Risk-Aversion

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:09


Josh Marshall and Matthew Yglesias both ask a really question about Obama's recent slew of endorsements.  Why are risk-averse red state and swing state politicians getting on the Obama bandwagon if Clinton is the one perceived as having the strong advantage right now?  There are many possible reasons, and I can't figure it out.  What do you think?
Matt Stoller :: Risk-Aversion

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Risk-Aversion | 54 comments
Partisanship means they lose (4.00 / 3)
Partisanship means they lose.  They have a much easier time winning in a less partisan environment which is what Obama is going for. 
Down Ticket (4.00 / 1)
They likely see him as stronger down ticket in red and swing states.  Even if he loses, I imagine he's more popular with their constituents than Hillary, such that an endorsement benefits them no matter what.
Pretty Much (0.00 / 0)
They feel that Obama is the stronger candidate in their states for down ticket races and in general for expanding our majorities in the house and the senate.  I think that risk averse is perhaps the right category for some of these people.  They didn't endorse before Iowa because they needed proof that he *could* win.

They know their states, and if they hear the same things I do when I talk to Republicans and moderates it is that they will never respect Hilary as a person, but that they like Obama for acknowledging that we are all in this together and we may agree on policies, but there are principles that unite us as Americans.  With Obama they can disagree on how to do what needs to be done, but agree that he honestly thinks he is doing the right thing.

I think that the Clintons believe, but that they have lost all benefit of the doubt from half of the country.  Obama is a president that many red staters can agree to disagree with.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
Aversion to Hillary, not to risk (0.00 / 0)
A long interview with Claire McCaskill appeared in the New Yorker sometime in 2006, I believe.  She talked about her candidacy, how she needed to soft-pedal some issues (abortion comes to mind) to get elected,  But she also said how much she hoped that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the nominee in 2008, that she was unpopular in Missouri and some other nearby states and that she would be a disaster for downticket races.  She felt Hillary was just too polarizing.  This was before Obama was taken seriously as a candidate, and I don't recall her having a specific other choice.

I do think that there is a long-standing belief in many parts of the country (but seemingly not the northeast) that Hillary would not be the best candidate for the Dem Party and for downticket races.  A presidential candidate always sucks a good deal of the air out of the political space, but Hillary and especially with Bill campaigning so hard for her REALLY sucks the air out--just look at the level of discourse about the race now.  Not only are so many people talking about fairly trivial but loaded issues, but in addition to the GOPers all being up in arms about her, now Dems for other candidates are at the throats of Hillary Dems in some cases in ugly ways.  it was bad on the net in 2004, but did not touch the loaded issues of race and sex like this.

In addition, Obama has the language, both oral and body language, of the midwest because of his long association with his maternal grandparents.  This is why he did well in downstate Illinois and in Iowa.  Hillary left the Midwest for college and law school, then after Arkansas came to DC then NY.  She is and is viewed as an "eastern liberal", I believe, while Obama is seen as something more complex and in some fundamental ways more reassuring west of the northeast/mid Atlantic states.

I agree with Josh that the endorsers see things in their states that lead them to believe not only that Obama would be better for the races in their own states, but that he will probably win.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Independents and Republicans (4.00 / 2)

Hey, everyone has been saying for months that Obama's appeal is to independents and disaffected Republicans as well as Democrats.  Iowa showed that, and if McCain hadn't been resurrected in New Hampshire, Obama would have taken that state as well with independent votes.  He also appeals to quite a group of disaffected progressive Democrats who feel that the party's ossified ruling class (Clinton, et. al.) are really more comfortable playing in the 50-50 world than trying to change the universe to an effective governing majority.  Add to that the fact that Clinton has been demonized by the right wing noise machine for a decade and a half and, as such, might energize and bring out the Republican base (I know it's not fair, but it is what it is) and I think it becomes fairly clear why politicians who have to appeal to independents and Republicans would want Obama at the head of the ticket and not Clinton.
I agree (0.00 / 0)
A lot of Obama support is an anti-Clinton vote (and vice versa.) A big anti-Clinton turnout in red states would hurt local democrats who straddle the fence.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)
[ Parent ]
You are right about the 50-50 .. (4.00 / 1)
look how the Clintons left the Democratic party .. he lost Congress after only 2 years in office .. compared to 6 for the Decider .. and Terry McAuliffe ran the DNC into the ground
[ Parent ]
Not sure that's right (0.00 / 0)
Didn't he raise a shitload of money, open a modern DNC office and also bring them up to date technologically?  I'm not a big fan of his, but we have to give credit where it's due.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
[ Parent ]
So what? .. (0.00 / 0)
What's more important? .. Look what those six years got us.  Not only that, but the whole Bush first term.
[ Parent ]
Several reasons (4.00 / 1)
I largely agree with the commenters above, but would like to add a few more points and elaborate a bit:

1) They fear the down-ticket effects of a Clinton nomination. That said, I don't think that comes from their constituents. They're all moderate or conservative and they'll be following the conventional wisdom. Early polling can only tell us so much, but Clinton hasn't done appallingly in match-ups in swing and red states thus far - she's even performed Obama in much of the midwest. Hell, I'm not sure Ben Nelson has any connection to his constituents - Nebraska is socially conservative but is open to populism, so why would they want a corporate stooge who has marginally less socially regressive policies than his Republican opponents?
Also, this reason can be exaggerated. Nelson and McCaskill aren't up again until 2012 and I can't see either of them caring that much if other Democrats in their state lose - Nelson especially will probably benefit from being a 'tama' Democrat.
2) They approve of his post-partisan message. None of the three senators are combative voices. They haven't done much to build their state parties. Nobody, no matter how sceptical, believes that Barack Obama is to the right of Ben Nelson, but the rhetoric fits. If Nelson twists the message in a more Liebermanesque direction then he quietens the grassroots and makes it harder for a Republican rabble-rouser to come at him. And if Obama abandons the message when the Republicans refuse to play fair then Nelson can easily go back to abandoning the party.
3) Some of them may be angling for future promotion - Napolitano has been mentioned as a potential VP. Certainly that's unlikely with Clinton - here campaign is too cautious to put two women on the ticket. She could also leverage the rhetoric about unity into a challenge to McCain - arguing that she's not challenging him as a Democrat so much as on grounds of competence and age. Likewise Nelson has been talked up as a running mate for Clinton and whilst he denied the rumours, he may have figured that if Clinton is picking a conservative to run with she'll pick Bayh. If Obama wants a good-for-nothing Dem then Nelson might work.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Since when is Ben Nelson open to populism? (0.00 / 0)


Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
He isn't (0.00 / 0)
I thought that was my entire point.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Whoops! (4.00 / 1)
I read your comment about Nebraska wrong.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
I thought he was a populist of sorts (0.00 / 0)
Maybe not the same sort of populist as John Edwards, but ontheissues.org seems to consider him a "Populist Conservative".  I don't think populism is a monolithic movement, so there is definitely room for variation.

Actual populist or not, I think that Ben Nelson is appealing to a great number of populist voters and I suspect that Democratic voters whose views most resemble Ben Nelson are going to be more attracted to John Edwards than to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I think Josh Marshall might be thinking too hard (4.00 / 2)
The Obama campaign has been sitting on some of these endorsements for a rainy day and has had many in the pipeline.  Now they release them nice and slowly one at a time to get as much press coverage as possible.

The Kerry endorsement, for example, they've been sitting on since at least early December.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

And If They'd Used Kerry Earlier (4.00 / 3)
They might not have lost New Hampshire.

It's called "too clever by half."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Except they thought they had NH. n/t (0.00 / 0)


Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
hence the too clever by half. you proved Paul's point. (4.00 / 1)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
All this really does is keep positive press going for Obama.  Obama already had that after Iowa, so I doubt the endorsements would have actually helped.  Replacing some positive press with other positive press probably doesn't do much to change the narative, overall.

Clearly, these endorsements help now.  Instead of just talking about Clinton's comeback and the race versus gender issue, they get all this positive talk about endorsements.  It almost gives the impression that Obama has the momentum instead of Hillary.  (And he might, as at the end of the day "momentum" is just fragment of our imagination.)

[ Parent ]
Kerry Had A Certain Weight In New Hampshire (0.00 / 0)
It's not just that he won New Hampshire last time out, though that's not a bad start.

Kerry's from right next door.  He's well known to them through the Boston Media market, and a lot of his support ended up going to Clinton, when some of that support surely could have been swayed by him, particularly if he'd actively campaigned with Obama.

Other endorsements might not mean that much, but I subscribe to the notion that one can clump such endorsements together to create mini-narratives that further flesh the main campaign narrative. I think that there was a very clear opportunity to create a bridge from Iowa to New Hamspire, and they just blew it.

