home

Obama vs. Obama On NAFTA?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:51:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I am a free trader and a NAFTA booster. I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were and are demagoguing on NAFTA and agree with me mostly on trade. Ezra Klein, at least as to Obama, agrees with me:

But Austan Goolsbee isn't Barack Obama's adviser by accident, or because Obama never noticed he violently disagrees with Goolsbee's economic outlook. Goolsbee is his adviser because...Barack Obama doesn't really agree with what Barack Obama is saying about "NAFTA, China trade and a host of related issues." . . . Barack Obama is much more worried about trade when trying to get votes in Ohio.

Yep. Pols are pols. They do what they do.

< Comparing Electability | Newsweek: Deal for Mail-In Florida Primary Revote is "Close" >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama vs. Obama On NAFTA? | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I see the beginnings. . . (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    of an actual argument for Clinton to make about Obama's executive abilities.  I believe it's now three close advisers who recently behaved in unprofessional and damaging ways -- Goolsbee (being honest with the Canadians and lying about having done so), Power (the "monster" comment, but that wasn't the first time she was in hot water), and a health-care adviser whose name I forget who ambushed a Clinton campaign conference call.

    These are all people who were presumably hand-picked by Obama and are not campaign operatives but the kind of policy people who you might expect to see in his Administration.

    Not exactly indicative of a tight ship.

    These people are younger, and they (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:03:51 PM EST
    have been rattled by Clinton's comeback.
    Just a few days ago, Powers was making some really snide comments about how little Clinton's team had to offer, in terms of cabinet material for Obama.
    Look, the campaign is only the beginning of the fight, and we are not even at the end of the primary. Clinton obviously has the long view. Obama and his team? Doesn't seem that way.

    Parent
    Campaigns (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:46:06 PM EST
    bring young people in after they have won elections all the time.  However, there has to be adult supervision somewhere.  That is probably why you do not see very many younger people in Cabinet level or senior positions.

    If these are senior people/advisors, it does not reflect well on the candidate's ability to lead from 'day one."  It does call into question the candidate's "judgement" if they cannot select people that will not under cut the campaign positions, even if their statements are more closely ground to reality.  Besides, does that mean he will have to micromanage his closest advisors?  How does one keep the big picture in focus then?

    Two problems that need to be fixed; one can, the other I am not so sure about.  The campaign starts to look like a "Keystone Cops" skit - folks need to be set down and put on the same play book, or they leave.  The second problem is more problematic.  It means backing off from his campaign promises and statements.  That will be difficult.  First, it will sound (be) backtracking.  Second, it will turn into another, "I agree with Hillary," moment and he loses some of his campaign's leverage, and could cost him votes.

    The campaign has been spooked.  Some time, sooner than better, the candidate is going to have to show "leadership" and get his people and campaign back on track.  Deflecting their problems on others, or letting bloggers rant out of their own frustration, is not going to help anybody.

    Parent

    Er... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    "That is probably why you do not see very many younger people in Cabinet level or senior positions", you say.

    This is why I'd rather not elect Obama for the biggest job in the WORLD for a few more years.

    He's pretty young himself.  And when he's under some pressure and things don't seem to be going well for him--like at a debate, say--I don't like the little things I see.

    Parent

    Do you have link on this? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Key on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:20:48 PM EST
    I'd love to see a quote of what she said on this.  If you happen to have a link or remember where you saw it, please post it here.

    Thanks!


    Parent

    no.. I browsed so much today (none / 0) (#57)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:11:30 PM EST
    I have no idea where I read that.
    My paraphrase could be a bit off, but she was sounding very confident a few days ago, and talking about planning for Obama's cabinet.
    Not so inevitable now!

    Parent
    On Cnn Trippi said there's more damaging tapes (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST
    on Obama advisers yet anyone know what thats about they had already been discussing the resignation issues?

    Parent
    Well, my pet theory may (none / 0) (#60)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    be demonstrated, if Obama's advisers are this indiscreet. I wonder if Goolsbee and/or Liebman has been making assurances to Wall St. that SS privatization is NOT off the table.

    Parent
    Yikes, hope that is not ture (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:22:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Look at who give Obama money (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:10:13 AM EST
    He does not get PAC money but his top donors all work for Wall Street, He is signed and delivered.  Here is a great article.  From a real lefty perspective, not the so called lefty blogs:  
    The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand
    Despite Barack Obama's claim that his campaign represents a mass "movement" of "average folks," the initial core of his support was largely comprised of rich denizens of Wall Street. Why would the super wealthy want a percieved "black populist" to become the nation's chief executive officer? The "Obama bubble" was nurtured by Wall Street in order to have a friend in the White House when the captains of capital are made to face the legal consequences for deliberately creating current and past economic "bubbles." Wall Street desperately needs a president who will "sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street." Who better to sell this "agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and change?"

    Link

    Parent
    There was also Rice, saying that her own (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    candidate wasn't qualified to answer that phone at 3 in the morning.

    Parent
    True, although. . . (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    I put that more in the category of campaign gaffe -- Clinton has had some of those as well.

    Parent
    I don't consider that a gaffe for a (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:12:15 PM EST
    simple reason. Obama has basically said the same thing before. He's stated more then once that he isn't utterly up to speed on some issues (like Foreign policy) and will hire people to take care of that. Those people being rice, powers and apparently Lugar and Hagel (which scares the heck out of me).

    It's not so much a gaffe as a true statement. The worst aspect of it being that Obama doesn't seem to think it's a problem.

    Parent

    She didn't say that (none / 0) (#13)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:14:19 PM EST
    Granted the last time I told someone that my comment was deleted so perhaps the myth is being forcefully perpetuated here.

    Parent
    here is the quote (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    RICE: "Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They're both not ready to have that 3AM phone call.

    here is the link

    Parent

    I call it "reverse me-too-ism" (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    ..but that's not the way things work:)

    Parent
    So what did she say Flyer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:16:40 PM EST
    honestly I have not seen any video on this matter.

    Parent
    OOPs I just googled this and found (none / 0) (#18)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    this

    Parent
    Where did she say (none / 0) (#22)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    that Obama was not qualified for the job?

    Parent
    She said (none / 0) (#20)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:21:57 PM EST
    that none of the candidates are ready to answer the call at 3 a.m.  

    I realize that it's fun to play with edited quotes but she is 100% right.  Being President of the United States is a singularly unique job.   That is why you have a 5000 person STAFF when you are the President.  

    But she never said that Obama was unqualified for the job.

    Parent

    No, she's trying to claim the others (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    are not ready, because everyone KNOWS that Obama is not. It won't wash.

    Parent
    Hold on. . . (none / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    the diarist claimed that Rice said the Obama was qualified to answer that 3am phone call.

    You say the Rice said that neither Obama nor the other two candidates were ready to answer that phone call.

    I don't see where you disagree with each other about what Rice said.

    Parent

    Actually the diarist (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
    said that Rice claimed that Obama WASN'T qualified for the job.

    Rice did not say that.

    Come on guys.  Can we not mix word choices?  Qualified and ready mean two completely different things.

    Parent

    Here is the entire text. . . (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    of the comment you responded to:

    There was also Rice, saying that her own candidate wasn't qualified to answer that phone at 3 in the morning.

    That appears to me to agree with your own report of what Rice said.

    Nowhere in the original comment is the language "not qualified to be President" used.

    Parent

    Qualified (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST
     having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions (as for an office or employment
    Synonyms equip, fit, prepare, ready, season

    Ready
    prepared mentally or physically for some experience or action


    Parent

    Sounds like they have similar meanings. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM EST
    Random House definition

    1       having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like.
    2.    having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., required by law or custom for getting, having, or exercising a right, holding an office, or the like.
    3.    modified, limited, or restricted in some way: a qualified endorsement.
    [Origin: 1550-60; qualify + -ed2]

    --Related forms
    qual·i·fied·ly, adverb
    qual·i·fied·ness, noun

    --Synonyms 1. able, capable, competent, fitted.
    --Antonyms unqualified.

    You tell me which makes more sense?

    Parent

    As I said #1 (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like.
    sound a lot like Ready

    Parent
    You're kind of silly (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:10:53 PM EST
    not to recognize that this was a gaffe.

    We're talking about the same person who claimed that Obama was in favor of withdrawing from Iraq since 2002.  She's not exactly precise with her wording.

    Parent

    Oh, yes. . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    sorry -- "was" is a typo.

    My point is the commenter said Rice said Obama wasn't qualified to answer "the call", and you concur she said that.

    Parent

    Ok so what she meant was? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    I am not arguing your point just that after watching that video is sounds to me she is saying neither is ready to answer the phone at 3:00 am  Since the Clinton campaign says she is what kind of defense is that.  I a little like well saying mine is just as bad as yours?

    Parent
    Rice's point (none / 0) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:09 PM EST
    was that Clinton's claim, and McCain's for that matter, are bogus.  

    NO ONE is ready to answer that call until you have to answer that call.  There are things that you do that no one else in the world does, at least not in the scale that the POTUS does.  

    It's like a soldier who trains his entire life to go to war and then is about to finally go to war.  Yes the soldier is qualified to fight.  But is he ready?  The soldier won't know that until he is dropped onto the battlefield.

    Parent

    As a veteran If your qualified to go to war (none / 0) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    you are ready to go to war.   You may be willing and unqualified but if your qualified your ready you may not want to but your ready.

    Parent
    I give up (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    if you want to play semantic twister, go for it.  Maybe she really meant that Obama wasn't competent for the job, since that is a synonym as well.

    Personally I don't like to render the English language useless.  But that's just me.  Some partisans really enjoy changing the words to change the framing.  

    Parent

    You are rendering it useless (none / 0) (#46)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:47:28 PM EST
    when you say that saying someone is not ready for something does not mean the same as not being qualified for it.  Had you based your argument in saying that until you get that call at whatever time you won't know if your ready or not, then I would agree with you because I don't think anyone really knows until they have to do it.  Unfortunately you started with the semantics.  True be said and in my opinion Leader of any Nation is really On the Job Training and that's why their staff of advisors is so important.

    Parent
    I meant Truth be said (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST


    Parent
    My argument is still the same (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    Susan Rice did not say that Barack Obama was unqualified for the job.  Very simple.  

    If you read the entire passage you would understand that her point was EXACTLY what you just said, that no one is really ready.

    I didn't start with semantics.  I started with a plain reading of what she said.  You, and others, tried to CHANGE what she said.  

    Parent

    They're both not ready to have that 3AM phone call (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:08:53 PM EST


    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:08:06 AM EST


    Parent
    It was a civility delete (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    not a substance delete.

    Parent
    Gotcha (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    I can understand that.  Thanks to you and Jeralyn for explaining.

    Parent
    His problem is (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    that he brought on academics who study the issues and try to come up with solutions rather than political operatives.  

    Samantha Power was naive about partisan politics.  That doesn't mean she would be a bad foreign policy adviser.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    But I do think that having academics as part of your advisory team helps someone run the government.

    John Keynes helping FDR comes to mind.  

    Then again I'm not an anti-intellectual who thinks that gut decision making is all that matters.

    Parent

    I love the comment by Jeremy (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:28:36 PM EST
    on the number of steel mills in Pittsburgh today.

    Reality-based community indeed.

    Not Just NAFTA (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    The whole slew of trade agreements with all the countries should be scrutinized; even the World Trade Organization.  I am afraid that trade deals have been negotiated on behalf of U.S. corporations doing business abroad without regard to the American people.  We spend so much taxpayers' money to promote U.S. business interests abroad, what how does it benefit the American people?  They always cite cheaper prices that benefit the consumers, but what use is it if something costs as low as a dollar if you do not have a job that gives you the money to spend?  

    I think that Big business is afraid that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, she might actually get to do some of the things she has mentioned like (1) scrutinizing the trade agreements; (2) looking into bank lending practices; (3) remodel the whole health insurance industry; removing tax benefits to oil companies; banning no-bid contracts. And the reason she might be able to do it is if she starts telling the American people how things really stand.  That could quite scary for this big boys.

    Obama vs. Obama (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:43:51 PM EST
    The diary title made me wonder why the Obama vs. Obama ad hasn't been run against him.

    He's held so many different positions on virtually every issue, if he had I debate with himself I'm not sure he'd win.

    It's a pretty standard political "attack," I surprised we haven't seen it more in critical takes on Obama.

    Phat (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    Keep it on topic.

    Oops. (none / 0) (#3)
    by phat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:01:09 PM EST
    I thought that might qualify in terms of demagoguing.

    Sorry.

    phat

    Parent

    I saw this comment. . . (none / 0) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:27 PM EST
    without the original you deleted, and I thought you were saying "Phat"!  Maybe you could say "User phat, keep it on topic".

    Parent
    Well, no one is going to undo NAFTA. (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    The question is what kind of changes they will make, right?
    Also, what conditions will they put on future trade deals.
    NAFTA has always been a tight rope to walk (none / 0) (#8)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
    for Politicians of both parties.  This is one subject were any politician will have to say one thing to base of his/her party and another to the Big Money Backers.  The idea is not to get caught doing it.

    Yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:12:06 PM EST
    Both candidates have equally shown that they are politicians after all. Immigration, Mexico, American Jobs are all hot potato issues, and it is not surprising that all we will hear is demagoguing from all candidates when it comes to NAFTA.

    Anyone who is surprised by this should go back to sleep.

    Do you believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    there is any space between the candidates on trade?

    From I've been able to gather (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:15:33 PM EST
    if there is it's very small.  My opinion is that this comes from their economic advisors being basically from the same school of thought.

    Parent
    How could one tell. . . (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:17:37 PM EST
    if they won't tell us what their actual positions are?

    I guess Armando could call each campaign, speak Spanish, claim to be the Mexican government, and demand secret internal position papers on trade.  (He might even get them from the Obama campaign).

    Parent

    NAFTA (none / 0) (#23)
    by joe in oklahoma on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:24:40 PM EST
    it's really too bad that all three remaining candidates embrace NAFTA.
    it has undermined the mexican economy, creating an immigration crisis here.
    it is undermining the workforce here, driving down wages the past ten years.
    it needs to be either dumped or at least revised.
    (sounds like the dem 2might be open to the latter.

    They're not "embracing" NAFTA. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    They're feeling NAFTA up under the table.

    It's entirely different.

    Parent

    feeling under the table (none / 0) (#52)
    by joe in oklahoma on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:58:47 PM EST
    ya mean kinda like Bill Clinton did with welfare reform?
    gutting it...then apologizing...then saying during his re-elect campaign that he would correct it....then letting it stay destroyed?

    Parent
    When NAFTA was being debated (none / 0) (#30)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    during the first Clinton run in 1990, I recall that It was Bush Sr.'s initiative and Clinton jumped into it because it the novelty policy of the day.  The main reason as I recall was if U.S. companies are allowed to operate from there, they will be able to provide jobs for Mexico's domestic economy thereby stemming the pressure of people crossing the border for jobs.  That is why immediately after Clinton took office, there was the first 'amnesty' with the intent of 'documenting those who were already in the U.S. and control further illegal entries by tightening the borders.

    None of these worked the way they were supposed to.  Ross Perot was right:  there was this "giant sound sucking jobs out of the country."  With China opening up to even cheaper manufacturing, Mexico is not really doing as well as it should because many of the U.S. manufacdturing that moved there, subsequently moved to China.

    I agree with another poster that there is not much that can be done with NAFTA now.  Hillary's plan to create "green jobs" is the only hope of creating some production companies in the U.S. that will take the place of those that have been lost to outsourcing.  I think she is being realistic in saying, that tax incentives should be removed for outsourcing.  This might at least reduce the kinds of jobs that companies outsource.

    that was not the problem thats to kind (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    Obama is not known in Ohio, he ran Ad after Ad after Ad pounding Hillary Clinton and the Clinton administration as being anti NAFTA which he claimed was responsible for job loss harmed families, Ohio lost 250,000 jobs in the last 6 years this wasn't one tight rope a dope comment some small issue that he was parsing a response in a debate, I agree we all understand that on some gotcha question that's ok.  Hillary was right up front said that in Ohio lets be fair some areas of the country have greatly benefited while others have lost but Obama used it as a club running negatives Ads radio TV constantly one after another go look, that's different that's character not politics.

    it is character (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:59:16 PM EST
    when you openly lie about your positions.  all pols shade the truth but they don't usually base a large part of their campaign in a state on a flat lie.


    Parent
    Blame the other side (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    I just heard a BO super delegate trying to argue against including FL and MI delegations in the process.  In the ensuing argument, he mentioned the accusation that the HC campaign was secretly meeting talking to the Canadians too.

    Well, The Globe and Mail (globeandmail.com) debunks the claim:

    "OTTAWA -- Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday."

    It seems the super delegates are not immune to the rants of the campaign.

    Parent

    I read that article (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    very plainly states that the Clinton campaign never contacted them so the obviously had no talks.

    Parent
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#70)
    by jen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    Bookmarked for future debunking!

    The direct link to the article is HERE.


    Parent

    The bad of current trade agreements (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:19:30 PM EST
    To say that our current trade agreements need to be amended does not mean that free trade should be abandoned.  Safety and labor standards must be put in place to make the trade agreements work for all partners.  It seems to me that the current loss of jobs in the US is the result of that imbalance.  Trade agreements should improve the economic well being of all partners, not just one.

    Links (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:40:50 PM EST
    Try this

    Yes, that's exactly what I read. (none / 0) (#73)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST


    Obama vs. Obama On NAFTA? | 67 comments (67 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment