We all knew John Kerry was going to win these two states, so the only question was who would take second. That man, who desperately needed both second place finishes, was Howard Dean. In Michigan, 52% of caucus-goers went for Kerry, followed with 17% for Dean, 13% for John Edwards, 7% each for Wesley Clark and Al Sharpton, and 3% for Dennis Kucinich. The results were slightly different in Washington, where Kerry took 49% and Dean received an impressive 30%. Kucinich was the surprise here, winning third place with 8%. Edwards took 7%, Clark received 3%, and Sharpton came in at under 1%.
Though Dean's second place finishes might have helped to slow his downward spiral, his loss of support from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees could very well offset any boost he might have received. AFSCME head Gerald McEntee is expected to announce the withdrawal of support later this week, but the Dean campaign is already addressing the development. "We respect President McEntee," the Dean statement read, "and we will work hard to earn the support of AFSCME members in Wisconsin next week." A meeting took place today between the campaign and representatives from AFSCME, SEIU (Service Employees International Union), and IUPAT (International Union of Painters and Allied Trades). SEIU is sticking with Dean through Wisconsin and IUPAT is also still backing Dean, but has not yet made an official statement.
What's interesting to me about AFSCME, uh, changing its mind is the idea that endorsements can apparently be given and taken away with such ease. It's not as if Howard Dean has changed his stance on issues relating to organized labor. In fact, it seems the only thing that Dean has done to lose the AFSCME endorsement is not win.
Upon learning the news, I was quite shocked and prepared to blast the AFSCME for not sticking by their original choice. However, when I went back and reviewed the original announcement of the endorsement, I was surprised to find that the union is well within their rights to withdraw their support. Alongside the sentiment that Dean was "a candidate who represents [AFSCME] values" was the qualifier that he was a candidate "who can defeat this President." The endorsement was "based on his record, his position on the issues, the strength of his campaign and the overwhelming and enthusiastic support for his candidacy among AFSCME's membership." Like I said, the union was well within their rights. And if the rank-and-file no longer supports Dean, then I guess the leadership has no choice but to back away from Dean.
But still part of me feels as if this move is slightly disingenuous. It seems that McEntee wants to pick the winner, just as he did in 1992. Now that Dean no longer looks like the winner, the union endorsement is gone. If they give that endorsement to Kerry or Edwards or Clark or Kucinich or Sharpton, then fine. All of those candidates views are pretty much in line with those of AFSCME members. If they decide not to endorse any candidate, then that's fine too. I just find it unfortunate that, in weighing the criteria for the union's endorsement, record, position on issues, and values seemingly didn't carry as much weight as popularity.
posted by Scott |
2/07/2004 |
| Friday, February 06, 2004
Last Minute Michigan, Washington Polling
Ah, how I love new traditions. Every night before a primary or caucus, I've posted the most up-to-date poll numbers for you to think about in your sleep. Not exactly visions of sugar plums, I know, but it's all we've got. So without further ado, boys and girls... I give you the poll numbers for Michigan and Washington.
The real question in Michigan is not so much who's going to win? as it is who's going to finish second to John Kerry?. This much we can absolutely confirm.
Somewhat disappointing to me is the fact that Zogby isn't posting anything newer than 2/3 - 2/4, and I already posted those. However, Zogby's not the only game in town. The EPIC/MRA tracking poll, conducted this Wednesday and Thursday, found that Kerry leads with an absolutely gigantic 62%, followed by Howard Dean at 13% and John Edwards at 11%. Everyone else (read: Clark, Sharpton, Kucinich) was in the single digits. My biggest problem with this poll is that only 6% of voters are supposedly undecided. That number just sounds too low for me, though maybe it's accurate.
The other tracking poll in the state, conducted by Mitchell Research & Communications for The Detroit News, was conducted Monday through Wednesday and shows some slightly different numbers. First of all, for all three days, Kerry's high level of support held steady at 56%. The lack of upward momentum there gives me pause, but not too much. Consistent with the EPIC poll, Dean's in second, but his support dwindled from 13% on Monday to 12% Tuesday to 9% Wednesday. I know, I know. So many of you are thinking, "but there's a margin of error!" That may be true, but a tracking poll has no day-to-day value if you can't at least attempt to pull some meaning out of the numbers. In third is Edwards, the only candidate who gained support over the three days, even if it was from a paltry 6% to a still paltry 7%. Clark and Kucinich hovered around 3%, with Clark fairing just a bit better. This poll shows a higher number of undecideds at 19%. That sounds a bit more accurate to me.