Perhaps because they believed their own hype.  A cardinal sin in the trade.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It makes no sense to release them now .. (4.00 / 1)
as Paul pointed out .. Kerry's endorsement might have helped them do better in NH ... also .. Senators and Governors have to keep their options open .. we know that the Clinton's are vindictive .. and that they value loyalty .. so what does it benefit someone like McCaskill to endorse now? .. when Obama isn't riding as high?
[ Parent ]
It makes a lot of sense to endorse now (4.00 / 1)
A succession of endorsements now helps to arrest any incipient Obama decline. And if they're on the right of the party, they prevent Clinton claiming any monopoly of that cross-section, whilst reassuring the liberals who tend to go for Obama.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
But what good do they do Obama? ... (0.00 / 0)
Kerry endorsing after NH doesn't do him any good ... and what are Obama's numbers in Nebraska and Missouri?
[ Parent ]
Not the only consideration (0.00 / 0)
Endorsements consume media cycles. A continuous stream of positive news is worth a lot, even if the endorsements aren't actually that useful.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
But again .. what does it do .. (4.00 / 1)
especially in the case of Kerry? ..  he needed that endorsement before NH .. not after
[ Parent ]
I Agree With Englishlefty About A Slew Of Endorsements Now (0.00 / 0)
But they damn well should have used Kerry much earlier, and a few of those endorsements between Iowa and New Hampshire.

Now, I think, there's really no point in holding back.  But they badly misplayed the advantage they had, or they wouldn't be on the defensive right now.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
No argument on that one (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you and Calvin - Kerry's endorsement should have been put out there beforehand. Not sure why they decided to wait.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
You'd Better Agree With Me When I Agree With You (0.00 / 0)
I've got quite enough "this statement is false" running around my head without any additional help from others, thank you.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
The Obama camp's (4.00 / 1)
stated rationale was two-fold:

1. "The endorsement was weeks in the making. In the final days before the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Kerry was on the verge of announcing his support for Mr. Obama, aides said, but a final decision wasn't made because it wasn't clear how it would affect the campaign. So Mr. Kerry decided to hold off on the endorsement until after New Hampshire primary."

That makes sense, but it's wishy-washy. I guess you can defend it inasmuch as Iowa is SO unpredictable, why inject one more variable--one that you're not entirely sure about?

But then I think they screwed up in not announcing Kerry's endorsement on the Sunday before NH.

But they SAY they were saving it for SC:

2. "South Carolina was selected by Mr. Obama's campaign as the site for the endorsement, aides said, to bolster his effort to win the state's primary on Jan. 26. It was designed to send the explicit message to voters here that Mr. Obama is a stronger candidate than Mr. Edwards, who was born in the state."

That makes sense, if you think you're going to beat Hillary by 10 points in NH, and you want a weapon against Edwards in SC. Still, that's both "believing your own hype" and "too clever by half," as Mr. Rosenberg has ably pointed out.

[ Parent ]
people say she actually loathes the Clintons. (0.00 / 0)
Don't blame her, actually.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Inevitability vs. the Future (0.00 / 0)
The bandwagon pols jumped on the Clinton Express back when she was a shoo-in.  The pols jumping on the Obama bandwagon realize that he is the future.  Obama is the candidate of a rising generation.  He is going to be around a long time even if Hillary wins this round.
Lime or Grape? (4.00 / 1)
Your Kool Aid, sir!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Don't be a dick. (4.00 / 2)
He made a comment which he likely believes to be real analysis. Give a decent argument why he is wrong, don't simply dismiss him as a Kool Aid drinking wahoo.
[ Parent ]
There Is A Cogent Argument To Be Made (4.00 / 2)
But he didn't make it.

He recited his Kool Aid chant instead.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You are right. (4.00 / 2)
He didn't make a good argument. That isn't an excuse for dickery. Tell him why he is wrong, it will make the discussion as a whole a lot better.
[ Parent ]
Sorry, Dude, Snark's My Middle Name (0.00 / 0)
It's a question of balance.  Sometimes you spend 6 hours writing a detailed analytical diary.  And you have to balance that out with some snark.  Otherwise, the force is distrubed and an angel loses its wings.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Hahahaha (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
I think This Election is like 1984 in the Dem. Party (4.00 / 1)
Among Democrats 1984 was a generational election.  Based on my experience and also the work of the late William Strauss, who co-write a great book called "Generations" I think this pre-convention struggle is a lot like 1984.  Obama is, clearly, the candidate of younger voters and there are an awful lot of them who are being drawn into the process.  The data, at least in Iowa & New Hampshire, is overwhelming.  Clinton, clearly, is the candidate of the old guard in the Democratic party and older voters.  The  Is that really a subject of debate? 


[ Parent ]
Gary Hart Never Clearly Defined What He Was For (0.00 / 0)
And Obama is repeating Hart's mistake.

In order to represent the future, you actually need something a little more substantive than a shinny dayglo sign that says "The Future."

Is that really a subject of debate?

Well, actually, I guess it is.

But seeing the level of said debate, I'll simply observe that gentlemen prefer snark. 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Another cheap hit (0.00 / 0)
So does the make HRC Walter Mondale.  Mondale lost 49 states you know, or is that what you guys mean by the 50-state-strategy.
[ Parent ]
The Wages of Snark (0.00 / 0)
are descent into total incomprehension.  I have no idea what you're trying to say, but absolute certainty that I'm partly to blame for this cryptic state of affairs.

You do realize, I hope, that that "Gentleman prefer snark" comment was at least halfways an exercise in self-mockery?

It just doesn't do to take yourself too seriously.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Risk averse or strategic thinking? (4.00 / 1)
People often think of risk averse as a bad thing. If elected officials are supporting Obama because they believe he will be better for down ticket races I would think of it as "strategic thinking." We must remember that we have a 1 seat majority in the U.S. Senate.

This cycle is a target rich environment, but the next two cycles likely will not be as forgiving. Winning the presidency at the cost of either house in the near future would not be worth it to most Democrats. If Obama could put together a larger governing coalition in the general election, he should win the support of red state Democrats.

Kiss your 50 state strategy goodbye (4.00 / 1)
President HRC will focus all party resources (mostly money) on her re-election in 2012.

Just After She's Finished With the Firing Squads! (0.00 / 0)
I'm no Clinton fan, but don't folks realize that these sorts of lame zingers actually build sympathy for her?

What evidence (outside of your gut) do you have to support this theory of yours?  And the implicity counter-theory that it wouldn't be true of any other candidate?

It's just a pathetic attempt to score points that will probably backfire.

There are plenty of substantive reasons to favor others over Clinton.  That should be more than enough.

Instead, you're trying to make the Versailles media look good by predicting four years in advance, rather than just five days.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Paul ... (4.00 / 1)
You of all people ought to know better ... how does it build sympathy for her when it is the truth .. Terry McAuliffe running the DNC into the ground .. a popular president losing Congress after 2 years ..  when Boosh .. being the asshat he is .. kept it for 6 ... do you really think the DLC has helped the party? .. If thinking like that ... when there is evidence to back it up ... causes sympathy for Clinton .. then this is really a world that's messed up .. and very much off the rails
[ Parent ]
They lived through the 1990s (4.00 / 1)
That doesn't mean they want to repeat them. Having experienced the disaster of 1994 and the world of hurt that unleashed on Bill, why would Hillary want to stand by and let that happen again? They may not be fully signed up to the 50 state strategy, but that doesn't mean they'll deny resources to the rest of the party.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
And are you comfortable .. (4.00 / 1)
with the people they'd support? .. the Rahm Emanuel's?  The Harold Ford Jr.'s? ... The Joe Lieberman's?  I'm not.  They give Democrats a bad name.
[ Parent ]
Of course I'm not (4.00 / 1)
But whilst a Hillary Clinton administration won't be massively different from a Bill Clinton one, it'll probably try not to make the same mistakes.

Some systemic errors that they don't accept as such may be perpetuated, but more cosmetic alterations - such as heavy funding in congressional races to preserve a majority - will be. Bill thought he could manage with a GOP congress. I'd be surprised if Hillary thinks the same.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Englishlefty Said It Perfectly (0.00 / 0)
One certainly can make an argument that the Clintons won't learn from their mistakes, and the party will simply roll over and play dead as well.  But you're going to actually have to make the argument.

Otherwise, you just come off like one more thoughtless campaign shill.

Over-the-top dogmatic assertions just don't cut it.

I have very sound, deeply grounded reasons for oppossing the Clintons.  They've been a disaster for the Party.  It bugs me no end when folks jam the airwaves with cheap hits.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sen. Claire McCaskill too... (0.00 / 0)
...another risk-averse, red state (Missouri is redish purple) politician for Obama. 
McCaskill discussed it in 2006 (4.00 / 1)
The New Yorker, 5-29-06:
 
Hillary Clinton is a sensitive subject for McCaskill. After the governor's race two years ago, many Missouri Democrats assumed that in 2008 McCaskill would make another run against Matt Blunt, the Republican who defeated her. But she has told people in Missouri and in Washington that a ticket led by Clinton would be fatal for many Democrats on the ballot, and that a Clinton candidacy would rule out her chance to win the governorship. "The Democratic Party has to look at candidates who can be competitive in all fifty states," she said....

  Across Missouri, I heard similar fears. At a breakfast fund-raiser for McCaskill in Kansas City, Katheryn J. Shields, a Democrat who is the chief executive of Jackson County, which encompasses Kansas City, said of Hillary Clinton, "She's great." But when asked if Clinton should be the Party's nominee, Shields said, "That would be a hard one." The outgoing executive director of the Greene County Democrats, Nora Walcott, was more direct. Though she said she was to the left in the Party, she feared that Clinton's liberal credentials would alienate Missouri voters. "You've got to tell the people in Washington not to nominate Hillary," she told me. "It would do so much damage to the Missouri Democratic Party." Clinton's obvious shifts to the center frustrate Walcott on two counts, she said: "I disagree with the way she's going to the right, but my biggest problem with it is that it's not working. People don't believe she's a moderate."

Only a few nationally known Democrats have been invited to Missouri to speak on Claire McCaskill's behalf; one was Obama, whom she described as "so popular that we have to get him back." Obama returns the compliment: McCaskill, he told me, "is a terrific candidate who is deeply rooted in Missouri and understands the people of Missouri." He added, "A successful swing-state candidate can and should stand for progressive values, but they've got to appeal to common sense and pragmatism as opposed to ideology. I think what doesn't work in these places is a sense that you are ideologically liberal."

Thanks for citing the article (0.00 / 0)
I discussed it above from memory but didn't have the link.  I had actually not remembered that she did speak highly of Obama then.  I think it is for the reasons I discussed in my post above.  That midwestern whites are comfortable with him because of his language and body language absorbed from his maternal grandparents was from another New Yorker article, sometime in early 2005, I believe.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Not much Risk; better now than later (4.00 / 1)
good comments about down-ticket dynamics, moderate inclinations, and aversion to Clinton II. But I think if you examine the potential risks to each pol, and the benefits to Obama of announcing now, you get some good answers.

RISKS
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD): None. A Daschle protege, he would have been expected to join the Obama camp. A Clinton nomination could even improve his own Senate reelection chances.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE): None. His power dynamics in the Senate, such as they are, would not change under President Hillary. They would be enhanced under President Obama.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): Arguably has the most to lose. An Obama loss to Clinton or in November dims her luster at home and her leverage in Washington. But she's long been on the record disdaining Clinton as polarizing and bad for Missouri. The potential rewards far outweigh her risks.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ): Not much to lose. A Clinton win means she probably doesn't get a Cabinet appointment. So what? As a term-limited governor, in 2010 she challenges McCain in the Senate--or runs for his open seat. (And if McCain somehow wins the Presidency? No, she can't appoint herself to his seat--she would have to appoint a Republican as an interim. But she could, I believe, call a special election, and then run herself.)

TACTICS
I think these pols were clear in their own minds that they were going to endorse Obama. So if you got it, use it.

As pointed out above, these news cycles help in the interim between NH and Nevada. Especially after a close loss.

But the support could also help a lot in MO and AZ on Feb. 5, and Napolitano can help in NV.

Florida Superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
To add to the discussion regarding risk-aversion, Florida seems to be a pretty good indicator about what, if any, risks are associated with the Sunshine State.  So far I can only find three committed superdelegates not for Clinton:  Representative Robert Wexler and two DNC officials, Allan Katz and Jon Ausman.  Of course Kucinich has declared for himself.  So far all the South Carolina superdelegates that have made a committment have gone to Clinton.  Down ticket prospects have a lot to do with supredelegate committment.  If you look and who is and who isn't it's a good indicator of how they feel that down ticket prospect look in your state.

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience

Risk-Aversion | 54 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox