So will any other Hillary supporters be voting for McCain?

[zombones]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

[SomeLawStudent]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

[exopolitician]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

Thats nothing to be proud of.

[zombones]

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

General emptiness?  How much research have you done on the candidates?

[zombones]

Also, virtually no Democrat in 2008 who supported Hillary because of her policy plans will vote for McCain.  I have nothing but what I've seen in past campaigns as evidence.  Quote me on this when November comes.

[SomeLawStudent]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

Thats nothing to be proud of.

I'm not doing it personally to sabotage him so Hillary can run again.  I just personally don't want him to be President.  But why is it bad anyways to vote strategically?  DailyKos was telling Democrats to vote for Romney in the Michigan Primary to shake things up there.  There was no outrage on this board over that.  Everyone does it (vote's strategically) in election's they're not really interested in. 

[SomeLawStudent]

Also, virtually no Democrat in 2008 who supported Hillary because of her policy plans will vote for McCain.  I have nothing but what I've seen in past campaigns as evidence.  Quote me on this when November comes.

I supported Hillary's policy to raise taxes on the rich, but to leave the tax cuts permanent for those making 200K or under.  I didn't support Obama when he said raise raxes on everybody who makes over 150K per year. 

I now support McCain's tax policy over Obama's.

[zombones]

SomeLawStudent says they will vote McCain because of their student debts, and that Obama will raise his taxes because his starting income will be within Obama's plan to raise the Social Security cap. 

Augh, beaten

[SomeLawStudent]

SomeLawStudent says they will vote McCain because of their student debts, and that Obama will raise his taxes because his starting income will be within Obama's plan to raise the Social Security cap. 

Augh, beaten

Yes, and that's a substantive policy difference.  In fact, a huge percentage of people vote their pocketbooks, so it's not like it's even a minor difference.  Believe it or not, the 40% of Hillary voters are not lying to pollsters, maybe some of them are angry, but most of that 40% are not voting for Obama and a lot of them are going to vote for McCain.  Which is why Obama is losing to McCain in poll after poll of swing states like Ohio and Florida.

[kevinatcausa]

That goes back to the exit polls I posted above though.

After the bitterly contested McCain-Bush primary, a huge proportion of McCain's supporters across many states, including reliably Democratic (CT, NY), reliably Republican (VA), and swing states (MO) claimed they were going to vote for Gore.

Bush's win in November would seem to suggest that as primary fight receded into the past, issues took precedence again.

[SomeLawStudent]

But a lot of McCain supporters in CT/NY actually did vote for Gore.  Gore won those states by a huge margin, partially because Bush underperformed among Republicans.  I think issues did take precedence, but McCain was more centrist on the issues so a lot of moderate Republicans defected to Gore's moderate positions.  I bet the same will happen with moderate/conservative democrats who would have supported Clinton but will defect to McCain because Obama is too liberal.

[exopolitician]

But a lot of McCain supporters in CT/NY actually did vote for Gore.  Gore won those states by a huge margin, partially because Bush underperformed among Republicans.  I think issues did take precedence, but McCain was more centrist on the issues so a lot of moderate Republicans defected to Gore's moderate positions.  I bet the same will happen with moderate/conservative democrats who would have supported Clinton but will defect to McCain because Obama is too liberal.

As if Gore was going to lose New York and Connecticut in the first place. I think you should point out those bitter in Virginia and Missouri who said they would defect to Gore...and yet Bush still won those states.

[SomeLawStudent]

But a lot of McCain supporters in CT/NY actually did vote for Gore.  Gore won those states by a huge margin, partially because Bush underperformed among Republicans.  I think issues did take precedence, but McCain was more centrist on the issues so a lot of moderate Republicans defected to Gore's moderate positions.  I bet the same will happen with moderate/conservative democrats who would have supported Clinton but will defect to McCain because Obama is too liberal.

As if Gore was going to lose New York and Connecticut in the first place. I think you should point out those bitter in Virginia and Missouri who said they would defect to Gore...and yet Bush still won those states.

