Undecided? Check in here.

[Jed Dilligan]

Looking at this forum one would imagine all DUers are 100% behind a candidate (or non-candidate).

At this point, I feel like any of them would be better than any Repig, but that's as far as it goes for me. I like Edwards' focus on poverty and I like the idea of having a black or female president. At the same time, I have a deep distrust of all politicians and the hero-worship sometimes boggles my mind.

Are you still on the fence? Please respond. I'd like the people who are all about one candidate or another to know how many of us are here.

[pacalo]

1. I'm simply waiting for someone who will spark my enthusiasm.

Out of all the candidates so far, Edwards gives me the most hope. I suspect the two that I'd like to run (Gore & Clark) won't do so out of respect for the Clintons.

I don't understand, frankly, the enthusiasm for Obama. I don't understand why he supposedly holds the key to all that ails this country, why he should be the man to clean up Bush's overwhelming mess.

I don't trust Hillary because she's too centric; after the last seven years of living hell & lies, anyone who runs for president & won't tell us the sky is blue is, frankly, not telling the truth. Bill Clinton's friendship with Poppy Bush bothers me.

[allisonthegreat]

58. The field is too flooded right now

I suffer from ADD so I can't make a decision. All candidates have good platforms!

[Totally Committed]

2. Not EXACTLY "undecided".... I'm more "none of the above" at the moment.

But, I remain hopeful that one or two additions to the field are yet to come.

TC

[bunnies]

63. ditto here...

I do like DK, but well... you know, so I guess that leaves me with no one.

[glowing]

3. Yes, Kucinich or Edwards... not sure.. I'd love them to be a ticket

though......Edwards/ Kucinich

[Zenlitened]

4. Checking in.

:hi:

I think all of our candidates have good qualities in their favor. And some bad mixed in too -- that's the way it goes.

I agree, the hero-worship seems a bit over-the-top sometimes. But what really bugs me is the "Your Candidate is the Living Embodiment of Evil!!!" sort of posts. That strikes me as extreme.

Besides, Dick Cheney is the Embodiment of Evil, I think we can all agree. Whether he's actually Living... I guess that's open to debate. :D

[Jed Dilligan]

6. Those posts reflect only on the posters,

I doubt their beloved candidates would be at all happy to find out this was being done on their behalf!

Donald Trump's hair is the Living Embodiment of Evil. Yes folks, it's ALIVE!

[Benhurst]

5. I wish there were a forum for a fact-based comparison with links of the

candidates' positions.

I am soooo tired of the puff pieces. I really don't care which candidate has raised the most money. (Whatever happened to money in campaigns being considered a problem, not a virtue?)

I realize Clinton is a woman, Obama is an African American, and John Edwards is a white man -- so what? I'm not going to base my support on gender or race.

And, dear god, please spare me the charisma posts. They always remind me of the stories of women fainting and wetting their knickers in the presence of Hitler.

[DianeK]

7. I'm on the fence..

no one thrills me. I like Edwards ok but I could be enthusiastic if Gore were to join the fray. This country is so damaged right now, we are going to need a clear, deliberative, mature mind to get back some of what we've lost.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. i guess I'm "kind of undecided" too

I suppose that when it comes to issues I have said before and I will say now that only Congressman Dennis Kucinich clearly and consistently represents the progressive point of view and the opinions on the most vitally important issues of that the vast majority of progressive Democrats most care about.

However, I do have to be realistic and realize that the term "long shot" is a more than a fair statement to describe Mr. Kucinich's candidacy. Since campaigns are seldom about issues. In fact it seems that a candidate's opinions on issues are treated almost as an irrelevancy even by people who should know better.

Of the so-called, "top-tier" candidates, I suppose I am leaning slightly toward Sen. Obama because both his personal and educational background represent particularly in foreign policy a level of expertise and sophistication that contrast the most dramatically with the most narrow parochial worldview in American history which so isolates America, undermines its interest and threatens the peace of the world.

On most domestic issues I see the differences between the top-tier candidates to be marginal and primarily rhetorical in nature.

However, I am not at this time, a supporter or opponent of any of the top-tier candidates. And I frankly find most of the sniping back and forth to be simply rather empty and banal politicking on all sides

When all is done and said - none of us can allow a Republican to win in November 2008. The consequences of that would be just too disastrous to contemplate. And we all would do well to remember that when advocating for our favorite.

