Why I support Edwards more than even Al Gore (should he run)

[LBJDemocrat]

Although I appreciate that he's anti-war now, this isn't the main reason I'm a fan of Edwards'. In fact, I can entirely understand why someone would view Obama as being at least as credible as Edwards on the issue (possibly more; I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about it).

Al Gore certainly has more credibility than Edwards on the issue of the Iraq War.

But the war, as I said, isn't the reason.

Poverty's the reason. Outsourcing's the reason. Surviving off peanut butter, canned tuna, and canned beans in order to avoid stretching one's budget is the reason. And the fear of needing to see a doctor and then not being able to pay the rent.

As far as I know, John Edwards has been the most consistent, of the leading candidates, supporter of traditionally Democratic economic policy, the policy of FDR. The New Deal. The Great Society. Whether Edwards is sincere or not, if he were to win, it would be a mandate for economic progressivism that may be a first step towards undoing the damage that Reagan did.

Sen. Clinton has made repugnant statements on trade to an Indian company, Tata Consultancy. And she has the endorsement of Morgan Stanley's CEO. Barack Obama refused to take a clear stand on the issue in The Audacity of Hope. He asks us to consider the concerns of businesses, who fear protectionism can stifle that false god called "Growth."

To be sure, Edwards' language has its nuances; but not to the same extent.

Al Gore, as far as trade is concerned, has a poor record. He tried to tear Ross Perot to pieces on this particular issue. And we know that Ross Perot was right when he talked about "a giant sucking sound."

He was part of the administration that started what Bush Jr. finished off - the gutting of America's industries, the exploitation of offshore slave labor, and the ruin of manufacturing workers who now often find themselves working in low-level service jobs after years of experience in manufacturing plants.

Has Al Gore changed his mind on the issue? I would be much more supportive if he did.

And about environmentalism, I would like to know what Al Gore advocates specifically. If its just research for alternative fuel, I find that insufficient and too easy for the population. Does he advocate increased funding for mass transit systems? Does he criticize the purchase of SUVs by people who have no real need for such cars? Does he advocate, in short, a decrease in consumption?

I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I would like to know, and I'm aware that my assumptions may be incorrect.

[RufusEarl]

1. I agree, we need an honest progressive now more then ever.

And that's my reason for supporting Edwards.

[iconocrastic]

14. And one with a good haircut, too.

[ClassWarrior]

34. If one's that shallow, yes.

NGU.

[Clark2008]

52. Too bad he's not one.

Honest or progressive (take a look at his senate career, please).

[Merlot]

2. I agree with some points in your post regarding Edwards

He has been working very hard with unions and working people. Though both Obama and Clinton have a lot to offer, Edwards to me has made working, middle Americans, anti-poverty the center piece of his campaign.

Since Al Gore is not running (so far) we have no way of knowing what his stands on the issues are. IMO Al Gore has hit his stride and found his place on the universal stage. He can do more good focusing on his passion - the environment.

[w4rma]

3. WP: CEO funded Clintons' travel "Gupta is a well-known figure in the high-tech world in India"

The Clintons' strong connections with this corrupt CEO tells me exactly how they feel about outsourcing skilled high-wage American jobs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18874222/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3284764#3284769

[bklyncowgirl]

4. I can't get past Edward's support for the Iraq War Resolution

He was on the intelligence committee.

He had access to the full intelligence--not just the sexed up version. He had to know--or should have known that Bush was exaggerating the WMD threat in order to scare the country into war.

Edwards not only voted for the war, he spoke eloquently in favor of it and co-sponsored the bill. In short he handed Bush a blank check.

Yes, he's changed his tune since 2004 and I like what he's saying now, but at the crucial moment his judgment--or his character--was seriously lacking.

I say that sadly because I admire his positions on the issues, particularly on domestic issues, but Iraq is a stain on his record. I'm not saying it's a complete deal breaker, I could still vote for the man under the right circumstances but that and his lack of executive experience, put a few other candidates above him on my list.