The only Washington poll I've been able to track down comes to us courtesy Kos, but it's virtually ancient with its results dating to January 27 through 29. Even more of a let down, the pollster questioned the preference of Democrats--not Democrats attending the Washington caucuses. Either way, they show a strong Kerry with 40% and a pretty weak Dean at 13%. Edwards and Clark, who are skipping the state, come out with 11% and 8%, respectively. If they even get that much, I'd say they're lucky.
As I wrote earlier, I think last minute mobilization of UNITE volunteers on Edwards' behalf may help him in Michigan. I don't think it's going to help him win, but I do think it will help him pull a surprise second place finish ala Iowa. Dean's weakness has become... well... Dean's weakness. His poor performances in primaries and caucuses around the country seem to be really scaring voters who, just a month ago, would have flocked to him. And Madonna and Michael Moore are both Michigan natives and Clark supporters, but I don't think that's really going to move any of Michigan's caucus goers.
Without a doubt, tomorrow will be another big day for Kerry. But Kerry winning states is old hat to primary watchers and the media. And someone's got to come in second and will quite possibly pick up a nice chunk of delegates. That, I believe, is the person who really wins the day. My money is on Edwards.
posted by Scott |
2/06/2004 |
|
The nation's largest textile workers union endorses the son of a mill worker. Who would 'a thunk it, huh?
In all honesty, this is good news for Edwards in his quest to become the anti-Kerry. He probably could have used UNITE's help in SC, but apparently he didn't need it anyway. It seems pretty likely that Kerry will take Michigan, but UNITE could prove a roadblock in that effort.
According to UNITE, the union mobilized heavily in Michigan during the 2000 Senate race on behalf of Debbie Stabenow. Stabenow was behind 12% in the polls and lost non-union voters by 20% when UNITE stepped in with phone banks and precinct walks. Stabenow won by a margin of less than 43,000 votes out of a the more than 4.1 million votes cast.
I'm not saying something so drastic can happen, but it is a caucus, and if UNITE gets behind Edwards the way they got behind Stabenow, Kerry could be in for a bit more competition than he's expecting.
posted by Scott |
2/06/2004 |
| Thursday, February 05, 2004
I can't really say this is too much of a surprise, but I will say that I wasn't expecting it this soon. Dick Gephardt had indicated that he would not throw his support behind any candidate until after the Missouri primary was over, but I really didn't expect it to happen before any other primaries took place.
The announcement, expected tomorrow morning at 10am in Michigan, should cement John Kerry's lead of that labor-heavy state. It will probably also lead some (if not most) of the unions formerly backing Gephardt to take another look at Kerry. And maybe, just maybe, Gephardt is rethinking his retirement from politics. Donna Brazile, who I always listen to, is open to the possibility. "Dick Gephardt," she said, "could conceivably be a potential VP candidate."
posted by Scott |
2/05/2004 |
|
This isn't primary news, but it sure does say a lot about the Republicans currently in charge of the entire US government.
Speaking at a fundraiser for GOP candidate Alice Forgy Kerr, GOP Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert warned that he will bring a tobacco buyout bill to the floor of the House if and only if Kerr is elected. Such a bill is very important to Kentucky farmers and has been supported by both Kerr and her opponent.
The district's February 17 special election is the main battleground in an unprecedented proxy war between Democrats and Republicans. Kerr's opponent, Ben Chandler, has brilliantly taken out BlogAds, asking for donations and support from national, grassroots Democrats who have already shown their muscle by giving heavily to the Presidential candidates and groups like MoveOn.org. The text of the ad reads, "Send an early message to Washington... Help take away a GOP seat in the South."
