home

FL Sen. Bill Nelson Calls For Florida Revote

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 12:55:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton supporter Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida has called for a revote:

"The Democrats in Florida want their votes counted under the principle of one person, one vote. And we're a little sensitive about our votes not being counted. And so, if the only way to do that is to do it over, then I would support that." . . . "I have written to Howard Dean today to say, if you're not going to seat the Florida delegation, then pay for another election, and let's get the party unified, and let's get Florida and Michigan seated," Nelson said, adding that if the DNC doesn't get this resolved it faces a “train wreck.”

Obviously Nelson is tacitly speaking for the Clinton campaign here. Time to put some pressure on Florids Governor Charlie Crist to put Florida's money where his mouth is.

< Austin, TX Mayor Charged in and Admits Assault: | FL And MI Are Dems' Problem >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    FL Sen. Bill Nelson Calls For Florida Revote | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    IMO Michigan only needs to do a revote (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:00:37 PM EST
    but I do not think Florida does.  The playing field in Florida was even for all candidates.  All of them were on the ballots, all of them did not campaign, the people knew who each candidate from  past primaries.  In fact Hilary would be willing to say the only candidate that did any TV ads was Obama and we are willing to let that slide.  Has anybody gotten a poll from Florida to see what the people want?

    moreover, (none / 0) (#42)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    The revote is going to cost a lot in terms of running the primary (yes, it MUST be a primary) and advertising it properly.  And almost certainly, the turnout is going to be less than Janurary.  DNC and democrats don't have a habit of thinking a step ahead, but a lower turnout will put the legitimacy of the re-vote in serious doubt, and DNC will have a new PR problem on its hand.  

    You wonder why the republican Florida governor is now all for the re-vote?  This is a gift that keeps giving.  Divide democrats, make them look disorganized (doesn't take much), and question their competence to solve even a relatively small problem! The more light is on the dem nomination process, the worse it looks.

    Then, the republicans will ask voters, "and you want this crowd to be in charge of your security?"


    Parent

    I think you are making some leaps (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    first of all, how do you know the turnout would be less?  no evidence of that in recent contests.  the first one was record turnout and I expect this one would be as well.
    second, it is republican and a democratic governor who are both making a completely understandable case for counting the votes of their states (yeah, I know Granholme is a Clinton supporter but that does not automatically disqualify her opinion).


    Parent
    because, (none / 0) (#53)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    There were lots of contests on that day in January and it was well advertised.  Plus, there was a very controversial ballot initiative and everyone turned out to vote on that.
     

    Parent
    In a very close election (none / 0) (#50)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:37:05 PM EST
    getting tons of national publicity, I see no reason why turnout would be lower if publicized well and if done as a primary.

    Especially if these two states wind up looking really pivotal. I think turnout would probably be very high.

    Parent

    That's ironic (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    FL and MI wanted to have more of a say in the process . . . looks like they're going to get their wish beyond their wildest dreams.

    Parent
    Lots of irony to go around (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    all of us states who moved up our primaries should be feeling really sheepish, IMO. We'd have had more say here in CA leaving it alone.

    FL and MI wanted it so bad that they moved up and made themselves initially less relevant (and yes, I know it's more complicated than that) -- funny .

    But the DNC trying to make them as irrelevant as possible has also possibly succeeded in making them the final, high stakes battlefields. If they'd left the penalty at half the delegates, they'd have probably wound up less important than they're going to this way.

    All very amusing to me.

    I don't really care at this point what attention FL and MI get in the end and whether that counters their "punishment". I just want the thing solved in a way that doesn't hurt us as a party going forward.

    Parent

    If the punishment were half the delegates, (none / 0) (#68)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    Hillary would have gotten huge boost from winning both of them. It would have looked like:

    Obama: 1 caucus, 1 primary
    Hillary Clinton: 1 caucus, 3 primaries

    who would have a huge momentum on Super Tuesday?

    Parent

    If someone has to pay for a revote (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    It should come out of the Republican-dominated state legislature's budget. That's who forced the Florida Dems to go with the early primary date.

    I still want the results from the first election to count and the DNC to say they made a mistake in assessing the penalty.

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    My solution is the perfect one.

    50% representation for the first result - in accord with DNC penalties according to their rules and then a revote for the other 50% of the delegates.

    Parent

    Someone at dKos. . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:54 PM EST
    posted a modified version of this -- 50% from existing numbers, 50% from caucuses (which, presumably, are cheaper).

    Parent
    I have yet to find (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    anyone who is actually from Florida that thinks caucuses are a viable solution.  It's very hard to do a caucus if your state has no history with them.

    Parent
    UNLESS they accepted (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    absentee ballots.

    Parent
    mail-in primary. (none / 0) (#44)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    solves both problems.

    DNC overstepped its boundary, and imposed very harsh punishment.  They can now say, look: no campaigning in Florida, no advertising money, no organization by campaign, no attention: all of these cost Florida.  So seating the delegates now makes sense.

    Parent

    personally I think all voting (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    should be by mail.  I have done it that way for years.
    wouldnt do it any other way.

    Parent
    Another solution (none / 0) (#49)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    The superdelegates from a state are roughly about 1/4 of that state's weigh in pledged delegates, right?  Seat the pledged delegates from Florida, but strip the Florida superdelegates of their votes.  

    If DNC thinks it is the fault of Florida Democratic Party, that's a perfect solution!!

    And as far as I understand, Hillary Clinton has the bulk of Florida superdelegates too.

    Even Florida superdelegates, such as Nelson, can suggest this: they give up their voice to give voice to voters.  

    (Although I still think Florida has been punished enough, and all its delegates should be seated. )

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    A new primary can be had - even just firehouse style.

    Parent
    I would be happy with this for Florida but... (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:13:48 PM EST
    I really like this idea for Florida, but how do you do it for Michigan?  Unless you give uncommitted to Obama, which is suspect, you only have one person eligible for delegates.  Now, I know a lot of people here will say "It's his fault he wasn't on the ticket", but he was just playing by the rules.  And Hillary HERSELF said it didn't matter because Michigan wouldn't count.  Again, I don't even see the need for a revote in Florida, but I am not OK with anything about the Michigan vote, not even 50%.

    Last thought... maybe it's time to start a "draft Ross Perot" movement.  He sure helped us out the last time.

    Parent

    He didn't play by the rules. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:39:11 PM EST
    Look Obama is benefitting hugely from his play in Michigan.  First they engineered to get their names off ballot, so Hillary didn't get a bounce from Michigan (which she would have won).  By that move, they also pandered to Iowa and cost Hillary some votes.

    Now, they have come back and said, "it's not fair, we weren't on the ballot".  I mean, good play, and everyone has fallen for it.

    Next time, GOP can find an excuse to take its nominee's name off the ballot in Vermont, New York, and California, and then make it a further excuse to question the whole election results.  

    Does that make sense?


    Parent

    Uncommitted (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
    are probably Obama delegates anyway.

    Some Edwards delegates though.

    I think they stood for uncommitted but I am not sure.

    Parent

    Exit polls in MI (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    showed something like 35% for Obama, 12% for Edwards, if everyone had been on the ballot.

    Parent
    Let's say you redid Michigan (none / 0) (#65)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    As you are aware, Dem voters were encouraged to vote for Mitt to upset McCain. Since they acted, IMO, dishonorably, do you believe they get a chance to say "ha ha, Do Overs!!!" ? "We were just fooling around." I don't like it when the GOP tries to manipulate the Democratic primary and vice versa. Like Nader voters in 2000 with their if I had know it would have made a difference in the election, I would not have thrown my vote away.  

    This is my whole thing about Do Overs. Different people voting, different ads, etc. etc. In other words, they chose a day to vote. Whatever transpired on that date should just be what ever it is. If Obama and Edwards choose to remove their names from the ballot, call it a rookie mistake because Hillary did not. Notice they did not do that in Florida. And Florida should just be seated as is. I mean, don't you think I would like to have Do Overs from 2000 and 2004? How about those Butterfly ballots for Buchanan? That would have changed the entire 2000 election. But, the Democrats made the mistake when they approved them and thus there were no do overs. So the Democrats made another mistakes in Mi and Fla and have to live with it. Bet no one takes their name off the ballot in the future.

    And BTW, I think with the demographics in Florida, the results would be very similar. I know of no one there who is changing their vote nor wanting to vote again. What the DNC did was stupid and now they will have to live with that stupid and egg on their face. Do it now and it will be put aside and on to other things. Sorry to be so long winded but THIS is the headline story right now when it should be other things pertaining to the our daily issues at hand.


    Parent

    he was just playing by the rules. (none / 0) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    Can we stop this please? There was no rule that he had to take himself of the ballot.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:07:24 PM EST
    But don't consider it likely.  They've successfully gamed the system (again) and are sitting back watching the Dems squirm.  They might grow restive, however, as they watch the media attention all flow to the Dem candidates, with little focus on McCain.

    Parent
    Right!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    Time to put some pressure on Florida Governor Charlie Crist to put Florida's money where his mouth is.

    This is what I've been saying all along - go ahead with a revote, but make the state pay for it.  The state, run by Republicans, did this quite deliberately to mess with the Democrats, make the Democrats spend their money, and sow division in the Democratic camp.  The "Democrats divided" press they are getting out of it now - is a bonus.

    Parent

    What about a revote fund for both States not (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:32:26 PM EST
    handled obviously by the DNC but Nelson and Granholm I'll send money.  The DNC still needs dealt with before they can cause more trouble for the candidates and Dem Leadership needs to step in soon.

    Parent
    Ain't gonna be no rematch. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    This discussion of a re-vote is just a dance prior to accepting the existing vote.  The last thing Obama wants is another public beating.  The delegates he potentially picks up are nothing compared to the fresh sense of his inability to win important states.  Accepting the current vote is a procedural act.  Losing again, even if by a smaller margin, is a fresh defeat.  There is no way there will be a re-vote.

    You are right!!! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:45:33 PM EST
    Imagine the impact of losing Florida -- twice -- especially if it's by approximately the same margins each time.

    Smack!  -- SMACK!!!

    The demographics support this happening.

    I think he should agree to seat Florida and argue over Michigan.

    Parent

    After TX & OH Loss OBLAMA Still has MATHMENTUM (none / 0) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------
    An imaginary headline summarizing Obama's new tactic of blaming the media for his recent primary losses, while still touting his delegate lead.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    Parent
    you make some good points. (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:15:16 PM EST


    Parent
    seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:17:06 PM EST
    if the money is found, and the money can always be found, it will be very hard to stop.


    Parent
    This isn't about the DNC anymore. (none / 0) (#36)
    by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    The candidates are the true parties to this problem now.  

    Parent
    Obama says he wil abide by the rules (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    Dean has said there should be a revote.

    I do not think he would have a choice.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    does not want a re-vote. He knows that HRC is very strong in both those states. He does not want to get re-beat by her there. His only option and the option they seem to be perpetuating through surrogates is to simply not let any of it count. It's a failing strategy and it does not bode well for the GE if he's the nominee. Especially if HRC keeps winning the large swing states.  

    Parent
    florida (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by deminma on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    I think Florida will stand as is,   It probably is about right maybe a couple of delegates high for clinton.   Obama will concede this after Pennsylvania when she has no chance of regaining lead.   Not sure what they will do about Michigan.  I think Hillary is finished,  unless the pledged count gets under 50 their is no way she convinces a net 50 supers that big states or popular votes are more important than pledged delegates.   The others are too subjective.

    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    The majority of remainder will break together, based on whatever argument wins. So I don't agree with you analysis.

    Parent
    delegates (none / 0) (#66)
    by deminma on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    I guess what I am saying at greater than 50 .  The agrgument will be won on the pledged delegate side   -   winning penn or even Puerto Rico will not sway the party to going against the pledged delegate leader.  All the things we talk about here are very subjective for which many have a counter argument.   ie electability,  caucus winner as opposed to pv.   They will fall back on pledged delegates unless it is close than the broader discussion comes into play.  

    Parent
    Not to belabor the point (none / 0) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    But I don't agree that it will be just the leader in delegates, but we'll see.

    Parent
    Well according to Obama on the Today (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ivs814 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST
    Show this morning, he won Michigan.  So I guess we don't need to worry about a revote there.  We just need to find all the votes he got (even though he took himself off the ballot) that helped him overcome Hillary there.  

    No way (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    R-FL is going to pay for a revote.  Neither is the DNC, apparently.  This is perfect political gaming and Obama is crazy not to take advantage of it.  He should be demanding a revote right now because he knows that no one is willing to pay for it.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    he is not.

    I am telling you - there will be a revote.

    Parent

    It's inevitable (none / 0) (#13)
    by vigkat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    Regardless where the money to do it comes from.  The sooner that issue is resolved, the better.

    Parent
    Mail (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    The cost of a mail in re-vote is estimated to be about $5 million.  Seems doable.  If ballots go out to all Democratic registered voters rather than needing to be picked up, wouldn't this have the ability to increase participation?  I live in California.  We love absentee ballots.

    Parent
    That's perfect!! (none / 0) (#54)
    by ghost2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:42:26 PM EST
    A closed primary.  Hillary is sure to do well in that one!!

    Parent
    what if some rich person (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST

    some rich FOB decides to pay for it?
    is that legal?
    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    Why wouldn't it be? Very interesting thought.

    That 527 could fund it.

    Parent

    bill has (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    many rich friends

    Parent
    Would look beter through that 527 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    and my gawd, who could object - allowing people to vote?

    Sounds like a great idea to me.

    Parent

    Move On? n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    They would raise money to run ads AGAINST a revote.

    Move On is a joke.

    Parent

    Crist (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    wouldn't take money from a 527, especially if the 527 was seen to be supporting one candidate over another.

    Talk about "buying" an election.

    Parent

    Crist either takes it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    or is seen as disenfranchising voters.

    Besides, in the GOP calculus, the longer the race goes on the better right?

    No, he has to take it.

    Parent

    "buying" an election (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    seems to me that might be a hard sell in this case.
    since it actually would be "buying an election" not buying a particular outcome from an election.
    but I am biased.


    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    the argument AGAINST letting voters vote is impossible.

    Parent
    couldn't a non profit (none / 0) (#27)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    for the purpose of assuring fair and equal voting be put together. then they could go forward after the election with an ongoing program. you know better voting times, machines, etc.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST


    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:08:58 PM EST
    talk about squealing like a pig stuck under a gate, as Bill would say, can you imagine what would come from Kos/Ameriblogland??

    Parent
    What's the objection? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST


    Parent
    none (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    now that you mention it

    Parent
    Or Diebold (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    I am sure they would foot the bill, for a little extra business and good press.

    Parent
    Cost splitting deal (none / 0) (#16)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    would IMO be fine with me, if it gets a legitimate result that nobody can argue against. FL party, FL state, DNC.

    Just get it done, or seat FL as is (probably not going to happen). And especially in MI, somebody also needs to pony up the cash or negotiate a cost-sharing IMO to make sure it's done right in a way that encourages broad turnout.

    The DNC needs to accept that it made a mistake, first, in stripping all of the delegates instead of half -- meaning they at least bear some responsibility for the FUBAR. I see no sign that it's willing to do so at the moment.

    And the candidates could use their 527s (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    No objection to funding an election is there?

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#37)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    I don't see how anybody argues against it, realistically.

    It would look best if both candidate groups put up, though, or if they agree to both encourage funding to one 527 for the revotes. I don't know that they'd agree to do such a thing, but if I were Howard Dean, that's what I'd lean on them to do in this sort of scenario, just to pull the rug from every possible argument about illegitimacy.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    Hillary can do it and that puts Obama on the spot doesn't it?

    Parent
    It could (none / 0) (#48)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:34:15 PM EST
    it depends, though. The perception is (and it's probably correct) that revotes benefit her vastly more, which means that if she just starts pushing money toward a 527 for FL and MI revotes, it could be seen as nothing more than a campaign tactic by at least a chunk; "Hillary raising money to go against DNC rules, stealing election!".

    How well would they get their screaming out there? Hard to say -- probably not well, most Americans IMO aren't going to see it through the same lens -- how can you argue against a revote? -- but in this media environment, if it's tied initially to only one campaign, I'm just not sure they can't make it into something anyway. Then again, it would also be outrageously stupid for Obama not to jump in quickly, regardless of what his more vitriolic supporters scream about.

    A deal brokered through the DNC in which both participate, though, would pretty much kill that before it's born.

    Parent

    If he does not (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    he will get wiped out won't he? By the Florida press I mean.

    Parent
    Would think so (none / 0) (#56)
    by spit on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:44:52 PM EST
    If he didn't hop in, and fast, then his only argument would be that the second vote is illegitimate. Which I don't think would work well.

    Parent
    JJ, Jr (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    said that it's not up to the candidates, it's up to the DNC.

    The DNC says it's up to the candidates.

    Nice, huh?

    Parent

    Where's Bob Strauss when you need him? (none / 0) (#62)
    by corn on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Dear Senator Nelson (none / 0) (#67)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    I recently wrote to Senator Nelson and included the sticker that was placed on my shirt after I had voted in the primary here in Florida. It said "My Vote Counted" over an American flag.  I explained that we knew who the candidates were, we even saw Obama commercials on television which I didn't think about at the time. I told him that we were told, after the DNC said that we would be penalized, that he and our other legislators told us to go to the polls and vote, don't worry,  our delegates will be seated.
    So we did (in record numbers).
    I hope  he will give that sticker to Howard Dean for me.

    FL Sen. Bill Nelson Calls For Florida Revote | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment