Skip to content

Biden is suddenly OK this morning?

Published on 113 Comments on Biden is suddenly OK this morning?

This is just nuts:

What the hell happened last night? Putting aside Biden's seeming cognitive issues, his voice was barely audible or understandable during the debate. I had to turn up the TV volume a lot just to make out what he was saying. But today, he's clear as a bell and you might want to turn the volume down before listening to this clip.

wtf?

113 thoughts on “Biden is suddenly OK this morning?”

      2. gibba-mang

        Biden doesn't have Alzheimer's, just by definition which is marked by early onset (40s - 50's). He had a brain aneurysm about 20 years ago which was fix with surgery. Could he have congative issues now as he ages? I think that is more likely

        ↓
        1. kylemeister

          "Biden doesn't have Alzheimer's, just by definition which is marked by early onset (40s - 50's)."

          Er, no. Most cases are of late onset (≥ 65); incidence doubles every five years after age 60.

          ↓
      2. Jasper_in_Boston

        I think he was over-prepped and got hung up trying to say too much within the time constraints

        Agreed. Also, he is experiencing cognitive decline. All of us over 40 are. AIUI that's not the same as dementia. But aging takes it's toll. Cognitive shortcomings, I think, are more likely to be noticeable in high pressure situations. That describes presidential debates.

        ↓
        1. golack

          A lot of it is that you slow down a bit, so you don't catch things as fast as you used to and people notice. Some of the slower speech is probably just Joe dealing with his stutter.

          ↓
        2. roboto

          "All of us over 40 are."

          This doesn't mean anything. The the amount of decline for many is extremely small in the 50s and small in the 60s while for others it can be significant. Inventor Ray Kurzweil's new book was released this week and looking back over his videos since 2000, he had very little decline until around 65 and has been clear in his speed and recall the past two year at 75 and 76.

          ↓
      3. realrobmac

        This was my exact thought. They needed to prep him with basic simple sound bites. No need for referring to specific legislation and policy details. About the border the answer needed to be simple.

        "I tried to fix the border. Trump got his minions to stop me because he didn't want the issue to go away. Think about that folks. We had a plan to fix the border. A bi-partisan plan and Trump got his minions in congress to stop it. He'd rather have the border broken than let someone else get the credit for fixing."

        That's it. He should have answered every single question like that. No need for details about _how_ he was gonna fix it. Just say outright it would have been fixed.

        ↓
        1. Gilgit

          I mostly agree, but there is always more you can say about how bad Republicans are.

          "In 2013 the Democratic Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration bill that greatly increased border security. The Republican House scuttled it. Why? Because they want to use immigration to scare voters more than they want to fix the problem. And because so many of them want to stop legal immigration. During my predecessor's term, Democrats negotiated a permanent solution to DACA immigrants, immigrants who came to this country as children. But Republicans scuttled that by insisting on pairing it with decreases in legal immigration."

          Then put your paragraph. Then mention that Trump would change his mind if he could just get a big enough bribe. Then talk about how "legal immigration built this country. Made us the most powerful nation on earth. It was because of immigrants we were powerful enough to defeat fascism and communism. Legal immigration makes us stronger."

          All that would take very little time and had one number to remember. That's all he had to say.

          ↓
      4. jte21

        Yep, I think he probably tried to cram too hard, had a million facts at his fingertips, but forgot how to keep the big picture in focus -- particularly in front of Trump's firehose of bullshit -- and got flustered. Then when he got flustered, the stutter kicked in, making him panic and choke more. That pressure isn't there in front of a campaign rally crowd, so he lightens up and does/sounds fine.

        There's nothing wrong with Biden cognitively. His voice is getting weak, though, and he's certainly slowed down physically, probably because of the neuropathy in his feet. Whether he really had a cold or not, I don't know. My dad's a few years older than Biden and has a persistent cough and gravelly voice, too. It's just age. I really wish he had had his shit together last night, though. That was a huge own-goal.

        ↓
        1. Jimm

          Biden got stronger as the debate went on, to the point he won the 2nd half of it, he wasn't "flustered" by Trump's firehose of BS, he was energized by it.

          Remember it's the very beginning of the debate where Biden faltered the most, and none of that had anything to do with Trump.

          I agree that Biden was talking too fast early on, trying to cram too many points in, and on top of that they apparently didn't do a sound check, because it was hard to understand him and his mic should have been turned up.

          ↓
          1. Crissa

            I think it took him off guard when Trump started off with bold faced lies.

            His jaw visibly fell when Trump went on about 'abortion in the eighth or ninth or even after birth'.

            ↓
      5. bbleh

        And he was not prepped PROPERLY. That TCFG would Gish-gallop was a GIVEN. They should have trained for that -- had someone stand in and do that to him in real time so he could experience the panic and learn from it, and then they could work out a strategy for dealing with it. You can't deal with the Gish gallop by trying to correct the falsehoods or keep up with the flow: that's the point of it. And this WAS AND IS KNOWN.

        Whoever was directing his prep should be fired, or at least reassigned far, far away from any such duties.

        ↓
      6. Altoid

        This was my first thought, too, a few minutes in. Though it doesn't account for the weak voice unless they tried to cram in prep sessions during the day. Which might very well have happened; he sounded like he'd been talking too much already that day. The campaign supposedly put out the word that he had a cold yesterday but they waited until about half-way through the debate to do it.

        However Kevin's point is well-taken and Biden just didn't look like himself last night, especially compared to how he looks on that tape. Almost as if he'd done his workout just a little while before he went on stage and was still recovering.

        ↓
      7. Altoid

        Just checked out your c-span video. His voice was still rough and he was moving stiffly (which he's been doing for a while now) but you're right, he's 100% more himself even that soon after.

        Half OT, but I wonder what color the CNN lighting was set to. He looked wan and washed out at the podium but nothing like that in the c-span video.

        ↓
    3. iamr4man

      Ah, geez, really? Biden had a bad debate. But it wasn’t all that bad with many people apparently thinking he won. But the story of the debate isn’t Biden’s bad performance, it’s democrats panicking. Obama survived his bad performance and Biden will survive his if we let him.

      ↓
      2. jte21

        But Obama also wasn't battling the impression that he was old and out of it. Everyone knew he *could* have done a lot better, but just didn't prepare well or bring his A-game, which he did in later debates. Biden had one job last night: appear sharp and dunk on Trump repeatedly. This he did not do. I suppose it's possible that he recovers and the media and the public discover something else shiny to chase in the next few days and everyone forgets about it eventually and we move on, but I don't know.

        ↓
      4. Altoid

        I seem to remember a couple weeks of stark panic after Obama's first debate. IIRC it subsided only after the second one, which included the "please proceed, governor" tag line.

        ↓
    4. Citizen99

      Jesus God.

      One has to suspect the teleprompter is what makes the difference in his delivery. Republicans have been using the "teleprompter" attack line since Obama. But, ominously, it might be accurate in Biden's case today.

      But what about the voice? Less than a day ago, and he sounded like he should be on a ventilator. Now he's back to old Shouty Joe. Is it because he was intimidated by Trump? He wasn't in 2020.

      This is nuts. And it's frightening too, because it signals that he has no intention of dropping out. Which he should. Read about how foreign leaders are reacting to last night:

      https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/28/politics/foreign-diplomats-biden-debate-reaction/index.html

      ↓
  3. DFPaul

    I mean, how hard is it to make your theme "Donald Trump can't be trusted. He's full of lies and promises he breaks. Remember 'I'm going to build the wall and Mexico will pay?' Don't trust a word this guy says."

    But Biden didn't do that.

    In general, liberals suck at the big themes.

    ↓
    1. KenSchulz

      That is definitely a theme that Democrats need to promote relentlessly, Trump as _loser_; couldn't get Mexico to pay for the wall, couldn't even get Republicans in Congress to fund it; never had a health-care plan; never got an infrastructure bill through; didn't bring back any manufacturing, didn't reduce the budget or trade deficits. It will get under TFG's thin skin like nothing else. Then point to Biden's successes in health-care coverage and cost reduction, infrastructure, jobs, especially manufacturing jobs.

      ↓
  5. tzimiskes

    I read some reporting he had a cold. I am not 80 and I have had some bad enough that I felt like how he looked last night and then been fine the next day. Seeing this makes me think him being sick is true. Terrible thing if the election hinges on Biden not being able to take a sick day.

    ↓
  6. Doctor Jay

    As far as his voice volume goes: Isn't that on the person running the sound board? Maybe he was trying to sound quiet and calm (thus confident) in the setting, but the sound got bollixed?

    Also, there was probably a strategy in place to not get into a food fight with Trump at the debate. The stuff he's saying here works much better at a rally.

    ↓
    1. Salamander

      Whenever I have timed a debate down at the local teevie station, the staff gives every candidate a microphone check before the program starts, to make sure they're coming through and there's no feedback or other nuisance noise. Every candidate, party affiliation or none. Every one of them.

      Isn't CNN supposed to be more professional than a small town teevie station?

      ↓
  8. Gilgit

    I didn't watch the debate, but I know what Kevin means about his voice. A few months ago Kevin linked to a speech Biden gave at a McCain remembrance event from late last year. I watched some of it. I believe Biden spoke about McCain for over 30 minutes and didn't have a prepared text. He was obviously in full control of his faculties. However, as Kevin noted at the time, his voice sounded weak. It was quite quiet. I jumped to three quarters through the speech and Biden still sounded the same, but then he suddenly got louder and spoke with a much more normal volume or tone or whatever. And then after a little while his voice returned to the much quieter and weaker state.

    It is common for old people to have trouble modulating their voice. I'm sure his handlers talk to him about it. I'm sure they can show him recordings so he can be aware of when his voice is quiet. I really don't know why he was so unprepared last night.

    As for the people talking about sundowning. Biden has met many, many times with Republicans in the evening. None reported anything like that and they sure would have if he'd shown any signs. I'd also mention that there are no behind the scenes reports, no whispers, that the many, many meetings with advisors or the security apparatus in the evenings show him unable to perform his duties. Nothing. Not even any kind of rumors of having to schedule meetings before a certain time to make sure he is at his best.

    Oh, and most people assumed Biden was going to take a nap during the day to make sure he was refreshed. If you want to believe it is sundowning go ahead. I can only say there's a huge amount of data saying that isn't the case.

    But considering the stakes involved, I have no alternative theory why Biden was so completely unprepared. He didn't have to knock the ball out of the park. All he needed to do was sound competent and hit a few talking points. He did it at the SotU, which you'll recall was at the same time of day. I'm stumped. Maybe he just had one really bad day and it happened to be last night?

    Oh, wait. As a complete contrast to what I just wrote, I heard several other people talking about how Biden sounded last night after the debate. He again seemed normal, like he does today. How to explain it? Maybe he just choked?

    ↓
      1. Gilgit

        If his voice is so weak you can't make out what he is saying then that is a problem. Kevin says he had trouble making out what he was saying. I've previously heard people say that Biden sometimes trails off at the end of the sentence. That's not good.

        He sounded normal today. Looks like someone above made reference to the recording of him after the debate where he again sounded normal. He sounded normal during the SotU. Most people aren't complaining if his voice is a little weak or quiet. But he can't sound like he's lost it.

        ↓
    2. cld

      Sundowning involves hallucinations, and he wouldn't be particularly capable at any other time of the day. If he were having any effect like that he would have to retire immediately and there would be no disguising it.

      ↓
      1. Gilgit

        A quick google search will list symptoms like you mentioned, but when I've heard the term used by regular people, they normally are referring to old people who lose awareness as the day goes on.

        I had a grandma who I tried visiting the last year of her life. I tried talking to her at 6:00. Tried again at 5:00 before concluding that she wasn't there anymore. Just kept falling asleep or not seeming able to focus on a conversation. I talked with other family members who claimed that she was fine when they visited her in the morning.

        I believe that is what most people are talking about when they say Sundown Syndrome or Sundowning.

        ↓
  9. reino2

    Every incumbent has done horribly in the first debate. I don't understand it, but it has happened every single time.

    Also, it has never affected the polls, even in the short run.

    ↓
      3. roboto

        You don't remember the wailing when Trump won or the call for safe places when Trump was inaugurated? You don't remember Jan 6 when the party insisted that we almost had a dictatorship and Trump for life?

        ↓
        1. Crissa

          The part where several people died, including officers, due to injuries during an attempt to take the Capitol that the President refused any federal assistance to stop until it was basically over?

          ↓
    1. Salamander

      We might as well spread it around. Trump kept raging on and on about "giving Biden a shot in the @$$" (so cultured! genteel!) So obviously, that's just what he or one of his Toadies did.