/
.

[Bonobo]

9. Checking in. God I hate GD:P! It's like one big spam by partisans now...

No room for discussion hardly...

I'm waiting to see who impresses me. I favor Edwards, but have a slight icky feeling about him because of his "silver tongue, lawyer-demeanor". I have an instinctive dislike for Hillary and her conservative triangulation and political expediency. As for Obama, I like him, he is a great writer and deep thinker, but holds back too much and is still too far right for me. I like Kucinich, but am afraid Americans aren't ready to elect a man that looks like a garden gnome...

Those are my issues with the current candidates. I would like to see Wes Clark run or Al Gore.

[Jed Dilligan]

10. I basically agree with you on all points

I thought that Edwards did okay in the 04 campaign--just okay--but better than Kerry.

I don't like the idea of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton succession because it smacks of aristocracy.

I wouldn't say "garden gnome" but Kucinich does not look or seem like a President to me.

People put too much on Obama's skin color. I actually think Hillary will bring out more black voters than he would in the GE. Clinton is a cult figure for many black people. There is a long-standing animosity between African immigrants and African Americans.

He's also too "pro-business" for me.

Clark and Gore also seem to me like the best ones for the job. Could that be WHY they aren't running?

[Bonobo]

11. That's an interesting question, Jed.

Are Gore and Clark not running because they are the best for the job?

No. In a way, I think they are best for the job because they are not interested in becoming the most "powerful person in the world". In other words, they have already been there and done it. Think about it. As the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO", he has already experienced dizzying executive (and military) power. Similarly, Gore has been there in a way that even Hillary can't claim though she lived in the WH too.

As for the animosity between African immigrants and African Americans, I have never heard that. Sources? I do agree that she could maybe earn as much votes from blacks as Obama.

Thanks for the comments.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. That was sort of what I meant to imply

Power is a catch-22. Anyone who wants it, doesn't deserve it. I think all political leaders should be drafted.

As far as the animosity goes, I can really only speak from my experience in Oakland. There's a big influx of Africans, especially Nigerians, and they are seen as a separate community in the same space with all the problems that entails. Maya Angelou's book "All God's Children Need Travelin' Shoes" has some interesting analysis of African/African-American relations.

African and West Indian immigrants in Britain are the highest-achieving (educational and career) minority, so you can see how the socioeconomic gap here might transcend race.

[LittleClarkie]

17. And you want to know something. What some of the partisans don't realize is

we're watching them too. If a person's supporters turn me off, it might affect who I go with.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. There's a question of how much comes from above,

how much from below, and how much from the other side. This is a tricky matter to determine.

It's fairly obvious to me that the vilest partisans on this board are RW trolls trying to drive hesitant Democrats out of the party. The question is how many of the rabid Hillarians, Obamaniacs, Edwardsites, Kuciniphiles, etc. are also in this category (perhaps from other candidates instead of from the right).

I would like to see some analysis of the organizational structure of the different campaigns, on a range from autocratic micromanagement to grassroots anarchy. This would tell us a lot about how much to blame the candidate for the supporters' behavior.

[blondeatlast]

46. My speculation on what happened in '04:

This place absolutely exploded in summer '04. I think the candidate's operatives (I don't mean that to be insulting, btw) mentioned that this and DK might be a good place for the fans to hang out. I truly think it was innocent, but the fans (I mean that literally) simply could not tolerate even the most legit criticism of their guy and all hell broke loose. I remember my first volunteer gig--had the internet been around then, I might have been the same way. It was very exciting.

Most of the partisan posts followed this pattern, as I recall: Look what Dean/Kerry/Clark, etc did--and then a pile on of praise/criticism (there was a tremendous amount of PMing, as I understand it) and then a tremendous amount of the opposite.

I honestly don't believe most of the fanaticism was wanted--much less encouraged--by the legitimate candidate organizations. OTOH, I'm hoping that this go-round that the orgs might be aware of the mess from '04 and caution their followers to lighten up a bit since so very much is at stake. The vitriol expressed by the fans makes me think less of a candidate--and I'm pretty sure that's the last thing any of the legit orgs wants. OTOH, if they aren't aware of it, they should be and do what they can to nip it in the bud. I don't see that happening.

I tend to avoid GD/P (which didn't exist before the summer of '04, btw).

[blondeatlast]

45. That's exactly what happened to me in '04. I eliminated one candidate

because of the cult of personality that surrounded him. (I'm fairly certain you know to whom I'm referring.)

It just didn't seem to me that that blind adoration and near vicious disregard for others was a healthy thing.

I'm staying away from GD/P this year. I check in once in a while and then scurry back to GD for the sanity! :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

49. I'd like to shift the weight in this Forum

away from the rancor and towards information. If the undecided got organized and began demanded answers from the hardcore campaigners, I think this is possible.

GD is no picnic either, lately... It's become the monopoly of threads about minor social issues.

[blondeatlast]

52. Many of us sincerely tried in '04 but were swept up in the momentum.

It's really a pity. I think there's a lot to be said for analyzing the candidates' different approaches to major issues; I think now we absolutely must focus on the future.

I'd love to see us appraoach '08 with an eye on education and strategy, but my experience here says it hasn't got a chance.

BTW, GD is a mess, I'd agree, but if you want to know what's going on in the legislative bodies and the investigations, there are lots of great threads about it everyday but you need to wade through some major muck to get to them.

I wish you luck and I'm behind you!

[Jed Dilligan]

13. Kick

I want a show of strength--let's prove we outweigh the hacks and flaks.

[hey hey]

14. Tom Hanks!!!

I think I'm realstic and will support Hillary if she wins the nomination... I agree politicians in general are not trustworthy...including her..

I say Tom Hanks for president!!!.. I think he is a Walter Cronkite.. only if because we trust him hopeful of the new millenium...

food for thought, though..Tom Hanks has endorsed Hillary..

[Maddy McCall]

15. I'll vote D, but I don't know which D.

I'm not convinced that we have the full slate yet.

[LittleClarkie]

16. I'm here (waves)

Haven't picked anyone yet.

Thinking about Obama and Edwards, and printing stuff off their sites. Also printed out issue sheets for Richardson.

Just to be fair I did the same for Hillary, though she's at the bottom of my list.

No damned clue who I will vote for yet.

Still wishing for Gore or Clark.

[hey hey]

18. you think I was joking but..

consider this.. Tom Hanks is a decendant of a pretty impressive family...

http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/tomh/index.html

I never realized that who he was related to? Did you?

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Respectfully,

genealogy is the one thing that we absolutely DO NOT consider when selecting our leaders in the United States of America.

I fear a Clinton presidency because it would establish a pattern of dynastic structure.

That being said, I could get behind a celebrity candidate. George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey come to mind.

[Vickers]

19. I'm undecided at this point. I *will* vote for the Dem. candidate, no matter who.

I'm not really crazy about any of 'em, but I positively loathe every Repuke candidate, especially that jowly chickenhawk coward Thompson.

[Jed Dilligan]

22. Same here.

There isn't one of them currently in the field that would even allow me to withhold my vote in protest of a triangulating Dem campaign. (As I did in 92 and 96.)

If they ran Chuck Hagel I might withhold my vote from Clinton or Obama.

[snowbear]

23. That doesn't make a lick-o sense Jed Dilligan.

You say "same here" as far as voting for ANY Democratic candidate ....

----------then you add:

If they ran Chuck Hagel I might withhold my vote from Clinton or Obama

Pa---freak'n---thetic.

Chuck Hagel on the Issues



http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

[Jed Dilligan]

24. He is against the war,

and I doubt that Clinton or Obama is going to end the War on Drugs, restore the welfare safety net, crack down on Defense to fully fund Education, or (though this is the shortest shot) establish national health. So does it really matter where they "stand" on the "issues"?

on edit: Since I have no plans to leave California, my vote won't count anyway. Might as well register my displeasure with the whole system instead of voting for someone who will win anyway and doesn't represent me.

[maximusveritas]

53. Hagel supported the war for longer than Hillary

He only recently switched over to opposing it and even then, still votes with the pro-war Republicans on most war votes.
Obama, on the other hand, was against the war from the start and has pretty consistently voted with the anti-war Democrats on it.
If you think Hagel is better than either Obama or Hillary on the war or any other issue, you are terribly misinformed.

[Jed Dilligan]

55. I don't care how they voted, that's the past

My question is who will get the troops out? Someone needs to campaign strongly around getting them out, and I'm still waiting. If the chips did fall where it looked like the R would get them out faster than the D, I would withhold my vote. Hagel is the only long longshot example of where that might be the case.

[maximusveritas]

57. Every Democratic candidate is campaigning around getting them out

Hagel might campaign that way to get votes, but he would probably follow through on it just like he followed through on his actual votes in the Senate: Not very well.

[rosesaylavee]

59. ANY Republican getting in

would be disastrous for the Supreme Court. We have a slim chance of keeping the slim minority on it right now. Another 4-8 years of republicans and that is the end of it.

I understand that Hagel is attractive right now due to his talk about Iraq but don't forget the big picture.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. You get me wrong. I didn't say I'd vote FOR him,

or even cast a vote that would contribute to his victory.

My vote doesn't count because of where I live, so it's only symbolic.

If it came down to a strong R campaign to end the war vs. a weak (as in, "Let's leave a small force and a couple of bases for blah blah blah") D campaign, I would write-in a protest vote based on the important issues that ALL the candidates ignore.

I know I'm fucked the minute I see a cop, so I wonder what the Supreme Court is for even at this point.

[rosesaylavee]

62. SCOTUS is maybe the only

thing between us and a full dictatorship.

I too live in a very red county. My vote is seldom meaningful - other than getting to vote for Obama in 04 and our DEM governor in 06, I haven't backed a DEM winner in any election since 1998. Don't think though that your vote doesn't matter though - the democratic voters in this county have been growing in recent years and making the Republican establishment all the more nervous. Its not much - but I will hold on to at least that. Their days are numbered... if all the votes are counted that is.

[Jed Dilligan]

66. My vote doesn't count for the opposite reason

Dem victory is assured in my county and my state. If I withhold my vote, say by writing in Tommy Chong, the message is that I don't want to be treated as a "base."

Is the SCOTUS standing between us and a dictatorship the same one that put * in office? I'm having trouble putting that together.

[rosesaylavee]

67. hopefully not the same one - if we get a DEM

president in 08 who will help us steer the court toward center if given the opportunity.

We are off gilter together here today aren't we? I think we are in agreement but its taken a few posts to get there. :hi:

[Jed Dilligan]

69. That's why I started this thread...

DISCUSSION, rather than operatives flinging rhetorical dung at each other.

I would like the (almost inevitable) Democratic administration to be a two-termer... Then we'll have a better chance at fixing SCOTUS. To do that we need to REALLY end the Iraq War AND (IMO) successfully pass some really big legislation that we've been talking about for decades... UHC comes to mind.

My "concern" is that a Dem with a weak war-ending plan and a half-assed health plan will be a one-termer, and ultimately sink us further into this desperate situation we're in.

[PBass]

25. Undecided here. Hoping not to vote based on "electability" and other intangibles.

I've donated the most to Edwards, and a little bit to Obama. I would be willing to vote for Hillary in a primary, but don't plan on donating to her.

NONE of the candidates are perfect. There has NEVER been a perfect candidate, because there are no perfect people.

I would love to see Gore or Clark run, but I fully understand that they have flaws too.

I think undecided is a great place to be, if you feel like you have some viable options (and IMO, we Dems do).

[orleans]

26. other than al gore, i'm undecided. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

27. I would vote for him again readily

His 2000 campaign felt inclusive in a way that other campaigns in my memory have not.

[orleans]

37. yeah, maybe because it turned out HE WON and the fuckhead

moved into the white house. i'm guessing that pretty much ruined it for all of us. and...as it is turning out...i'm thinking there are quite a few republicans who regret that now too.

[jenmarie]

28. Will become undecided

if Clark says he won't run. Seriously undecided.

[Adelante]

29. Undecided

Unless Clark gets in; if not Wes, unless Gore gets in. Anyways, I'm not making up my mind until September or October if I will support someone in the primaries.

[Perry Logan]

30. Does anyone besides me feel we are in an emergency situation?

I'm "undecided" in the sense that we have to get a Democrat in there to save the country. I find all the talk about picking and choosing candidates to be eerily irrelevant--like choosing deck chairs on the Titanic.

I simply don't believe this is a normal election occurring under normal circumstances. The Right has made its move. They obviously intend to destroy us or turn us into second-class citizens of some sort. It is our good fortune that they are the most incompetent people to walk the earth and have totally botched the takeover.

But nevertheless, I'm sure we will be fighting them soon. We cannot go back to holding elections and running against a group of traitors and criminals who will most certainly start stabbing us in the back again.

The most important thing to me is hanging together, which doesn't come naturally to us liberals. It hurts me to see the constant dissing of Democrats that goes on here at DU. I keep thinking, "Aren't you people paying attention? If you can't rein in your egos now, can you ever?"

The Republicans bloody stole the vote. That's not politics--that's treason. We do not go back to politics as usual after that. America is in a state of civil war. The left and right are going to fight.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. The only ones who can truly unite us, Gore and Clark,

seem to be out of the running as of now.

The best the handful of Gore-bashers can do is say he shouldn't eat meat...

[goodgd_yall]

32. I am

I like Kucinich, but, I of course don't expect him to win the democratic nomination (although I think there is a chance he'll surpass his numbers from the last election). Realistically at this point it looks like it will be either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. I could live with either of them as president.

It does bother me that many who have their preference can speak so venomously against the other candidates and their supporters. I hope they can get behind the actual candidate in the General Election, but to read some of the posts, you would think it's not going to happen.

[Longhorn]

33. I'll support any of them and I don't want to get caught up in hating any of them.

I want to be able to enthusiastically support whoever gets the nomination and keep the White House out of Republican hands for as long as possible!

I also agree with your assessment -- I like Edwards but I think it's time to elect a woman and/or minority. No candidate will ever be without faults -- I certainly have my share! :)

[Jed Dilligan]

36. For all the problems with Hillary's politics,

at the end of the day, it's embarrassing as all hell that Pakistan has had a woman president and we haven't. It's way past time to join the twentieth century.

[windbreeze]

39. sorry, I don't see that

as reason enough for us to vote any one into office...wb

[Jed Dilligan]

40. I won't support her in the primary,

but if she ends up toe-to-toe with a politically identical Republican, I will vote for her because I want a woman president.

[windbreeze]

43. hmmmm....

right now, I feel she is going to be the nominee, and she is going to be president...

interesting that you said "but if she ends up toe-to-toe with a politically identical republican, I will vote for her because I want a woman president"...I will say, I don't want to vote for a/any Democrat who is politically identical with ANY republican...irregardless if they are female or not...but that's me...(no offense meant)..

wb

[Jed Dilligan]

48. I have a bad track record when it comes to

not supporting Democrats. I fully intended to vote against Feinstein and for Campbell (R) because the latter campaigned against the War on Drugs. When it came time to poke the ballot, I couldn't do it... I just left it blank and walked out of there.

The choices are shitty but they are... the choices.

[windbreeze]

65. well

I do understand..it's a crying shame we feel like that when we go to vote...I believe a great number of us feel very frustrated...we need some earth shakers, and I don't see us with any...
wb

[jberryhill]

34. Don't even care at this point

I cannot ever remember "primary season" starting as early as this race.

I'm pretty sure that there will be a Democratic nominee, and I'm pretty sure I will support him or her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. I'm still waiting for Clark or Gore. No one else compells me to support them now

And you could say that I am wide open undecided about who I might actively support in the primaries if neither Clark nor Gore run. This may be the year that I back Kucinich since none of the Democrats who I want to support who I think can actually win the nomination and the General Election are now running. Like WesDem above, I'm not even sure if I will support anyone in the primaries to any significant extent out of those now running. I'll back the Democratic nominee once we have one.

[windbreeze]

38. NO more corporatists...

or members of the CFR....wb

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Aren't they all corporatists?

Except Kucinich, whose chances are Naderlike... I don't like it either but I still think the other guys are worse.

[windbreeze]

42. exactly....Kuchinic is the only one...

and right now, I claim no candidate at all...
wb

[DFW]

44. Undecided so far, but not indifferent

I supported Dean in '04, then just waited it out (didn't take long).

I wish Al Gore would be the nominee, but am perfectly comfortable
with Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden or Clark.

They all have their plusses and minuses, but when I think of who
will pick the next Supreme Court nominee, not to mention the next
Secretaries of Defense and State and the next Attorney General, it's
a no-brainer to me to support the Democratic nominee. Howard feels
the same way, even though he might have a private preference. He
doesn't have to make a decision. I do, eventually, when the Texas
primary rolls around, but not until then.

One thing that would get me off the fence would be to see one candidate
come out with an innovative form of verbal attack on the radical rightists
that now dominate the Cheneybush government. Not just the stuff we all want,
like bring the troops home, health care, and justice for all the crimes
committed by members of the Cheneybush gang. But something solid and
inspiring--something that would inspire a real movement that would put
something in motion. Like Howard did in 2004, or like Gore has with his
environmental campaign.

[blondeatlast]

47. My leading candidate is SCOTUS. Otherwise, no winners yet, no losers yet. nt

[RFKJrNews]

50. Waiting for RFK Jr. to throw his hat into the ring

To tell you the truth, I couldn't fully support any of the current crop of democratic candidates. But if RFK Jr. were to run, I'd work my ass off for him. Think a lot of other folks here would, too.

Just wanted to let you know that we have started an online petition to Draft RFK Jr. into the 2008 presidential race. Please visit our website to find out more at http://RFKin2008.com

Bobby needs to hear from you now. If you support him, let him know!

[Vinca]

51. I've decided to change my New Hampshire primary vote from

Kucinich to Obama because I would prefer Hillary not get nomination.

[LibDemAlways]

54. If I had to chose among the current field, I'd have

to go with Edwards. Still hoping Gore gets into it though.

[Colobo]

56. Obama will win the hearts and minds of America.

[rosesaylavee]

60. The Candidate taking the toughest stand on the environment is

Senator Dodd. I am still on the fence but if Gore doesn't step into the race this fall, I am thinking I will need to explore what the Dodd campaign is up to in better detail.

Dodd is also highly supportive of bringing Habeas Corpus back. Paul Simon is traveling with him too - so I am in good company here.

I will vote for whoever receives the nomination in the GE.

[MasonJar]

64. If Al does not run, I am backing the lady.

[DFW]

68. Bobby, Jr. is a great guy

And I think the world of him, but he won't be running. He is very
much into the stuff he is working on now, and has had health issues
in the past, some of which still dog him. A draft movement will fall
on deaf ears. He won't do it.

I wouldn't entirely rule out his taking the job of EPA head, if the
new president begged, but even that is a remote possibility. Between
his Pace Law teaching and his activities on behalf of the envoronment,
he is working himself ragged as it is. He is taking the entire month
of August off to be out in the Pacific (unless he posts where on his
website, I'm leaving it at that), and not because he is living the life
of luxury, but because he runs himself ragged as it is, and needs the
rest and the distance.

A draft Bobby movement would be well-intentioned, but should focus its
energies elsewhere. Bobby will say no to a run for the presidency.

[leftsideofbrain]

70. I am in the Dennis Kucinich camp.

The only one Democrat who has morals. End the war now!

[libnnc]

71. Like my MIL used to say to her three daughters

when they fought each other tooth and nail...

"Whoever lives, wins."

I'm disgusted at this point. Let them devour each other. What choice do we have in the process?

[Jed Dilligan]

72. I just hope we don't come out with a crippled candidate. nt

[dsc]

73. I am currently between Richardson and Edwards

The Logo debate may make up my mind.

[applegrove]

74. I'm on the fence. I am torn between Hillary, Edwards and Obama.

[imlost]

75. also undecided.

None of them inspire me. It's a disappointment. I guess I'm a tough sell or they're weak candidates.

I love most of Kucinich's message and Mike Gravel is very appealing, but the unfortunate part
is they both can't win. Obama is all right. I don't like Edwards and Hilarry is also a miss.

I'm still waiting and hoping for Gore or Clark.


What a disappointment?

[Jed Dilligan]

76. I've been trying to figure out how possible late declarations are,

but it's such an emotional issue here that I can't see the forest for the trees.