But this campaign may not just help take away one GOP seat in the South. Chandler has a 10% lead in polling of his district. While I will not say that this is because of BlogAds (it's clearly not), I will say that this kind of online fundraising could help offset the monstrous GOP fundraising backing Team W and their handpicked candidates. If individual Democratic candidates pursue similar strategies to Chandler's in November, the Democrats could weaken the GOP's grip on House leadership.
posted by Scott |
2/05/2004 |
|
Dennis Kucinich is now claiming--with his delegate count of 2--that he will win the nomination at the Democratic convention in Boston.
"The race for the nomination will go all the way to the convention... where I will win the nomination, based on the emergence of Iraq as the defining issue."
I am rendered absolutely speechless.
posted by Scott |
2/05/2004 |
|
It seems like this one was in everyone's inbox this morning. It's not shocking that they're thinking it. Rather, it's just kind of surprising that they're admitting it so readily.
"The entire race has come down to this: we must win Wisconsin."
"Anything less will put us out of this race."
That says it all, really, for the Dean campaign. Months of hype and attention and venom and energy and adulation has all come down to the race to win the Wisconsin Democratic primary on February 17. Nine states have voted so far and, despite his early leads in most of them, Howard Dean has not come in first in one state.
Meanwhile, the major media is focused on John Edwards as a Vice-Presidential candidate. They've all but counted Wesley Clark out of the race. Both men have won one state and placed second in three states each. Dean's best showing was his second place finish in New Hampshire. Besides the fact that he has more endorsements and therefore, uncommitted delegates, it doesn't really seem to make sense.
The next contests are on Saturday with Michigan and Washington both holding caucuses. With the latest Zogby numbers in on Michigan, it looks like John Kerry is headed for a romp. His 47% support towers over Dean's 10%, Edwards' 8%, and Clark's 4%. However, the SEIU is still pushing MI Democrats hard on Dean's behalf. They did the same in Iowa and it didn't help, but who knows? It is a caucus, after all, and harder to predict than a primary. There is no solid polling information on Washington, but all reports are suggesting a Kerry/Dean contest. No one, however, is suggesting a Dean win. It's on to Maine the next day, which Dean is claiming he'll win.
After that come Tennessee and Virginia on February 10. Kerry leads both states at the moment, but Clark and Edwards are contesting heavily. In Tennessee, the latest poll numbers come from Survey USA, who show Kerry at 31%, Clark at 26%, Edwards at 20%, and Dean at 15%. These results were as of 1/31 - 2/2, before the February 3 primaries. In early January, Dean and Clark were virtually tied for the lead at 27% and 26%. Kerry was a blip at 4% and Edwards fared a bit better at 6%. It's interesting that Clark's performance has stayed stagnant with so much movement around him. His win in Oklahoma may help him here, proving that he actually can win primaries, but Edwards' SC win should do the same. In late January, Kerry also led the Virginia race, but without more recent poll numbers, it's hard to judge.
On February 14 is Nevada. Um... Las Vegas is a fun place to visit? I have absolutely no information on this one. Sorry folks.
And finally, Wisconsin. Well, not finally. But possibly finally for the Dean campaign. The latest Wisconsin polling is good news for Dean, actually, indicating 33% support. Fighting it out for distant second are Clark and Lieberman at 11% and 12%... Oh wait... The most recent Wisconsin polling is from mid-December. Spending all of your time focused on one state hasn't proven the most winning strategy this primary season. Clark and Lieberman both tried it in New Hampshire and it didn't really pan out so well. If it works for Dean, then great. But if it doesn't, even he's admitting he's done.
The Kerry campaign's take on Dean's Wisconsin strategy? "Howard Dean has dramatically raised the stakes in Wisconsin by proclaiming this a must-win state. We are up to the challenge."
posted by Scott |
2/05/2004 |
| Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Post-Primary Wrap-Up
No two ways about it... John Kerry is a steamroller. Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, and North Dakota all went for Kerry. Only South Carolina and Oklahoma dissented, choosing John Edwards and Wesley Clark.
Basically, with Lieberman now officially out and Sharpton not winning any delegates in SC, it has become a four-man race that could shift down to a two-man race very quickly. Dean was sort of given a pass tonight since he wasn't seriously competing. But he's got to win something soon in order to be taken seriously.
Adding tonight's numbers from MSNBC to ABC's delegate count (committed and otherwise), one finds that Kerry has a massive lead over the other candidates with 247 delegates. Next is Dean at 118, and then Edwards with 100, and Clark with 80.
Unless one or two of the other candidates can start winning key states, the nomination is clearly Kerry's. Even then, the three candidates now battling it out for the 'anti-Kerry' spot will likely split the 'anti-Kerry' vote, all but guaranteeing an ultimate win for Kerry after a few more states have voted. It's not quite a sure thing, but it sure is getting there.
posted by Scott |
2/04/2004 |
| Tuesday, February 03, 2004
Clark Wins Oklahoma. Right? Anybody?
This is sort of an odd situation. Clark and Edwards are essentially tied with 30% each. Clark has an edge of about 500 or so votes. And he just gave a victory speech.
When all is said and done, Clark will probably have squeaked out a win in the Oklahoma primary. But if 600 votes magically appear in the Edwards column, what then? Well, all of the networks are calling it for Clark, so that's good enough for me.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Kerry Wins New Mexico
This one was a bit of a surprise since the polls were... well... nonexisitant. Early on, Governor Bill Richardson was saying that it was a three-way tie between Kerry, Clark, and Edwards. And early on, that seemed pretty accurate. But John Kerry pulled ahead and stayed there, winning New Mexico with 38% to Wesley Clark's 22% (with 50% reporting).
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Not really much of a surprise here, but a welcome development in the Democratic primary season. While other Democrats joined the race, Lieberman held off, waiting for an announcement from Al Gore. Gore decided against a Presidential run, Lieberman joined the race and suffered immensely for the delay.
But it wasn't just the wait. After all, General Wesley Clark entered the race late and immediately climbed to the top of the heap. Lieberman's relatively conservative, pro-war viewpoints cost him a great deal of support among progressives and liberals, stretching back even to the 2000 Presidential race. A number of Nader supporters have even cited Lieberman's inclusion on the Democratic ticket as one of the factors that sent them to the Greens.
Besides message, Lieberman also seems to have problem with delivery. Even tonight when he was announcing his withdrawal from the race, he didn't even seem to care. People say that John Kerry comes off as aloof. That may be so, but Lieberman has just always struck me as... I don't know... sleepy?
When all is said and done, I think that guys like Joe Lieberman are good for the Democratic Party. He believes in the fundamentals of the party--social justice, civil rights, environmental stewardship, labor rights--if not always the specifics. Try getting away with that kind of dissent in Rove, DeLay, and Bush's GOP.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Kerry Wins Arizona, North Dakota
According to the pollsters, these states were in play for both Kerry and Clark. The pollsters were apparently wrong, as Kerry is projected to win both with large margins according to MSNBC.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Kerry Wins Delaware, Missouri
If you're surprised, you clearly haven't been following the race.
I'll toss out some commentary tonight after we know a little bit more about the four other races.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Edwards Wins South Carolina Primary
MSNBC has announced that John Edwards has won the South Carolina primary. I don't have the exact numbers, but it's early, so if they're announcing a win, it must have been a big one.
One very interesting aspect is that Edwards and Kerry essentially split the black vote. Here's the one number I remember. Al Sharpton garnered only 18% of the African-American vote. Wow.
The Edwards campaign is already calling it a two man race between Edwards and Kerry. I'd say that if Edwards takes Oklahoma as well tonight, they're pretty close to being right.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
These exit poll numbers from National Review may or may not be accurate. Some of the exit poll numbers out of New Hampshire were wildly off, after all. I figure you're all junkies for this stuff though, so I'm going to go ahead and post them.
If these numbers are accurate and, more importantly, they hold up, it will be a very good night for John Edwards, a very bad night for Wesley Clark, and just enough of a night for John Kerry.
There are already indications that Lieberman and Clark are thinking about dropping out of the race. Both campaigns are denying it, of course, but it seems to make sense. Clark really ought to win Oklahoma, and if he doesn't, it doesn't speak well for his candidacy. And Lieberman should have been out of this thing after New Hampshire. However, if Clark manages to win either the New Mexico or North Dakota caucuses, I cannot see him dropping out of the race. (That's not to say that I necessarily see him winning either contest.)
If it does come down to Edwards, Kerry, and Dean by tomorrow morning, look for a huge surge for Edwards, who will begin to pick up massive amounts of surplus supporters. He and Clark have been making the same Southern populist arguments against Kerry, while Lieberman supporters have probably become very uncomfortable with the "Massachusetts liberal" tag the GOP has already cooked up for Kerry.
Enough prognostication, though. I have absolutely no idea how this thing is going to turn out.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
That's what David Broder says. And, typically, when David Broder speaks, I listen. But this morning on the Today show, Edwards denied that Broder's version is 100% accurate. Still, I think Edwards probably will drop out if he does not win South Carolina tonight. I just don't think he really admitted quite so much.
There is one exception, though. Edwards could win Oklahoma, North Dakota, or New Mexico. It's not likely, but it's possible. Edwards got some good news this morning, with the new Gallup poll finding that Edwards would just barely squeak by Bush were the general election held today. Right now, only Kerry would be able to claim a definitive win over Bush.
Something tells me the Edwards campaign started having second thoughts when these poll numbers were released and backed off the drop-and-back-Kerry inside line. Tonight promises to be very interesting.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
Nothing like waiting until the morning of election day to post recent poll results, but here goes anyway. Survey USA's results for the five states holding primaries today shows nothing inconsistent with what we already know (or what we already think we know, anyway). Their results come from polling of 'certain' Democratic primary voters in Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.
Again, there are no real shockers here. Kerry is still in the lead everywhere besides Oklahoma (Wesley Clark) and South Carolina (John Edwards). The interesting thing seems to be the trend lines. In SC, according to SUSA, there is no catching up with Edwards. He's got the momentum and his 34% support handily beats Kerry and Clark, who are virtually tied with 17% and 16%. This indicates a much larger margin for Edwards than any other poll. Even if all of Edwards' 'probable' voters stay home and all of Clark's or Kerry's show up to vote, Edwards still wins.
In Oklahoma, Edwards is also coming on surprisingly strong. Kerry's post-NH momentum has died out and Clark's momentum is actually downward. All three candidates are bunched together at the top, with Clark still in the lead at 29%, Edwards at 27%, and Kerry at 26%. This was a one-day poll, conducted on Sunday, which should give us the clearest picture of the trend lines. However, it's a poll of 'certain,' not 'likely' voters. If one were to include 'probable' voters into the mix, Clark has a clear advantage, with 31% to Kerry and Edwards' with 19% each. So for Clark, it's all a matter of GOTV.
Though it's a much tighter race, it's a similar story in Arizona. Kerry leads among certain voters with 34% and among probable voters at 27%. Clark is right behind him with 28% certain and 26% probable. Both candidates are trending upward at the expense of both Dean and Lieberman. In Missouri and Delaware, there should be massive landslides for Kerry.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
|
I've been unable to bring myself to write a proper political obit of Joe Lieberman. I'm not crazy about his politics, but he just seems so damn nice. His scorched earth politics versus other Democrats scare me to death when I think about the general election, but that's no reason to support the man's candidacy.
Moderate Voice has done my dirty work for me, summing up exactly how I feel about Joe and his campaign. He's "a thoughtful and good man who refuses to see the writing on the wall and will only stop pursuing a dream when the wall literally falls on him."
Amen.
posted by Scott |
2/03/2004 |
| Monday, February 02, 2004
Last Minute Polling Of February 3 States Finds Tight Races Everywhere
Zogby finds John Kerry in the lead in four states holding primaries tomorrow. The exceptions are Oklahoma and South Carolina, where Wesley Clark and John Edwards still hold respective leads. Oklahoma is, essentially, too close to call at 28% for Clark and 27% for Kerry. Arizona is pretty safe for Kerry at 40%, but Clark is in second with 27% and support that has increased over the last few days. South Carolina is less of a sure thing for the leader Edwards, who has Kerry breathing down his neck, 30% to 25%. Kerry seemingly cannot lose Missouri, where he has 50% support and his closest competitor, Edwards, is only showing 15%.
American Research Group is showing slightly different numbers, though much of the same in terms of placement. The major differences are that Kerry's lead over Clark is smaller in Arizona (32% to 21%) and Edward's lead over Kerry is wider in South Carolina (30% to 23%). ARG also polled Delaware, where Kerry has a commanding lead over Joe Lieberman, 27% to 16%. Since New Hampshire, Lieberman has focused the vast majority of his resources on winning Delaware.
New Mexico's Albuquerque Journal conducted a recent poll that finds Kerry is the favorite to win the state's caucuses at 31% support from likely voters. Dean and Clark are virtually tied for the second place slot with 15% and 14%, respectively. Seeing as how this is a caucus and not a primary, however, we all know how hard it is to predict the outcome here. Especially when 27% of likely voters are undecided.
And then there's that one North Dakota poll I was able to find a few days ago that had Kerry in the lead. Again, like New Mexico, North Dakota is a caucus state and extremely unpredictable. It's even more unpredictable than states like Iowa and New Mexico because major media infrastructure just isn't available to support massive polling as it is in other states.
Nationally, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds that, if the election were held today, John Kerry would beat George W. Bush, 51% to 42%. Bush would beat all other Democrats, though it's interesting to note that he would do so by a smaller margin than just a few days ago. Dean, Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman are all within 5% range of beating Bush.
posted by Scott |
2/02/2004 |
|
Controversial Alabama Judge Roy Moore may be considering, according to WSJ's John Fund, a third-party run for the White House in 2004. Moore, in case you're having trouble placing the name, is the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who installed a 2.6 ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building in 2001. He was ordered by Federal courts to remove the monument. When he refused, he was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court.
While remaining vague about his ambitions, it seems that Moore has set his sights on a White House bid this November. He's been giving speeches and attending fundraisers for the far-right Constitution Party. (The Constitution Party, by the way, happens to be the third-largest political party in the country in terms of registered voters.) The party's website focuses not only on what it sees as "Constitutionally Limited Government", but also "Biblical Principles Pertaining to Civil Governance".
Beyond announcing their support for Moore, the Constitution Party has also opposed the Bush administration's massive deficit spending, their immigration plan, the PATRIOT Act, and the war on Iraq. For many conservatives, even outside the Constitution Party, these are troublesome issues. Any right-leaning third-party run in 2004 would deal a major blow to Bush. But a run by a conservative superstar like Moore would be disastrous.
posted by Scott |
2/02/2004 |
|
Shouldn't it worry us that the Bush administration is openly seeking a probe of faulty intelligence that is modeled on another commission that ignored key evidence, eschewed common sense, and rubber-stamped an official finding that, to this day, 68% of Americans think was a lie?
The announcement of the Iraq probe--and the comparison by one White House insider of the probe to the Warren Commission--should send up unmistakable red flags to the American people. After all, look at the White House track record with the 9/11 commission. First, they avoided it. Then, when it became unavoidable, they handed it to Henry Kissinger. Even Kissinger backed away, recognizing his own conflicts of interest. Today, the 9/11 commission is in the very capable hands of Republican Thomas Kean, the former Governor of New Jersey.
And how about Team W's cooperation with the commission? Kean and the other panel members have repeatedly asked the White House and Congress for more time to study the matter. Their requests have been repeatedly denied. In November, the commission agreed not to subpoena the White House for documents relevant to their case; the administration agreed to show certain committee members the documents on their own. The commission is still waiting for the access to documents they were promised.
And you thought the last President had trouble telling the truth...
posted by Scott |
2/02/2004 |
|
An interesting reminder from the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News...
The paper warns Democrats to look more closely at the candidates' qualities beyond just electability. They also remind us that a long nominating season is not the major crisis many are making it out to be--for either the country or the party.
"Democrats would probably like to have their candidate chosen before... March 9. But the longer the race lasts, the more that Americans pay attention. That's the way democracy is supposed to work."
I'll add my thoughts here. Look at Kerry's rise in the national polls as the mainstream media has focused on his successes in New Hampshire and Iowa. Look at Dean's slide as the same media focused on one silly speech they blew way out of proportion.
We have a fantastic slate of candidates in the running. It would be a shame to knock too many of them--along with their messages--out of the race before they get a chance to be heard.
posted by Scott |
2/02/2004 |
|