      ↓
  17. zaphod

    There is a good editorial statement today in Raw Story. I quote from it.

    "When you’re president, your main job is to make good decisions and keep the country running smoothly and safely, both domestically and internationally.

    When you’re running for president as a candidate, though, your job is quite different: your new job is to inspire hope, communicate your leadership vision and turn out the vote.

    In this regard, President Joe Biden — as correct as he's been on policy — has failed. For months, we've watched Biden, who would be 86 years old on the last day of his second term come Jan. 20, 2029, lose the vitality, vigor and mental sharpness that marked his time as a senator and vice president.

    Last night, Biden confirmed that on the biggest of stages, pitted against his most formidable foe, Donald Trump, that he's no longer up to the challenge of securing the nation's future as a robust democracy. Biden provided irrefutable evidence that he is incapable of leading this country forward in the 21st century.

    It's vital to acknowledge that Biden has led the country through an extraordinarily difficult time in American history. He inherited the worst mess from a predecessor since Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president after Herbert Hoover crashed the country into the Great Depression.

    Biden has shepherded groundbreaking infrastructure and climate bills. He was the first Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson to openly repudiate neoliberalism and put America back on FDR's progressive track. He's aided student borrowers. He's taken on giant monopolies, big banks, dysfunctional airlines and big polluters. And he’s defended democracy valiantly in Ukraine and around the world, which now, again, respects America.

    Biden has also nominated some of the most diverse and brilliant judges and agency heads in the history of our nation. He's been a consequential president, perhaps the most consequential in the lifetime of many of us, even boomers.

    But whoever made the decision to put Biden head-to-head against a felonious reality TV star with no moral compass should never again darken the doors of a Democratic campaign.

    More importantly, because CNN licensed last night’s debate to all the other networks, and therefore will almost certainly turn out to have had the largest presidential debate TV audience in American history, it’s time for the Democratic Party to see what everyone else in America did: Biden cannot serve for four more years.

    This election is too important to indulge one man's desire to hang onto his office. The winner of this election will literally define the future of democracy as a form of governance both in America and worldwide. And the success — or failure — of the Democratic presidential candidate will have far-reaching effects on U.S. Senate and U.S. House races that will determine whether Republicans or Democrats win majorities.

    As late in the election season as we may be, it's not too late for the Democratic Party to replace Biden. It’s not as if the Democratic Party is lacking in talent. There are some superstars and some sleepers. And a decision about the Democratic Party's presidential nominee isn't real and official until late August when the Democratic National Convention takes place in Chicago. Making a change is a mind-boggling responsibility, but Democrats may have little choice if they want to win a White House that Biden is at grave risk of losing.

    Biden has done an admirable job in his role as president. But it’s time for serious soul-searching. It's time for the Democrats to do what's both difficult and necessary. It's time for Joe Biden to retire with the gratitude of the nation and step aside for that nation's good."

    ↓
    1. bbleh

      Silly nonsense. "Step aside" in favor of what better candidate? Whose identity and superiority as a candidate mysteriously remain unknown even now?

      Just do the damn spade-work. Identify Dem-leaning low-propensity voters and get 'em registered and lined up to vote. That's what's gonna win it. Enough with the One Weird Trick drama.

      ↓
      3. zaphod

        What you regard as silly nonsense has acquired a sizable presence in post-debate discourse. Deal with it.

        And as far as "what candidate can do better than Biden"?Yesterday, commenter 'lower-case" had this to say:

        when you're barreling toward a brick wall at 70 mph and your brakes fail you don't say 'well, nothing to be done since the handbrake might not work either'

        ↓
    2. cld

      This is just psychotic.

      Changing horses midstream will never work, shooting your horse midstream and hoping another will just happen by is insanity.

      Joe Biden isn't the only person who has a job here. You have a job too. Your job is to not fuck this up.

      ↓
      2. zaphod

        No, the job of fucking things up is already taken, by Biden. And his faithful sycophants who are in no short supply here.

        The job of the Republicans is to win. I wish I could say the same about Democrats. Instead, they fail to perceive plain reality and offer nothing but tired old rationalizations. (and metaphors, like shooting your horse midstream).

        It is likely that my real job is to figure out how to survive the coming Trump presidency/dictatorship.

