Pre-South Carolina Trends Reasserting Themselves?

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 17:51


I'm sort of leaning towards Obama at this point, considering that Clinton actually applauded at Bush's discussion of the surge in Iraq.  Bleh.  It's as if the last candidate who opens their mouth sends me running towards their opponent (way to go John Edwards media strategy!).  I'm thoroughly aggravated by the village's embrace of Obama, or more accurately the savaging of the Clinton's for both gender and class reasons, but this can no longer overcome her positioning on Iraq and it does overcome his slightly more conservative positioning on health care and the economy.

That said, some ominous trends for the Obama campaign reasserted themselves in Florida.  First, the good news for Obama.  One, Edwards is keeping Obama in this race, splitting the white male vote again with Clinton.  He may yet play kingmaker.  Two, Obama won among people who decided in the last day, a reversal from Nevada.  He clearly won the last week.  [UPDATE:  He didn't win people who decided in the last day, but he won people who decided in the last three days and in the last week.]

Here are the trends that are resurfacing.

Swing Liberals

Ideology in Florida Primary, 2008

Obama lost them again, clearly an ideological split.

Iraq

Iraq in Florida Primary, 2008

Clinton is more trusted by withdrawal Democrats.

'Older' Young Voters

Age in Florida Primary, 2008

Much younger voters love Obama, but 'older' younger voters who remember a more partisan time went for Clinton.  I first noticed this after New Hampshire, and it appears as if Obama's South Carolina dynamic did not change the overall messaging frame.  What's with the affinity between Gen X and the millenials, and the older gap millenials and the boomers?  South Carolina might have just be a field operation victory, though Obama is winning voters who are deciding at the last minute, and that is an improvement.

The exit polling is here.  What are you noticing?

Matt Stoller :: Pre-South Carolina Trends Reasserting Themselves?

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Pre-South Carolina Trends Reasserting Themselves? | 43 comments
It's a baseline... (4.00 / 2)
Where the race stands in places where Obama doesn't campaign or have any organization...

That's the only thing Florida is useful for.

Further Reading

Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It also shows no Kennedy effect (4.00 / 1)
Given the pundits talking about the Hispanic vote, this is significant.
[ Parent ]
I don't think the Kennedy effect (0.00 / 0)
would show itself in a single day, especially when a good chuck of the vote came in absentee before the Kennedy endorsement.
[ Parent ]
All the early states were field operation victories (0.00 / 0)
Which is why FL is useless to base anything on. We basically do not know what will happen on Feb 5th. We know if your operation is good and the demographics is with you, you should win. But what does operation mean in a Feb 5th state, can it mean anything? It is sort of a pity FL, was not for real, because while the early states have represented a bunch of stuff, they have not represented a big state, that doing a massive field operation on probably would not work. Does anyone have the "today's" voting results as opposed to with absentee ballots.
Well... (0.00 / 0)
So much for Florida being "a contest that doesn't and shouldn't matter," I guess.
delegates (4.00 / 2)
There are no delegates so it doesn't matter.  But it tells us some things about voters.

I don't understand the reluctance to do analysis of how voters made their choices.

[ Parent ]
Bad data is worse than no data (4.00 / 2)
The conditions of this primary were so weird that it seems like there's more of a danger of seeing trends that aren't there than missing trends that are.
[ Parent ]
exactly (4.00 / 2)
the data are meaningless, because the event that produced them bore no resemblance to the events that produced all the other exit poll data. the state was not contested. in that case, clinton's 16-year history as a public figure trumps all. her identification with her husband's administration, which did good things for many if not most of the over-64 voters, trumps all. there's simply no question that these numbers would have been quite different if all the candidates had campaigned. especially the young voter turnout, and overall turnout, even though it was robust.
[ Parent ]
Re: delegates (0.00 / 0)
It was a vote in which the candidates did no campaigning, where the voters knew ahead of time that their votes wouldn't count for delegates, and in which all the media attention was placed on the GOP primary.

It's the only primary this year in which Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout. How can we take that as any sort of predictor on those voters that didn't bother to show up for a beauty contest?

[ Parent ]
also (0.00 / 0)
I can't imagine too many young voters were inspired to register and go to the polls for the first time yesterday. That's been the hallmark of Obama's demographics and support so far this season.
[ Parent ]
Two things I find significant (0.00 / 0)
1.  Hispanic voters split 60/30.  This is a useful benchmark to use when evaluating Kennedy's ability to change this split.  It should be noted this is better than Obama is performing in a number of states.

In the SUSA California Poll Clinton leads among Hispanic 65-28.  The entirety of her lead in California is based on this group (Whites are tied 43-41).

2.  Jewish Voters
Clinton won 58-26

This group will be critical in NY and the Northeast, as well as California. 

In each of this two groups there is evidence of tension between them and African Americans.  How real this tension is will be answered over the next week.

[ Parent ]
Matt, you are wrong. (0.00 / 0)
Look at the data. The only thing we can confirm is that he performed equally well among all the ideological groups. This is how he does in a state in which he doesn't campaign. The fact that those who decided most recently went for Obama speaks of a very interesting trend, particularly when Clinton is "campaigning" by talking about going to Florida immediately after the vote.
interesting (0.00 / 0)
I'll have to take another look at this.
[ Parent ]
The loathesome Dick Morris (4.00 / 1)
was on Fox tonight, chortling excitedly about the fact that very late deciders went for, I think, Clinton by a small margin or were evenly divided, but earlier deciders went for Clinton by a pretty large margin.  He I think rightly sees an anti-Hillary trend in that.

HRC herself did a live interview with Chris Wallace around 10:15 and spoke about how the voters want and deserve to know what a candidate will do specifically about things like health care, the economy, etc., so that they can hold them accountable for their campaign promises when they get into office.

This strikes me as a far more effective tack to take, since trying to puncture the image of Obama's overall virtuousness was always bound to get her campaign into touchy territory and provoke cries of racism.

Obama's got his detailed position papers, of course, but he really isn't campaigning on them.  Forcing him to do so distracts his campaign from focusing so heavily on his inspirational personal qualities and would clearly put him on ground he's much less comfortable with.  (Not at all to suggest that he's uncomfortable with his positions, but just that for whatever reason, he doesn't do well in explaining/defending them in detail in debates.)

Oh, and she said quite explicitly on Fox that she's going to try to get Florida delegates seated when she's the nominee.  Unless she misspoke, that should put to rest the idea that her intention is to cheat the rules.  But speaking of accountability, we'll see how that holds up if the delegate count isn't decisive by the time of the convention.


[ Parent ]
Donna Brazille on CNN and a DNC member who voted for sanctions (4.00 / 2)
discussed that. It was very interesting.

She said that the Credentials committee of the convention decides on that and puts it to a vote at the convention. Whoever has the most delegates basically gets to decide...so she gets them if she already has the votes to win.  And I really don't think Edwards is going to make the 15% in too many of the 214 CD's at stake on Feb 5th to be a player there either in picking a nominee or seating the delegates.

Then she said that in 2004, Washington state had a beauty contest like Florida.  They then later made their delegates legitimate by holding a state convention. The Florida Democratic party and/or Michigan could do that and thereby have delegates go to Denver within the DNC rules.

No one wants such crucial states like Florida and Michigan not to have their delegates seated...not a good way to try to get Democratic activists to work to get the nominee elected.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Not a good way at all, I agree (4.00 / 1)
but the whole primary system is totally out of control, and the only way to get the states in line is to bar their delegates-- and stick with it.  But it rarely happens that I remember gigantic battles about seating delegations for one reason or another in "the old days," and they almost always seemed to get resolved in favor of seating them.

I didn't know about the subsequent state convention out from the ban.  I wonder what the barriers are to doing that in such large states?  And who picks the credentials committee members if there's no obvious nominee in advance of the convention?

The irritating thing is that the people of Florida and Michigan are innocent parties in all this.  They want to vote and to have their votes count for something, as is obvious from the enormous turnout, and the shenanigans of the state party apparatus have threatened to cancel their participation.  In pure political terms, Hillary's switcharoo on whether the delegation should be seated is smart, and I'd be surprised if it didn't affect at least some portion of the vote in Florida, and certainly will affect the loyalty of the Florida delegates if they are ultimately seated.

