in Iraq?
2) Should Iran be attacked militarily if they HAVE nukes?
3) Should Iran be attacked militarily if they DON'T have nukes?
4) Should Iran be attacked militarily if they ARE "killing US soldiers in Iraq"?
5) Should Iran be attacked militarily if they AREN'T "killing US soldiers in Iraq"?
6) Do you favor sanctions on Iran absent any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program?
7) Do you believe Iran HAS a nuclear weapons program?

I haven't seen a clear statement from you on ANY of those points. At least the Dems have declared themselves on most of them - wrongly, of course, but at least they've made their usual stupid claims and positions moderately clear.

You haven't.

So it's a bit hypocritical to be complaining about Obama's talking points when yours are nonexistent.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 28, 2007 3:13 PM

Juan says "to get Iran to stop enriching weapons-grade uranium?"

Juan, you ignorant slut! Iran is NOT "enriching weapons-grade uranium"! If you don't even know THAT much about what is going on over there, STFU and go sit in the corner.

Iran is enriching uranium to nuclear energy levels, i.e., five percent or so. Weapons grade enrichment is 90-95%. The IAEA confirms that this is NOT happening and CANNOT happen as long as Iran allows IAEA inspections, in other words, remains in the NPT.

IF and WHEN Iran pulls out of the NPT, THEN you can bitch about it. Until then, Iran has a complete legal right under the NPT to enrich uranium as it is doing.

And for those nitwits who talk about how the UN has imposed sanctions and therefore being against Iran is not "insane", check again - the UN just postponed any further sanctions for two months to give El Baradei more time to resolve the IAEA's outstanding issues with Iran - most of which are historical and aren't even relevant to what Iran is doing NOW.

Guess what, geniuses? If Iran clears up the old issues with El Baradei, he's going to give their program a clean bill of health! Just like he and Hans Blix were going to tell us there was NO "WMDs" in Iraq - except Bush ordered them out and invaded before - and because - they could do so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 28, 2007 3:24 PM

I agree with Petey that space is exactly right about RKU's solid take that Lambert Strether nailed it.

Posted by Just Karl | September 28, 2007 3:30 PM

1) Obama is afraid to attack Clinton. The Clinton campaign boxed him into a corner early by hammering him on the Geffen and Punjab attacks, asking "what happened to the politics of hope?". Since then, Clinton has relentlessly pointed out that Democrats don't want Democrats to attack each other, they want to beat the Republicans. She and her campaign have been disciplined in staying on message in turning all attacks into opportunities to go after the Republicans.

2) Obama has been flogging the "I would have voted against the war if I hadn't been a part-time state legislator" attack since February without traction. Why? Simple really: 25% of Americans were for the war in 2002 and are for it today and will vote Republican. 25% were against the war in 2002 and are against it today and will vote Democratic. That leaves 50% who were supportive of the war in 2002 and are now against it. These voters know they were wrong, don't need to be scolded by Barack Obama, and are interested in what to do now. Clinton is overwhelmingly viewed as the candidate who can fix the problem going forward.

3) Don't think of "experience" as a line on a resume. Experience is really about the skills a candidate develops from years under the harsh glare of the national spotlight. Obama's lack of experience hurts him because, simply put, he doesn't have the skills and instincts of a battle-tested politician. Clinton is running circles around him on the campaign trail. Just look at her spontaneous response to Timmy Russert's gotcha question the other night. "Well, he's not the one standing here" was the kind of devastating left hook counterpunch that only a very skilled boxer could deliver. It's intinctive and those highly-developed instincts come from experience.

Posted by hwc | September 28, 2007 3:33 PM

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that one problem Obama has with attacking Clinton-- especially on experience grounds-- is that he will be accused of sexism.

Rick Lazio-- Hillary's first Senate opponent-- merely came over to Hillary's podium during a debate to emphasize a point, and her supporters very effectively portrayed that as some sort of macho sexist attempt to dominate her and get in her space.

The truth is, Hillary should not be credited with the accomplishments of Bill's presidency, both as a matter of feminist principle (women should get credit for what they do on their own, not who they marry) and reality (just like every first lady, Hillary spent quite a bit of her time doing "first lady" things like making decorating decisions and managing the White House social calendar).

But the moment Obama points this out, Hillary's surrogates-- who are shameless-- will start calling him a sexist. And it will be effective with many voters, because we haven't attained the level of maturity as a society where attacks on a female politician are judged on the same metric as attacks on a male politician.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 28, 2007 4:56 PM

Petey, space, RKU, Just Karl:

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Say, I just crawled in from Gitmo, and boy, are my shackles bloody....

Posted by lambert strether | September 28, 2007 5:37 PM

Y'know, you're not going to make friends with many waitresses if you don't advocate for tipping them well...

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 5:46 PM

"I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that one problem Obama has with attacking Clinton-- especially on experience grounds-- is that he will be accused of sexism."

Did you see the last debate? Edwards attacked Clinton directly and repeatedly without suffering blowback, in Noam Scheiber's nice framing.

He did it with better framing that you posit, but you can hit Clinton hard if you're smart about how you do it.

Posted by Petey | September 28, 2007 5:52 PM

It's a point the media misses. Hillary is not directly "long-experienced" just by proxy to a serving politician. When would you ever, ever expect that a search for an experienced CEO or general to include "CEO wives and general's spouses" as qualified by proximity to actual generals or CEOs?

What they can do as CEO wives and general's spouses immersed in the respective cultures is talk with wisdom and experience about those cultures to outsiders - but that doesn't make Eleanor Roosevelt FDR, doesn't make Napoleon's wife a good choice to be Field Marshall when Bonaparte was ill...

Though I would like some of what DAS 10:17AM is smoking if honestly thinks 3 years in national office, no executive, no military Obama is in terms of the organizational experience needed by someone who is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States government, Obama is possibly the most experienced of the candidates.

Biden, Romney, Giuliani, Richardson, McCAin? Even Gravel, Kuchinich, Hunter??

No, naive young Obama is hardly experienced. He is the Magic Negro, what purports to fill the empty suit mouthing platitudes...he who can take away liberal guilt and grant absolution..There are thousands of similarly talented whites, Asians, hispanics of his generation - and to suggest any of them are ready to be President, or the public would see them as ready, is a joke.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 28, 2007 6:26 PM

Petey:

I don't buy it. You can certainly do policy attacks on Clinton, as Edwards did. But that's a lot different than making the experience argument.

The fact is, if anyone seriously tries to question Clinton's experience (i.e., to claim that being a first lady shouldn't count), you can mark my words, she's going to have a bunch of female surrogates spread out over the airwaves accusing her critics of sexism. And given what happened with the Lazio campaign, it will be effective.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 28, 2007 6:39 PM

There are two kinds of experience: Hillary doesn't have the governing experience, but she does have the political infighting experience.

It's governing you get elected for, but you don't get there unless you win. That would seem especially acute after Gore and Kerry lost.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 28, 2007 8:27 PM