        ↓
        2. cld

          You're working for Trump or against him. It's a binary choice, there is no middle, there is no alternative.

          If anyone in Biden's position could be successfully replaced at a moment like this you would be able to find some precedent for it. There is none at all.

          Snap out of it.

          ↓
            2. cld

              That's sophistry because being a black man, or some other kind of man, is a characteristic, where the problem here is a circumstance.

              You cannot physically do it because the only way you could would be if there were some alternative who already had overwhelming acceptance and acclimation.

              There is no such person and there won't be.

              Joe Biden is the only person here, and if you're not working for him you're working for Trump.

              ↓
          3. lower-case

            we have biden, with a significant number of voters doubting whether he's up to the task, not very inspiring, and behind in swing-state polling where elections are decided

            in 2016 the public never had any serious doubts that hillary had the experience to do the job; she wasn't very inspiring, but she was leading in the polls

            and she lost the swing states

            that's also a precedent we all need to be aware of

            ↓
  18. Jimm

    It is important to understand that Trump has been in full-blown campaign mode for months now, while Biden has not. Trump is very unlikely to pick up any more support except potentially a small amount post-debate. This means Biden, or whoever stands in his place if he chooses to step aside, still has a lot of ground to gain, especially as vulnerable Trump is on both substance and character.

    So the bounce back today is a positive in that respect, and whether they planned to start full-blown campaign mode the day after the debate or not, it probably must happen now to settle Democrats' nerves and keep the donors from scattering.

    There was a justifiable shock last night after the first few minutes, then first 10 minutes, and then even first 20 minutes, and it will be hard for some to shake this impression, but Joe did rally and win the second half of the debate (the only question being how many viewers stuck around that long).

    ↓
    1. Jimm

      I don't believe he was coached that well either, he should have been focused more on generalities, contrasts between himself and Trump, pounding on Roe v Wade, IVF and Jan 6, touting the stock market at all-time high, the economy very strong comparatively worldwide and inflation on the way down, violent crime way down nationwide, and only barely mentioning policy stuff, aside from listing major accomplishments and hammering home that a bipartisan immigration bill was denied (a little of which Joe did, but would have liked to see him more energized from the get-go).

      It's also very important to point out at every opportunity that there is no massive crime wave going, the numbers and evidence show crime trending down, especially the most serious crimes, and reports otherwise are just sensational exaggeration.

      ↓
      1. lower-case

        It's also very important to point out at every opportunity that there is no massive crime wave going

        no stats needed:

        "While crime actually fell in my administration, the most serious crimes took place on Jan 6th and in mar a lago"

        ↓
  19. bbleh

    Personally, *I'M* gonna go with the theory that it's all a CONSPIRACY to LURE REPUBLICANS INTO A FALSE SENSE OF CONFIDENCE. The sneaky Dems weren't prepping Biden on facts or policy; they were coaching him on how to FAKE looking old and feeble, so he can suddenly AMBUSH Republicans and STEAL the election!!!11!!

    How do we know this is true? HE WAS JUST FINE AFTERWARDS!!!! Ohhh, this is a DEEP one, people; DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!

    ↓
  20. lower-case

    sorry for the dump here...

    but it doesn't matter if he's ok this morning, the big game was last night

    trump's people got all the footage they needed and those ads were in the can before the cock crowed

    how many mulligans does biden get before he has his come to jesus moment?

    the state of the union wasn't some great shining moment in oratory, it just happened that he cleared an absurdly low bar

    you really wanna roll the dice and hope the second debate is any better? or, most likely, slightly better, but much too little and waaaay too late

    the danger now isn't that the undecideds swing to trump, it's that the biden voters get demoralized and just don't show up and he gets blown out by 10 points and the republicans claim a mandate with the full backing and support of a compliant scotus

    and in trump admin 2, the impotent dems will be reduced to pointing out how unfair it all is and calling republicans cruel hypocrites, which does nothing but accentuate the dem's weakness and incompetence

    finally, the press will settle on the narrative that they failed because they couldn't bring themselves to face reality and make the hard calls, reinforcing the framing that dems are inherently weak while republicans are strong

    no one loves a loser; pollyanna and her "we'll pull it out by october" can go fuck herself

    ↓
    1. Crissa

      How many mulligans, you say, while ignoring the felon who lied?