[ Parent ]
I talked to Jim Dean on Sunday (4.00 / 1)
He says Howard is sticking to his guns on this. Other Governors called about moving up their primaries, Howard told them what the consequence would be and they backed down. It would be unfair to the states that obeyed the DNC's rules to let those that flouted them get to seat their delegates anyway. It would also be unfair to the candidates who did not contest those states on the understanding that there were no delegates at stake.

Howard Dean in 2016
[ Parent ]
Does an ad buy constitute contesting? (0.00 / 0)
i think that's just as valid as saying her fundraiser and making a statement is contesting the state.  So they both contested the state in different ways.  He actually probably got more out of his

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
The credential committee is in the DNC rules (0.00 / 0)
It mirrors the delagate selelction process with some superdelegate appointees.

I think we all forget that Obama had a national ad buy since Nh which played in Fla.  I think that actually gave him an advantage and counts for some of his vote.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
My biggest point. (0.00 / 0)
Was that he in fact performed BEST among liberals. It was his strongest ideological group, but it was a pretty even split. So when you talk about his performance among Swing Liberals, I think it was his strongest. We can't know how he would have done had he opened his many field offices and created a volunteer corps like that in SC.
[ Parent ]
Ideology (0.00 / 0)
You can certainly make the case that Obama's numbers don't change much by ideology but Clinton's drop for Somewhat Conservatives and drop more for Very Conservatives.  Is this conservative Clinton hate?
[ Parent ]
This is one I don't get... (0.00 / 0)
As a self-indentified liberal I find Clinton the least liberal (I'll admit Obama's platform is generally more centric that Clinton's but at least his past suggests someone who is more likely to push a liberal agenda) and it baffles me to see liberals flock to her when her pedigree suggests moderate and a very center-moderate at that.  I guess the self-indentifying labels is the issue, since I imagine a lot of self-identified liberals either aren't all that liberal across the board or have just bought into the false right-wing frames regarding the Clintons being liberals.  Or has liberal changed to mean pro-free trade and corporatist policy?
[ Parent ]
And Edwards was the conservative (0.00 / 0)
Yea, go figure.  And Edwards always did best among the conservatives.  But that is what the exit polls tell us.
[ Parent ]
Thoughts (0.00 / 0)
If it wasn't for the other poll I would completely dismiss the 25-29 year olds as an outliner.  Only 60 people participated in the poll for that age group.

Liberals broke for Obama in Iowa and he did ever so slightly better among liberals in NH.  In NV we saw a break similar to this one which I discounted as a better ground game in rural regions.  Now I'm not so sure.  (SC had a strange U shape where Edwards grabbed the moderates and both Clinton and Obama did better with both liberals and conservatives; not sure why.)

Here is a strange one:

More Important to Your Vote
Issues: Clinton 45%, Obama 35%
Personal Qualities: Clinton 55%, Obama 31%

I would have expected Clinton voters to care more about issues, but that wasn't the case.

I see Edwards did best among Republicans.

I think Clinton won herself a lot of votes by publicly supporting Florida to seat it's delegates.  My guess is that is why she won those that decided on the last day, but lost for those that decided of the previous three days.

The last strange thing: 42% thought Clinton was most likely to unite the country versus only 36% for Obama.

small number statistics (4.00 / 1)
I agree, it's easy to dream up reasons, but we are talking about flipping six out of 60 people.  No one would take a difference of 10% between two polls of Florida based on 60 people seriously.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Exactly - too few young people to tell (0.00 / 0)
Let me add to your comment that in order for there to be a statistically significant difference between Obama's support among the youngest two age groups, the difference would have to be greater than 17 points!  The difference we do see - 12 points - is not statistically significant.
[ Parent ]
is it possible self described liberals (0.00 / 0)
are not as liberal as they think they are?

again I find the way the conservative vs liberal number break are just weird. are younger people maybe less likely to describe themselves as liberals? are older people backlashing against the bush-1 demonization of the word?

or do we need a better breakdown of what liberal is? online left leaning activists are more liberal than most, but they also a least likely to support hillary - so I sense that the terminology doesn't mean what it suggests. it means something or multiple things but its not what it means on the surface.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

If your implication (0.00 / 0)
is that no self-respecting liberal could possibly vote for HRC over Obama, that's simply wrong.

As a newly-minted Hillary voter since Edwards is dropping out, and someone whose ideology is on the left-most edge of liberal, I can tell you that HRC versus Obama has very little to do with liberal or not liberal, or even degrees of liberalism.

I'd put the dividing line at pragmatic versus inspirational. I like to be inspired as much as the next person and I think HRC's greatest flaw is her inability to do much inspiring.  But I'm not much moved by the kind of generalized inspiration Obama is providing, and I'm very much impressed by the aura of personal command HRC shows and her command of substance.

I'm also frankly very leery of personality cults, whether on the right or the left.  Whether Obama intends it or not (and I think he does, but that's just my sense), that's what the wild enthusiasm for his candidacy seems to me to be deriving from.

I'm very much reminded of the McCarthy/Bobby Kennedy rift in the late '60s, which tore the party apart and narrowly elected Richard Nixon when so many, many disillusioned McCarthy and Kennedy supporters stayed home rather than vote for poor old Humphrey.  The parallel is in no way exact, but one thing that is the same is the outright loathing the young McCarthy supporters had for Bobby Kennedy, the carpetbagging, dynasty-riding guy with the sharp elbows and base of support among older, less educated, lower-income voters.

Obviously, Hillary's no Bobby Kennedy and Obama's no Gene McCarthy, but the bitterness is very reminiscent and very worrisome.

[ Parent ]
I think the implication is that a liberal isn't a liberal isn't a liberal... (0.00 / 0)
We have seen that 'liberal' coalitions like Daily Kos have been behind Edwards since the beginning even if the main diarists didn't feel he was very 'liberal'.  Clinton is widely eschewed there and even Obama has underperformed compared to his national numbers.  I think that is the generally lay of the land in the blogosphere, which I hope you would agree is pretty much stock and trade liberal.

Now knowing that a site like Kos represents a large number of net liberals, we know that it only represents a tiny fraction of people in this country who self-identify as 'liberal'.  So when we see exit polls from Florida that have self-identified 'conservatives' voting largely for Edwards and self-identified 'liberals' voting largely for Clinton it makes us wonder what these terms really mean to people.

It is like that poll that Yglesias had up several weeks ago where people self-identified on average as being closer politically to the Republican candidates and yet when you look at polling of individual policies the majority of people are actually to the left of Clinton and Obama on most of the major issues.

While these poll questions are interesting, in reality they have little meaning when the pollsters don't define what is meant by the terms people are using to define themselves.  I have known people who grew up in Queens and felt they were basically conservative, but they were really to the left of me on most issues and I consider myself as on the 'left-most edge of liberal', but I grew up in Texas where my ideology is considered certifiable while my friends in NYC grew up in a decidedly more liberal culture.

[ Parent ]
Age distribution (4.00 / 1)
I'm going from memory, but I recall that the exit polls indicated that 40% of the vote came from voters 65 and older. Also, 30% said that the country is not ready for a black president. That's far higher than what most polls show (usually around 15%).

Also, if you look at the result by county, Clinton's really large margins seemed regional. In particular, she killed in Palm Beach, which gave her more than 80,000 votes to Obama's 20,000. That hurts. She also did well throughout southern Florida and certain gulf counties in the south of Florida. Obama dominated in a few counties, but there weren't nearly as many votes in those areas. And, Edwards even won a few counties.

FL counties (0.00 / 0)
She won in South and coastal counties where there is a very large "snowbird" and recent arrivals from North and Northeast. And that's where I expected her to do well. If she hadn't, well, that would be ominous for her (I'm a supporter).

One thing I noticed is that the turnout among college-age wasn't particularly high. Also, among non-AA, I wonder if that age group will vote differently in the south than in Northeast (where Obama is all the rage in the 18-24 population).

[ Parent ]
South Florida (0.00 / 0)
is essentially comprised of three groups.

Dade (Miami) is heavily cuban and african american.

Broward and West Palm to the north are mostly white and heavily jewish.  It is also older than the rest of the state.  Clinton carried the Jewish vote 58-30 which accounts for part of her margin there.

Conversely, the fastest growing part of Florida is in the I-4 corridor starts in St Pete and goes through Tampa, Orlando and ends in Daytona.  It was here that Bush won Florida on '04. It tends to be younger than Southest Florida (with the exception of St Pete).  It is less Jewish and more protestant than southern florida as well.

[ Parent ]
A couple of observations (0.00 / 0)
Anecdotally...When I petitioned to get myelf on the ballot for my State Committee post, I had lots of Republicans in their 30's who wouldn/t/couldn't sign my petition.  They were the largest percentage of Republicans on the liberal Upper West Side.  They grew up when Reagan (and Bush) was President and he was a well liked figure.  It was the beginning of the right wing framing of lots of issues. And so to me this jibes with my ananlysis of Obama as the more conservative candidate.

Edwards may be helping Obama in the voting by splitting the whote male vote, but if he doesn't make the 15% threshold (and I think he didn't in Fla)then when the vote is reapportioned he probably helps Hillary.

http://www.openleft....

There are 214 CD's in the 22 states of Super Tuesday. He only has 26 delegates now.  I don't think he's going to get lots more.

What does happen then if Edwards doesn't meet the threshold?  The percentages are recalibrated to the remaining candidates, enlarging the differential between the candidates. And so the person in the lead gets a even bigger percentage  So Clinton's lead in delegates, if she does have a lead, would be firm. So if she still leads in the big states she can pick up many more delegates than Obama Two thirds are assigned at the CD level and the other third at some kind of convention later ...usually proportioanlly as well ( if you make the threshold)

Not it's not as bad re 2/5 for the lower scoring candidate as it seems because depending on how many delegates in each CD --- and most importantly odd or even -- it may mean you could get delegates with a lower percentage than needed  (after all delegates are real people who can not be fractionated.)

But as I cited before....if she leads by over 50% of the delegates, remember there are more delegates at stake on 2/5 than later....then Obama has to do better later by a significantly higher percentage than he did in 2/5. He would have to lead in popular votes by a lot and get maybe 60% or more of the recalibrated votes(that number is one of the breakpoints in terms of getting the majority of delegates in even CD's)  He has to lead her after 2/5.....and to lead her after 2/5 he has to win the 2/5 states...in some fashion....popular votes or delegates.

People will do the numbers if the case is as I've described, then it will become clear that the sheer math makes a change in outcome extremely unlikely. It's just like 2004. Obama would then have to get the vast majority of the superdelegates....who historically though have gone the way their state voted. That too seems unlikely. So unlike many I think 2/5 could be determinative...though both candidates have enough money to keep going.

I just heard Ari Fleisher say that Republicans could have their nominee as the Democrats will keep fighting....implictly to their detriment. I agree with that.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Ari Fleisher is wishfully thinking (0.00 / 0)
I see McCain, Romney and Huckabee going to the wire.  McCain has the momentum & Romney sits on a personal personal fortune yet to be spent.  If Huckabee is really on a crusade, he'll stay to the finish.

I don't have such a crystal ball with our team, but I think we have the better chance of wrapping it up. 

[ Parent ]
The difference is they are winner take all (0.00 / 0)
and we have proportional allocation.  I alwys thought they could have a nominee sooner than was predicted.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I think you're mistaken re the surge (4.00 / 3)
Matt, I seriously doubt that Clinton was clapping with regard to the surge. I think it was more about the fact that 20,000 of those troops are coming home, basically a show of support for the troops. If you've been paying attention to her campaign message, she's spoken against the surge many times, and continued to challenge Bush's message that the surge has worked. When asked about it by the Press, she continues to tell them that it is totally irrelevant to her plans to bring the troops home immediately. So I'm not sure why you are continuing to believe something different than what she has talked about a lot on the campaign trail.
I go back an forth too, but (0.00 / 0)
the clapping won't sway me.

I think for us, since our candidates are more in synch with each other than the Reps., it's who we think can deliver.

Qualification and ability-wise it's clearly Hillary... but given the way she and Bill are treated by the right wing and the media, maybe Obama can get it done.

And sometimes I think Hillary could actually fight the RWNM whereas Bill was more like Obama and wanted to "make nice".

Then I think, Obama like the many young people without the baggage of DFH, VN and the more insidious racism of the past might be able disarm the pundits and have them on the defensive.

[ Parent ]
What are you noticing? (4.00 / 2)
I'm a Florida voter and I'm noticing I haven't had a chance to see a single one of these candidates in person. Haven't had a chance to make a first hand judgement of even one of them, let alone a comparitive judgement between them. I'm noticing that Florida issues (water policy, offshore drilling) have not been much addressed in the national media. So I'm noticing that.

I'm also noticed that every local newscast has had images of Hillary Clinton stepping off a plane in Florida and each story about the "Democratic primary" leads with the fact that Hillary Clinton supporting "the voices of Florida" (or something) and the next line is how Obama and Edwards are not contesting the election. I'm sure that had at least a little to do with why people are breaking late.

John McCain

For them to be reasserted (0.00 / 0)
They'd have to have at some point asserted themselves to begin with. That was just never gonna happen in Florida within this short timespan, particularly given the last-minute HRC gambit. These results are basically the putty from which the Super Tuesday elections will be formed. I don't see Obama with anything but steady upward movement from here on out, but the question is at what rate?
'He clearly won the last week. ' Nope - they tied (0.00 / 0)
The way CNN shows the numbers is confusing, but 'last three days' means the days before voting day, and last week means the days before the 'last three days.' Elsewhere, they have a combined 'last week' number which has a 35/35 tie. Last day was 10%, last three and last week were 6% and 7%, which totals to the 23% shown in the combined last week.
Early voting (0.00 / 0)
Clinton dominated the early voting, while Obama split the vote on polling day.  Clinton's victory was insulated from any South Carolina trends.  Also, the candidates (besides Clinton) paid no attention to Florida.

More useful comparisons right now are what's going on in Connecticut, California and Colorado.  I'll be interested to see how the rest of the post-SC polls turn out.

If Obama can manage to get close to a split on Tuesday, it'll be back to a field operation game, where I believe he has the advantage.

What are Swing Liberals? (4.00 / 1)
  Matt, much as I like your posts, I think in the context of these primary elections your construct of "Swing Liberals" is totally bonkers.  Clearly, Hillary's strength in these primaries is that most of the voters are women and many of the women vote for her because she is a very accomplished and viable woman candidate, and that is an important consideration for them.  Many of the women voting for her may also be self-identified liberals, but are they voting for her because of that or because she is a woman, or is it a little of each?  Kind or hard to figure out, isn't it?  Conversely, young voters and African-Americans are rightly proud of Barack and what he has brought to the campaign.  Many of his voters may be self-identified liberals, but is that their main reason for voting for him?  If Obama cuts into Hillary's strength among Latinos because of his recent endorsements by the Kennedys and prominent Latino congressmen, will the self-identified liberal Latinos that vote for him be voting because they suddenly realize he is the most liberal or because he has the blessing of politicians who have been there for Latinos?

  I am not saying that voters do not vote for ideological reasons, and the construct may well be useful in looking at some elections, but I don't think it is of much use as an analytical tool in the 2008 Democratic primaries.  I also think the positive aspect of the battle for the Democratic nomination is that, despite the strong identity politics that are in play,  both Clinton and Obama are not running as only the "woman's candidate" or the "African-American candidate" and are able to stretch their appeal across the board.  I think we have two very strong candidates.

  Finally, have you ever considered that some self-identified liberals may be voting for Obama because they don't want to hear Hillary's flat, mid-western chalk-on-the- blackboard voice for the next four years, and that some self-identified liberals are voting for Hillary and not Obama because they think Hillary is the best equipped to fight the right-wing noise machine?  When faced with two fairly liberal candidates, I suspect self-identified liberals vote for one or the other on the basis of a mixture of factors that are very difficult, if not impossible, to identify. 

Pre-South Carolina Trends Reasserting Themselves? | 43 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox