Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Government

Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided 188

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-sure-have-my-opinions dept.
Following the so called Super Tuesday primary mega bash yesterday, McCain has solidified a strong lead in the primary race over his rival Republicans. Things aren't so clear for the Democrats: while Clinton leads, the race is still too close to call.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Super Tuesday, McCain Leads Reps, Dems Undecided

Comments Filter:
  • by arkham6 (24514) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @09:49AM (#22319914)
    While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated. Clinton also has won all her states, there is not much left for her. While Obama however has plenty of states left to go where he typically is a winner. If you look at the pledged delegate count, he's tied with her, AFTER she won all those large states.

    Also, in money, Clinton is getting tapped out, while Obama is gaining speed. 35 Million last month? In SMALL party donation? Thats amazing.

    So while they will go on for a few more months.
    • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @09:59AM (#22320016)
      Actually, since it now appears that NM may go to Obama, along with a few other delegate gains, the Obama camp is now claiming that they won more delegates (along with more states). Clinton has to be reeling from this. Obama is also positioned to do well in next Tuesday's primaries - Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia. A sweep of all 3, in addition to Louisiana this weekend could push him further towards front-runner status.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrxak (727974)
        Yeah, if it wasn't for Hillary's superdelegates, she'd be losing right now, 590 to 603. And he's won 15 states to Hillary's 12 (10 not including MI and FL). I think it's definitely looking good for Obama.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CubeNudger (984277)
      I totally agree. The smart money was that Clinton had to build at least a 100 delegate (not counting super delegates) lead to have a good shot at the nomination. She came up far short of this. Obama has a very favorable schedule until two toss ups (Texas and Ohio) on March 4, and unlike Clinton, many of his contributors have yet to give the maximum amount. If I were a betting man, my money'd be on Obama right now.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        I don't think California was counted yet. She'll probably have the hundred. Though I wish Obama did win.
        • by FuzzyDaddy (584528) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:16AM (#22320244) Journal
          The interesting thing about CA is that they have a lot of absentee voters who voted more than a week ago, before it was clear how well Obama was going to do. I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it's interesting.

          I also heard my first political radio ad in the Washington DC area for Obama. The primaries for DC, VA and MD are next Tuesday. There has been no advertising and very few roadside signs so far.

          I'm voting for Obama, not that I'd mind Clinton so much. But I REALLY hope they can battle it out without damaging the eventual winner in the general election.

    • by div_2n (525075) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:29AM (#22320388)
      Obama narrowly defeated? Apparently you haven't examined the numbers.

      1) He won the majority of states with 13 to 8 and New Mexico looks like he might win that too.

      2) He won the majority of delegates if only by a slim margin.

      3) He won 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state. He was polling as low as 15% there just a couple of months ago.

      4) He won 8 states with over 60% of the vote (AK, CO, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND). She did that with only one state--Arkansas (not even NY).

      5) He won 3 states with over 70% of the vote (AK, ID, KS). She didn't manage that feat.

      Given these facts, I just don't see how anyone calls this a win for her. I am not convinced you can call this a tie either.
      • by barracg8 (61682)
        Statistically this was a win for Clinton because she took 582 delegates, while Obama only took 562 (see here [bbc.co.uk]). Given how close the delegate counts are, you could call this a tie.

        From the original posters comment it would look like they would agree with you (as would I) that Barack Obama probably woke up this morning felling a lot more positive about how Tuesday went. But statistically Hillary Clinton had the edge.

    • by amper (33785) *
      I entirely disagree here. I think it's quite clear that Hillary Clinton has a decisive edge in nearly all the most populous states, with their correspondingly high electoral college vote counts, including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and Michigan. You should remember that the delegates from Michigan and Florida have not been in the official counts because of the short-sighted decision of the DNC to refuse recognition in the primaries. There is no reason to suggest that Hillary C
      • So you're an independent libertarian?
      • by dopplex (242543) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @11:29AM (#22321284)
        The big flaw in this argument - which you are not the only one making - is that CA, NY, NJ, MA et al. are NOT contested states in a general election. Therefore, Hillary's strength in them is largely irrelevant, as either she or Obama would easily carry them in the General.

        More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

        It's these states which have to be the bread and butter of any electability argument. Obama could put Alabama and Georgia in play in a general election - a laughable idea in a 2000 or 2004 frame.

        Lastly, you say there's not much that can change in the month prior to Texas and Ohio. That's manifestly incorrect. Just look at the shift in national polls that has occured since Jan 5th: at that time, Clinton had a roughly 15 point lead nationally, and is now in a statistical dead heat with Obama as of the latest CNN poll.

        The next month of primaries and caucuses is very favorable to Obama - he is polling at a 13 point lead in Washington, the biggest of the weekend's caucuses (via SurveyUSA, which was by far the most accurate of the Super Tuesday pollsters). What is more, he now has a significant cash advantage. A month of momentum building smaller wins can certainly change the situation on the ground in Texas and Ohio when combined with the media advantage Obama will have due to his cash advantage. It may or may not happen - but Obama's track record when he's had time to actively campaign in a state is quite solid, and he has excellent ground operations.

        There's plenty of reason to believe the situation will change. Predicting how it will change is difficult, but expecting things to remain as they are is doomed to failure.
        • More relevant - and a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole, really - is the strength that Obama (and to a lesser extent Hillary) have shown in some battleground states. Obama got 300,000 votes in Alabama - a VERY red state. Huckabee - the winner on the GOP side, got 225,000. Both of them easily outpolled the nearest Republican in Missouri.

          First, outpolling a Republican is a bad metric: a candidate in a 2 way race will outpoll a candidate in a 3 or 4 way race if the populations are anywhere near even. Second, a lot of Obama's wins in the South are due to the fact that he has attracted a lot of black voters. Black voters in the South already vote for the Democrat in the general election and the Democrat never wins.

          The sad fact is, the exit polls pretty well indicate that this year is the heyday for identity politics. Middle-aged/old women v

          • by Copid (137416)

            Second, a lot of Obama's wins in the South are due to the fact that he has attracted a lot of black voters. Black voters in the South already vote for the Democrat in the general election and the Democrat never wins.

            Looking at the turnout over the past few elections, I'm starting to believe that the person who has the edge is not necessarily the one who takes the undecided voters in the center, but rather the one who brings out votes on their side who might not vote otherwise. Being strong with a base th

    • by mxs (42717)
      "While Clinton won California, New york, new Jersey and Mass, Obama really comes out as the winner here. Why? because not a month ago he was hugely behind, and now he's only narrowly been defeated."

      Thanks for playing, but that is not the definition of "winner". You either win, or you loose. Even if you are "narrowly defeated", you still have not won -- unless you can pay for the lawyers to make it so.
      • Thanks for playing, but that is not the definition of "winner". You either win, or you loose. Even if you are "narrowly defeated", you still have not won -- unless you can pay for the lawyers to make it so.

        That's true at the end of the race, when you count up all the delegates and votes. In an ongoing race, perception is everything. If you win by a narrower margin than expected, that can be a "lose" and if you lose by a narrower margin than expected, that would be a "win". For instance, if Obama won by 51-

    • by Neoprofin (871029)
      Winning big states actually doesn't do much for them. The DNC issues delegates proportionately, so if Obama get 49% of the vote in California and Clinton gets 50% the number of delegates they each receive is almost identical. 50% in a big state obviously means more than 50% in a small state, but as long as they both show up they're very likely to keep things close.
  • SuperDelegates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Eggman (932300) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @09:50AM (#22319924)
    I know it's up to the party to decide how to run their own primaries and it doesn't even have to be democratic, but doesn't the concept of superdelegates irk anyone else? The idea that you should get special treatment and privileged voting rights just for who you are seems... well, unamerican.
    • Yes, it's incredibly annoying. Like so many things, most people shrug it off because it usually doesn't matter. It's just that occasionally it's the only thing that matters. This might be one of those times.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)
      The purpose of superdelegates was to prevent the Democratic Party from nominating another George McGovern. However, that seems like an unnecessary step given that one of the reasons McGovern was nominated in 1972 was that some nice fellows over in the White House and CRP were derailing his competitors' campaigns. (For instance, the "Canuck Letter" along with a front-page attack on Ed Muskie's wife ended the Muskie campaign.)
    • by Kjella (173770)
      Only because the US system is so geared towards a two-party system that this is the "election" of what'll be on either side of the coin. In a system where there's room for more parties, I wouldn't care if someone formed a party where they were chief overlord and appointed minions dictatorically. It'd be a "take it or leave it" choice where you'd have no control over the composition, but I don't see how that's a threat to democracy. In a normal democracy, a new party would form if the old was lousy and they'
    • by Valdrax (32670)
      Yes. It bugs the heck out of me. Especially as an Obama supporter since before Super Tuesday, Obama has an elected delegate lead but Clinton had a superdelegate lead, if I recall correctly.

      I really like the facts that the Democratic Party has proportional voting, unlike the Republicans, but why do we have such a patrician system for power brokering? Superdelegates need to go.
  • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @09:51AM (#22319934) Journal
    I see that AGAIN, no one bothered to report on Ron Paul's stunning 3rd place finish in Alaska, solidifying his popularity in all of the coldest states. WHY ARE YOU ALL SO PREJUDICED?
    • by dkleinsc (563838)
      I'd say a better argument for actual prejudice can be found by scrolling to the bottom of TFA, and noticing that they have pages all about every candidate remaining in the race except Gravel and Paul.
      • Both of whom didn't manage to pick up a single state.

        If the Republican Party had proportional voting, then maybe Ron Paul would have a chance of being relevant with some of his 2nd & 3rd place wins last night, but with 16 delegates and the gap between the 1st & 2nd place candidates at nearly 300 delegates, he doesn't even have a chance of influencing the convention at all.

        Paul is irrelevant at this point.
  • To me, it looks like Obama does better when politics are retail and Clinton when politics are machine. No surprise there, really. The question is, I think, can her machine bring in enough delegates to seal the deal. I don't think so.

    I would say we are in for a brokered convention, and anything could happen. Heck, they could nominate Al Gore!

  • I know that Clinton hate is big on the internet, but she may actually be the best democratic candidate. Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama (see Krugman) and she won both California and New York yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Obama is that Bill was right, he is a fairy tale. People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redem
    • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <Satanicpuppy@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:04AM (#22320104) Journal
      Screw that. Their heath plans are practically identical, and neither one of them has a chance in hell of being passed "as is" by even a Dem congress.

      As for Hillary being the "best" candidate, she wouldn't even be in the running if her last name wasn't Clinton, and I for one am sick to death of nothing but goddamn clintons and bushes. She represents nothing but special interests and a half-assed political status quo.

      What Obama has, above and beyond his "magical blackness" (which is some nice racism there, since he's got nothing more or less than Bill Clinton had on the way into office, but that wasn't a big deal apparently) is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more. Another Clinton can only make that worse, if that's even possible.
      • by Jaeph (710098)
        As an independent (color me libertarian, if you like), I see Clinton's and Obama's stated platforms as essentially identical. However, I view Clinton's debate and campaign tactics with such disgust that I really hope Obama cleans her clock. At least Obama works to be civil and consistant, and presents himself relatively as-is.

        On a sidenote, I'm also amused at the whole affair. The democrats, supposedly the party of equal rights, free thinkers, intellectuals, are actually robotically lining up along gende
      • The guy is dead. Get over it. I didn't realize this Aussie was so popular as to have so much importance in American politics. Brokeback Mountain must've been a huge success.
      • by DesScorp (410532)
        "What Obama has...is the ability to actually undo some of the goddamn partisan hackery that has dominated our political process for the last 30 years or more"

        Christ Jesus, if I hear one more time how Obama is going to unite the country...

        Look, NO ONE is going to unite this country. This country is too divided among large groups of people with very strong, and very different ideas of how to do things. You think just because Obama is a good speaker that all of the sudden, Republicans are going to go "hey, thi
    • by timster (32400) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:07AM (#22320140)
      Krugman is campaigning for Hillary, so it's not surprising that he'd try to confuse people about Hillary's mandatory health-care plan. The major difference is that with Hillary's plan, bureaucrats in Washington are going to decide how much you can "afford" and pull it out of your paycheck, pretending it's not a tax. Obama's plan is to work to make the coverage affordable, but people will get to choose on their own.

      Krugman's response is little more than "but... but... Obama mandates care for children!" Yeah, he does, but there's a difference between children and responsible adults.
      • Obama's plan is more expensive because it's not mandatory (healthy 20-somethings won't sign up). It will actually cost more. Where does the money for Obama's plan come from? I'll give you a hint: Not the tooth fairy. It will come from taxes: people's pay checks.

        As House likes to say, "everybody lies." Even Obama.
        • by timster (32400)
          Now the liar is you -- Obama's plan is cheaper.

          See Krugman himself: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/ [nytimes.com] -- $102 billion from taxpayers from Obama's plan, $124 billion for Hillary's.

          Hillary's plan costs taxpayers less PER PERSON, but the dodge is that she forces people to pay in who don't want to. This doesn't help those people, and only serves to make the numbers look better and let her brag about "universal" care.
    • by Steve525 (236741) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:57AM (#22320798)
      People don't seem to support him because of issues or anything like that, they support him because he's the magical black guy candidate.

      I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that). I think people like Obama because, well, he's likable. He comes across as very personable and very intelligent (and not in that "I know more than you" way that other Democratics can sometimes come across). I think he comes across as too idealistic (and often says little of substance), but I still think he's a good candidate.

      With these two candidates, there has been a stong preference depending on age. The young like Obama and the old like Clinton. I fall somewhere in the middle, and I'm somewhat torn. I'd be happy with either, so my biggest concern is who can win against McCain. (Honestly, I wouldn't be too unhappy with McCain as long as he doesn't begin to pander to the religous right - which may happen by taking Huckabee as a VP on his ticket).
      • I don't think race is a big reason why white people are voting for or against Obama. (Race might be important for other groups, but I don't know enough to speak intelligently about that).

        So what you're saying is that white people aren't racist. Only non-whites might be racist but how should you know what all those people with funny colored skins are thinking. I see.

        Keep up the good work, we need more colorblind people like you.

    • by dalutong (260603)
      Um... winning New York and California in the democratic primary has little to do with who should be president when considering electability. The only question is, did McCain's success indicate that he could beat Obama but not Hillary? I suspect both of those states are going to Democrats no matter what, so it doesn't matter if Hillary won them. I think it is much more notable how well Obama did in the not-necessarily-blue states. He had some states with ~50% difference between the two. That, I think, indica
    • by bwalling (195998) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @11:35AM (#22321418) Homepage
      I'm sorry, but the significant hate against Clinton is exactly the reason not to vote for her. She will get absolutely zero done because the Republicans will fight every breath she takes. It will be the nastiest four years anyone will be able to remember. You cannot be a good leader if you are extremely divisive. How can you effectively lead when half the people you are trying to lead truly hate you?

      They may have some policy differences, but they really aren't that different, and people actually like Obama and he inspires people. That's a really important point. Positive is better than negative in more ways than just feel good BS. One of Reagan's biggest benefits was his positive, likable personality. Same with the previous Clinton.
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by bendodge (998616)

      Her health care plan is miles ahead of Obama
      I quit reading there. Her health care plan is socialism, plain and simple. Everyone pays for everyone else. The government has no business whatsoever taking charge of healthcare or other personal responsibilities.

      If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.
      • by Copid (137416)

        If you want to see how that works, just visit the UK, where they have Hillary-style healthcare and it takes five weeks to get heart surgery.
        Or hang around here where our solution to the problem is just not to perform necessary heart surgery on some people at all. No system is without its costs.
  • How did Romney win this state? The lone newspaper in MA that endorsed Bush in 2004 over Kerry endorsed McCain and Hillary. The editor of the paper went off about how bad Romney was [lowellsun.com] when he was governor. Though the reasoning for voting for Hillary is just stupid (Bill was a bad guy, but Hillary gets credit for sticking by him, therefore she should be the Dem nominee?).
    • Because he used to be governor there? I don't know if MA has closed elections, but if so, Romney was the most popular candidate among Republicans, not the whole state. If not, people like to vote for people they know, that's why (among many other reasons) incumbents win more often than not.
    • It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising.

      Seriously, you should win your own state as a given. If Hillary had lost New York, she might as well have conceeded on the spot, and if Al Gore had won Tennessee we'd be arguing about what repub would be running against Lieberman...God, preisdent lieberman...I just threw up a little.
      • by Enry (630)

        It's a really liberal state, so the conservative nomination is bound to be something of a toss up, and the state liked him enough at one point to make him governor, so it can't be that surprising.

        I lived through him being governor here, and it was pretty bad. As said in the link I gave above, Romney spent most of his time as governor going to conferences or otherwise campaigning for president. It's pretty blatant. When he said he'd announce if he was going to run, everyone pretty much already knew he was going to run - it was like Bush deciding to attack Iraq. As for health care here (his one actual accomplishment), it was merely requiring that everyone in the state get insurance. Now I have e

    • How is that surprising? There were enough people total that liked him to elect him Governor; when you take away all the people who voted against him (because they probably weren't voting in the Republican primaries) why would you be surprised that there'd still be a lot of people who liked him?
  • by R2.0 (532027) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:14AM (#22320222)
    At least for the Repubs. The conservative right, while bloviating at the top, is more practical at the bottom. so here is how the equation is going:

    McCain>Hillary
    McCain=Obama
    Romney=Hillary
    RomneyObama

    In this equation, McCain has the best chance of winning, and conservatives would rather get half a loaf than none at all.
  • by mike2R (721965) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:16AM (#22320238)
    Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?

    It's a somewhat radical concept for outsiders to get our heads around, but I have to say I think it's a good plan.
    • by vonPoonBurGer (680105) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:39AM (#22320538)

      Assuming McCain gets the Republican nomination, does this mean the next President of the US is going to be sane?
      He's 71, there's plenty of time between now and next November for him to work up a good, solid old-man-dementia crazy.
  • by Egdiroh (1086111) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @10:35AM (#22320458)
    Looking at CNN, a lot of the delegate counts are still short for the democrats, based on the total number of delegates they've assigned for a lot of the super tuesday states and a the number of delegates tha they say the state has tied to yesterdays elections and caucuses. So the balance could still shift some.

    Generally I've been disappointed with the reporting on the elections so far. Before super tuesday, Obama had gotten the most pledged delegates or tied with clinton in all the contests, but there were a few were they called Clinton the winner. It would be like declaring the the super bowl winner based on the number completed passes and not the score, which according to espn would make the Patriots the winner, which we all understand they are not.

    Beyond my general dismay at the misrepresentation of the democratic primary results, I am frustrated with the confusion that this type of reporting causes. The outlets glaze over the actual electoral mechanics and come as close as they can to portraying each contest as a statewide popular vote. Then when the presidential election comes around they will do their best to portray it as a national popular election. First in the US not all votes are equal, electoral votes are based on # of members of both houses of congress from the state so because of each state getting two senators, the ratio of electoral votes to population, means that they people in low populace states have votes that are worth more of an electoral vote each. After that because most states are winner take all when it come to electoral votes if a candidate wins 100% of the vote in states that make up 40% of the electoral college and loses the other 60% of the electoral vote worth of states in a 48%/52% split then he would lose the election but would have won the make believe nationwide popular election by a pretty good margin, and people would be pissed, and feel cheated. And most of the time they would blame it on the disparity of the states in the electoral college.

    The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or so voters) can decide millions of peoples worth of vote. If all the states switched to proportional voting then the margins for how much the popular vote can differ from the results would decrease. It would also severely reduce the rewards for disenfranchising voters, and candidates would have to do a better job of appealing to the majority. If you don't like the elections don't bitch about the electoral college, work for change at the state level. Once we have the state elections behaving more inline with our expectations and at this point our desired system, we can see if we really need to tinker with the much harder to tinker with constitution.
    • by dkleinsc (563838)
      CNN in particular has been guilty of completely misrepresenting what counts and what doesn't count, as well as covering the horse race rather than what the candidates are saying and doing (Wolf Blitzer, I'm looking at you). For instance, they devoted significant coverage to the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries, despite the fact that those don't count. They covered the Democratic primaries and caucuses as if what counted was how many states candidates "won", not how many delegates they picked up.

      Oth
    • The worst part about all this electoral confusion is that blaming the electoral college is how you make sure the system never changes. The electoral college is based on squarely in the constitution and would be a major undertaking to change. However the constitution has nothing at all to do with how each state allocates there votes. That can be addressed on a state by state level. Currently most states are winner take all. Which means that a thousand or so voters (or the fraud perpetrated on a thousand or s

  • Meh. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Guppy06 (410832)
    In a dead heat between Clinton and Obama, Clinton will end up the winner as she's far more entrenched than her competitor and has the support the important people in the party. So then we'll end up with an election contest between her and McCain, leaving the voters to decide between the candidate that quietly supported war and torture, and the candidate that quietly supported war and torture.

    Yay democracy.
    • Re:Meh. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Wednesday February 06, 2008 @01:04PM (#22322488)
      Woah, woah, woah!
      McCain is the only Republican candidate that's actually tried hard to *do* something to oppose torture. He's was the author of several bills and amendments to ban torture, which faced strident opposition from the Bush administration. McCain was tortured himself, after all.

      If you're going to slam the guy, don't lie about one of his well-known positions that define the differences between him and the alternatives.
      • by Chris Burke (6130)
        That's true, and while overall I've lost a lot of respect for McCain in the last four years, his vocal opposition to torture, and willingness to flat-out call torture techniques* torture with the authority of a former POW, has allowed me to retain some of that respect.

        So anyway, given that he is still far more hawkish and pro-Iranian-invasion, what this means is that your choices are like this:

        McCain: Less torture, more war!
        Clinton: Less war, more torture!

        Man it's going to be a tough choice if it comes dow
  • I think among Democrats, Clinton may have a slight overall lead. However, it seems to me that Obama is a more palatable choice for independents. In polls, Obama beats McCain, but Clinton doesn't. On the other hand, just about anything that can come out about Clinton has come out; there are no surprises there. With Obama, there may be issues that come up during the general election that we aren't aware of yet.

    On the Republican side, McCain worries me. He seems to be breaking with some of the recent Repub

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

Working...