[1932]

8. As I asked in other thread where you posted it, what do you think Edwards's motivation

was in those actions?

[bklyncowgirl]

43. Political calculation. That's about the only thing that makes sense.

Edwards was running for president. Like Kerry, I believe that he thought that Bush would win the war quickly and then get out a hero like his dad. I believe that he didn't think that it would go so terribly wrong and didn't want to be on the "wrong" side of that vote. The same thing goes for Clinton, Biden and Dodd.

What bothers me about Edwards, perhaps more than some of the others is that at the time he was quite enthusiastic about the war, while even Clinton was nuanced in her public statements. He was also on the intelligence committee and had access to the full intelligence. At the time he joined the drumbeat for the war he had to know (or should have known) that it was a crock.

The Republicans are going to have great fun with that!

I'm not ruling Edwards out, by the way, but despite the fact that I like his positions on domestic issues I'm ranking him below candidates who had nothing to do with getting into this mess.

[1932]

46. Edwards voted against the 87B allocation within the same primaries

during which yes IWR voters (and yes voters on the 87B allocation) were winning primaries (and even at a time when Dean was saying he would have voted for the allocations.

How do you resolve that?

[w4rma]

9. I can't get past Hillary's and Obama's tacit support of the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[bklyncowgirl]

44. I'm also not pleased with those two profiles in courage.

I wonder if Clinton had two statements prepared, on for a yea vote and one for a nay vote depending on which way Obama jumped. The nuance of waiting until the bill had passed to vote will be lost on most people, however.

[venable]

10. the story that he knew the intel was wrong, is wrong

he heard the intel was maybe wrong, maybe right, maybe a bit of both, and what he saw and heard as a member of the Senate Intel committee was just more of the same mixed messages.

he made the incorrect decision about who to trust (Tenet). he was wrong, and says so, as loudly and as often as is necessary.

[bklyncowgirl]

45. I do agree that he has fully admitted his mistake.

I could forgive him the vote. It's co-sponsoring the resolution and cheerleading for it that bothers me.

[xkenx]

53. No mixed messages! 23 Dem. Senators had the courage to vote NO on IWR. Here's why.

Now Dick Durbin has come out and publicly stated what Carl Levin has been saying privately---that ALL congresspeople had ALL the intelligence reports pre-IWR vote to know that Bushco's claims of WMD were bogus or unsubstantiated. I attended a conference in 2005 where Levin was asked why Dems. voted "YES" when he, Kennedy, Graham, Boxer, Durbin, and 18 other Dem. senators voted NO. He tried to cover for them but pretty much said they were substituting political calculation for courage. The aftermath horror show is still going on for our troops, untold innocent Iraqis, and our treasury, with Dems. lumped in with Rethugs for the war's inception. For any Dems who voted "YES" to claim that they were misled by the intelligence is a flat out lie. To claim "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for it" is more bullshit, because they knew then. That vote marked their lack of moral courage and speaks volumes about their characters. I cannot vote for someone so absent in character to take the chance that they will again be in a position to make the same mistake again. Make no mistake, the next president will be called to make major decisions in the face of uncertainty. The job is too important to trust to anyone who has proved their lack of courage.

[nevergiveup]

5. Yep!

I will take either Edwards or Obama over Gore. I would of course support Gore if he steps in and wins the nomination but I truly believe this country needs some new approaches to some old festering problems. I also think Gore would have a very difficult time being elected. He is a brilliant man but a terrible campaigner. I know of no one, even among my liberal friends, who is excited about another Gore candidacy.

[Justyce]

6. These are my main reasons for supporting him as well.

Our economy and the outsourcing problem should be our biggest concerns right now, IMO, because we can't do anything else if our economy bottoms out. I've read where basically Obama supports free trade, but thinks it needs tweaking. That reason alone is enough to make me hope he doesn't win our nomination.

[LBJDemocrat]

7. Yeah; that garbage about tweaking it needs to stop

They think we're in 1992 and are going to eat that s*** up again.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Edwards is the only major candidate who has come out for repealing Clinton's NAFTA

[bunnies]

32. Thank you for pointing this out...

I'd went looking for info about it on his campaign website... but didnt anything there. Since I dont have a candidate yet... knowing this matters much to me. :hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. No problem, he did so a few weeks ago

:hi:

[question everything]

39. How, do you think, can a President stop outsourcing?

This was also the question in 2004.

Regardless of who the President is, s/he is not going to turn into Hugo Chavez and scrap the capitalistic free market system. And by this system, especially in our global economy, no one is going to tell a corporation how to run its business.

The only think that a President can do, with a support from Congress, of course, is to offer some tax incentive to keep jobs here, to hire more people here.

[LBJDemocrat]

40. Tariffs

Bush recently slapped tariffs on Chinese paper products. Back in the day, he had tariffs on steel; though he repealed them. No reason why a president can't apply tariffs or renegotiate trade agreements.

Edwards might set the ball rolling for fair trade.

[Sapphire Blue]

11. K&R, and Welcome to DU, LBJDemocrat!

My support for John Edwards: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/282



Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America

[TwilightGardener]

12. "Obama asks us to consider the concerns of businesses..."

Sounds like a smart, general-election winner to me! I'm an avowed capitalist who is not looking for the next "New Deal" or "Great Society". Business growth is an important consideration for the economy. Obama grasps that. Makes me support him even more!

[LBJDemocrat]

18. So then what's appealing about the Democratic Party?

Is it the policies on gay rights and abortion rights? Does this mean you'd prefer a President Michael Bloomberg to a President Edwards?

[TwilightGardener]

19. I have always been a Democrat, but I'm definitely more conservative

than most on DU. I find the Democratic Party to be more tolerant, less apt to mix religion into politics and policy, less greedy and corrupt (although there's always some of that in both parties), and more open to new ideas and flexible to change. I'm not an Indy because I find that there's enough room for me in this party. I could never be a Republican. Bloomberg used to be a Dem, and only changed his affiliation to run for mayor, so it wouldn't be a huge stretch to imagine voting for him, though I'm not planning to. I hope it doesn't come down to those two--it'd be something I have to ponder.

[LBJDemocrat]

20. Oh well.

Then when we're on opposite ends of the Democratic Party's spectrum.

I'll admit that I'm not so much in favor of new ideas as in favor of a return to the old days of FDR and Johnson.

[TwilightGardener]

23. Not knocking the wonderful contributions of FDR and LBJ by any means--

they were men of vision and decency in terms of helping the underpriveleged. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. They met the needs of their time AND ours still today. I just can't see our government operating as effectively today on that scale again, or the American people being willing to give up "X" amount of tax money for the public good. I'm cynical, though. :toast:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. I respect your honesty and openess

I disagree with you, I am more in the mold of a FDR/LBJ style progressive, but I respect you being honest enough to state your beliefs despite knowing that they would place you outside the mainstream here. :toast:

[TwilightGardener]

28. ...

It's a big tent, this DU! :toast:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. There is no contradiction between New Deal/Great Society plans and capitalism

The New Deal and Great Society, contradictory to conservative claims, did not undercut capitalism but rather were intelligent supplements to capitalism. They helped deal with some of the flaws of capitalism, helped those that were left out of the circle of opportunity. Capitalism, like any other system has flaws and a safety net is needed to protect those who fall through the cracks. Unfettered capitalism would be a disaster. We know this because we tried it. Look at America prior to the New Deal, the days of laissez-faire, robber barons, child labor, people working 12 hours a day yet still living in unspeakable poverty, the days of people essentially living as near-slaves in the company owned town with the company owned utility, general store, etc.

Obama, like HRC, is saying what will appeal to corporate contributors. People, with much justification, paint HRC as the corporate candidate but it is Obama who has raised the most money from Wall Street.

[TwilightGardener]

29. It's not that I feel they are mutually exclusive, it's just that I'm not

looking for a candidate who places New-Deal type change at the top of his platform. Obama may be more "corporate", as you say, but I'm willing to interpret that as as being more business-friendly, and thus more electable to Republicans, in terms of not being as likely to raise taxes or require growth-hampering concessions from business interests. He's a Dem that strikes me as a little bit "closet-conservative", frankly--and I really like his foreign policy views.

[Pyrzqxgl]

30. Look! I own a small business.

However I sure can see that if folks have more money in their pockets, I'm going to do more business.
Business growth is important but a little growth can be sacrificed to keep workers above the poverty
level.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Edwards is the most progressive of the top candidates on economic and social justice matters

There is a reason some seek to constantly divert attention to October of 2002 and give the IWR a preemptive importance. If people looked at the positions the major candidates took on economic and social justice issues there is no contest between Edwards and the rest. FOr instance, Edwards' anti-poverty plan calls for spending $15 billion a year to eradicate poverty over three decades--finishing LBJ's work. How often do the other "major" candidates even bother to mention poverty, let alone present a plan to eradicate it?

[Triana]

16. Other candidates don't mention poverty - I agree - no contest

Edwards has been and remains "my president". That may change but for now - it's where I am.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Even worse, let's look at why they don't. Can anyone say "corporate backing"?

[Triana]

37. Yep. They're protecting the status quo and fat profit margins...

...to heck with the poor. They don't want to talk about that. It might expose their robbery.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. That's why they rely on smoke and mirrors instead of talking about real issues and real solutions nt

[autorank]

15. I'm a Gore supporter but I respect Edwards highly for his choice of poverty.

What does that get him? Very little. Therefore, the man is displaying both intellectual honesty and political courage, a fact not noted in the general dialog about his efforts. He is to be commended and, if Gore doesn't step in, he's got my time, money and vote.

Having said that, all issues are subordinate to the eco catastrophes we face for certain and the means of remediation, limited or, less likely, full. Edwards probably recognizes the importance of the filth we generate, swallow, and regurgitate in a way that is destroying the planet.

You make good points.

(N.B. Edwards like the others did real harm to the USA by their vote for * on Iraq. They knew, like we knew, that the metal rods, the WMD, and nuclear excuses were total bullshit. They all need to stop talking about a "mistake." Mistake implies an alternative path with reasonable justification. There was no alternative once they knew, and he and the rest did, that it was a pack of lies. That process would make him a better president, I suspect.)

[ChiciB1]

17. WELCOME TO DU... Good to Have You! I'm Very Pro-Gore... However

as I recently posted earlier this week, I think I'll have to stick with Johnny! Just got my new bumper stickers AND am waiting for the T-Shirts I ordered along with them!

The ones that say... Support Our Troops... End The War! I got TWO SHIRTS and two free bumper stickers! I WAS going to put both on "my" car, but decided my husband needs one on his too!

I agree with you about Edwards, although I have a few more reasons for supporting him. I don't talk about them here because I KNOW what will happen if I do and we've had ENOUGH division here at DU regarding our candidates!

Go, Johnny, Go!

[dajoki]

21. As of today...

I still haven't picked my candidate, but I'm leaning Edwards for the reasons you outline. Yeah, he screwed up with the war, but how many times does he have to apoligize for it? He was lied to about it like everyone else. There were very few lawmakers at that time who didn't believe the crap intelligence they were being fed. So I forgave him for that, and he has alway been true to Democratic economic values.

[politicasista]

27. I would support Gore

before I support Edwards.

[waiting for hope]

31. Welcome to DU LBJDemocrat !

Excellent Post - I have always felt that if this country is stronger from the inside out, the possibilities of what we can do as a nation are endless. Poverty is the single biggest issue holding us back - with a country that is more confident within it's own borders, from having adequate health care, jobs that create pride and economic success, restoring our place in the world as a compassionate, caring country that is able to help others - that's what Edwards stand for and he speaks for me.

:toast: and a :kick: and a :thumbsup: and A GREAT BIG :bounce:

[LBJDemocrat]

33. Thanks

Poverty should be more strongly considered. While the war may be the most pressing issue right now, in that it costs lives and a lot of resources, it will end one day. The question is, what kind of country will the US be when it ends?

[ejbr]

35. I was for Edwards..

but Congress's recent betrayel has forced my hand and I am now voting for Gravel. No, I am not saying that Edwards has any connection to the turncoats in Congress, but the only way these people seem to listen is not protests, polls and emails, but by votes. I just hope that Diebold hasn't come to my neighborhood.

[w4rma]

41. Huh? What are you smoking, dude?

You'll reward Hillary and Obama (who tacitly supported the bill in Congress) by not voting for Edwards (despite the fact that Edwards has been on top of this fight from the get go), who is in the best position (aside from Gore) to win the Democratic primary?

[ejbr]

42. The MSM will most certainly lump

the three together (he did vote for the war, apology or not), so future politicians will see nothing wrong with going down the path of Hillary or Obama. A vote for someone who has been disgusted with this entire fiasco from the beginning will be cathartic. And it seems that since the Democratic Congress has reinforced my belief that my vote means nothing, I may as well vote my conscious versus being pragmatic.

But if you do know where I can get some good smoke so that I can forget that I am in the party of loser, weak-kneed turncoats (generally speaking), I'd really appreciate the info. :smoke:

[w4rma]

47. I just don't agree with your logic on retaliation.

and I don't like Gravel, at all, because his flat tax that he says is progressive is actually the same regressive one promoted by Forbes and many Republicans and Libertarians. In order to prevent more wars in the long run, I think getting back much of the power that warmongering no-nation billionaires have stolen from regular Americans is the best and only real long term solution.

I do agree with the logic in your last sentence, however.

[ejbr]

48. I don't consider it retaliation, just self-respect. n/t

[zulchzulu]

49. On trade, Edwards voted for permanent normal trade relations with China and Vietnam

It went into effect without labor and environmental standards set...and you can imagine how many US industrial jobs and production went to these countries since 2000.

[w4rma]

50. Edwards is Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record.

During a stop in Iowa last week Presidential candidate John Edwards suggested that repealing the North American Free Trade Agreement would be a great benefit for workers in the United States. Edwards made the comment during a stop in Indianola, Iowa. He also said that negotiation rights need to be strengthened and called for the implementation of “card-check neutrality.
04/22/2007 - 1:23pm
http://www.laborradio.org/node/5761

WP: CEO funded Clintons' travel "Gupta is a well-known figure in the high-tech world in India"
The Clintons' strong connections with this corrupt CEO (and Hillary's six years as a Wal-Mart board member) tells me exactly how they feel about outsourcing skilled high-wage American jobs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18874222 /
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3284764#3284769

Clinton Is Quiet on Her Past Role With Wal-Mart
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3271407

Hillary Clinton was once a board member of Wal-Mart.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0312-01.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x923108

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman

Obama Voted yes on free trade agreement with Oman.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

TPM Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq
…
Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.
…
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.
…
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

[zulchzulu]

54. So nothing about Edwards voting for the China and Vietnam free trade status bills?

Hmm...I see.

Hey, but thanks for pointing out that Obama hasn't ruled out using nukes on Iran...ferchrissakes...are you fucking kidding?

:rofl:

[LWolf]

51. I, too, am interested in Gore's current stance on NAFTA/CAFTA.

I don't prefer Edwards to Gore, though. Gore would win that one hands down.

If I'm going to choose a candidate based on support for labor, Kucinich has by far the best record.

Of course, he is not considered to be a "leading" candidate by much of his own party. Still, I'd suggest that, of the current declared candidates, he has been leading the opposition to the Bush regime, leading the efforts to prevent and end the war, leading opposition to NAFTA/CAFTA, leading in every issue I look at when choosing a candidate.

My support goes to Kucinich, who leads the pack on every issue.