      What the ever loving fuck are you talking about? Democracy isn't worth saving because the President stuttered?

      Watch the last 30 minutes of the debate.

      ↓
      1. ruralhobo

        I wish you would stop accusing people of not wanting to save democracy when that, precisely, is what they're trying to do. You think only Biden can. Most people are starting to think almost any Dem can except Biden. But they're not accusing Biden supporters like you of not caring about democracy; only of being blind. You can accuse them of blindness in turn if you like. Fair enough. But no one except Trump supporters are uncaring about democracy.

        ↓
  22. painedumonde

    It's called sleep. He got a good six, seven hours. And the pressure was off.

    I know that the president is supposed to take this in stride, but it's like facing the assault at Helm's Deep and there's no Rohirrim coming... it's exhausting.

    ↓
  23. zic

    I think it's possible Biden simply could not hear clearly due to some sort of technical glitch. I've seen very competent musicians similarly choke on stage for the same reason.

    ↓
  25. ruralhobo

    So, all it takes is one spasm of energy for people to circle the wagons again around a declining old man. He (sometimes) can speak well! He is not (always) incoherent! He comes across as comfortable (when surrounded by supporters)! If the proverbial 3 AM call comes, let him have enough sleep! The world will surely be willing to freeze in place during his lapses and colds and all will be fine! The problem is not Joe! It's people who don't believe he's up to it!

    Joe is not up to it. Moments of clarity aren't enough. Most people have seen members of their family decline and yet also show sharpness, even wisdom, at times. They'd never give them the car keys anyway past a certain point. That's the problem here. Not the media, not the unfaithful, but real-life experience people have with terminal decline in loved ones. When they see it, they know it.

    ↓
      2. ruralhobo

        A small stutter? If you can convince a hundred million Americans that what they saw last night was "a small stutter", I'll applaud.

        As for the other guy, no one is ignoring him otherwise people wouldn't be terrified by Biden's performance.

        ↓
  26. bigcrouton

    All the excuses I'm seeing on this site are pathetic: the bad lighting, the bad debate prep, his cold, the volume on his mic not turned up high enough, etc. Get real. It was a fiasco for Biden. Independent voters will not be able to unsee what they saw, and no amount of "normal" Biden on the campaign trail will fix what happened, since the only ones at his rallies will be from the the choir. Biden needs to drop out and step down. But he needs to get over his stubborn pride to do it, and that's a tall order. There are plenty of viable alternatives out there, and there is time to put on a winning campaign. Many people are hungering for a "not Biden". We love him, but his time is past.

    ↓
    2. soapdish

      "There are plenty of viable alternatives out there..."

      Tell me how this goes down if Harris is the nominee.
      Then tell me how this goes down if Harris is *not* the nominee.

      Explain it to me like I'm five.

      ↓
  27. lower-case

    wapo ed board:

    The best scenario, should Mr. Biden drop out, would be for the party to invite several interested candidates to consider running and ask them to spend the next seven weeks in a series of debates. The convention would then be thrown open to these candidates. The deciders would be Democratic convention delegates, not primary voters. But the process would be transparent.

    ↓
      2. Anandakos

        People vote for electors, not candidates. If the Democrats chose someone else they would just say "Check the box for Biden-Harris" and the electors will vote for "X" [being whomever they pick]

        ↓
      3. kennethalmquist

        Getting on the ballot is not a problem; it’s pretty much automatic for the Democratic Party nominee to appear on the ballot.

        On the other hand, an alternate candidate wouldn’t have much time to put together a campaign, though they could perhaps hire en mass from the (former) Biden campaign. Without name recognition or the other benefits of incumbency, an alternate candidate would start out well behind, and would have a very short time to put together a campaign and execute a strategy to close the gap.

        ↓
    3. kenalovell

      I cannot think offhand of a less suitable process to select a president than to have candidates participate in a series of "debates".

      You know who is really good at debating? Boris Johnson. Nigel Farage. Parliamentarians who have spent their lives learning and practising how to debate. Lawyers who make a living arguing cases before juries. None of it tells us anything about their ability to run the government.

      ↓
  28. raoul

    I think one had good days and bad days and the older you get the more bad days you have. Also whose idea was to start the debate so late- political malpractice. If I was Biden, after one very successful term, I would just retire at the ripe age of 82.

    ↓

Leave a Reply