The fact that he won those states is irrelevant to the argument.  He could have won the states but by a smaller margin if there were defections.  There probably weren't as many defections in those states anyways because there aren't as many moderate Republicans there, or at least there weren't in Virginia in 2000.   Moderate Republicans don't live in a lot of swing states, that's why Bush played the culture war in the first place, he got a bunch of conservative democrats and the liberal republicans he lost were all in states that didn't matter anyways.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, many conservative democrats ARE in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri.  So when they defect it means he won't be able to win an electoral majority.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I know I said before if Clinton somehow wins I would vote for McCain, but the more I look at McCain and hear him speech the more I hate him. I don't understand how anyone support Clinton would support McCain.  They don't agree on nothing, almost. Also to Clay, what has Clinton really done that great for us? She was the first lady, and was senator of NY but what did she do that great? Anyways, I'm just saying a vote for McCain is like a vote for another Bush but without a backbone.

[J. J.]

First, my opinion of Obama has dropped over the course of the campaign; the more I know about him, the less I like him.  In January, though undecided, I may have voted for Obama over Romney in hypothetica lgeneral election.  I would vote for Romney over Obama at this point

Second, with that said, I'd like to comment on this:

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

I checked the first Obama entry on Wiki from early 2004; they preserve the history.  Obama is listed correctly as a lecturer.  I'm inclined to believe that this was a mistake from someone on the campaign, nothing more.  I do not expect Obama to look over each piece of campaign material.  I think we should give him a pass on that one.

As to the "white people," any political candidate, and most groups with an eye to PR, try to create an image.  I've been asked to be in photos largely because they wanted a "white face."  I'm not insulted by it; I'm part of, and a supporter of, those groups.  The white people seen behind  Obama are supporters of Obama.  It's not like the campaign is going to a acting agent and saying, "Send over some white people as extras."

This is not from an Obama supporter.

[SomeLawStudent]

I checked the first Obama entry on Wiki from early 2004; they preserve the history.  Obama is listed correctly as a lecturer.  I'm inclined to believe that this was a mistake from someone on the campaign, nothing more.  I do not expect Obama to look over each piece of campaign material.  I think we should give him a pass on that one.

I put a link up above in the discussion;  Obama has repeatedly referred to himself as a full-fledged Constitutional Law Professor when discussing very specific legal issues.  It's not on campaign literature, it's coming directly from Obama himself in a very deceitful way.

[WalterMitty]

I don't care who the Hillaryis44 people vote for.

of course because you are perfectly comfortable losing elections.

[J. J.]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Okay, valid point.  He did refer to himself as a professor.  There is some puffery with Obama.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Okay, valid point.  He did refer to himself as a professor.  There is some puffery with Obama.

Which I wouldn't normally mind.  I expect politicians to be a little bit fake to people, it's almost a good thing sometimes, it shows they can be diplomatic.  But Obama is holding himself out to be so much better than all us simple worthless and bitter people who couldn't attend Harvard Law School, so he should rise above all that if he's going to bring change to Washington.

[Smash255]

So instead of voting for the guy who has very similar views as the two people you support (Edwards & Clinton) you will instead go in the direction of someone who disagrees with Edwards and Clinton on virtually every single issue, who sold his maverick soul and made a real hard right turn in order to win the GOP nomination, who is running a campaign on basically continuing every single Bush policy...   How much sense does that make?

On the issues that matter to me, there is a substantive difference between Hillary and Obama.  Also John McCain is not a continuation of Bush.  He is more moderate than Bush, he works across party lines more than Bush, hell he even ran against George Bush.

What are the issues that Obama and Clinton have a substantive difference on??  As far as McCain being more moderate than Bush, at this point slightly just slightly.  He did run against Bush in 2000, but this isn't the same John McCain that ran against Bush in 2000, not even remotely close.   He is now basically a carbon copy of Bush on virtually every single issue, with perhaps the exception of Global Warming.  The days of John McCain being Independent minded and a maverick are over.  It cost him the 2000 Primary and this time around he made sure it didn't cost him again as he flew rightward.

[Smash255]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

I think you're also forgetting how heated the Republican Primary was between McCain and Romney.  I was really turned off from that too.  But mostly by Romney.  If it was Romney vs. Obama, I would begrudgingly pull the lever for Obama.  But McCain is a Republican I find completely acceptable. 

As for the Bush policies.  I don't really have the same interests as hardcore Democrats as I'm a registered Independent.  I never liked Bush, I voted for Nader in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004.  However, I don't like Obama either.  And it's not like I don't have my own policy reasons for being against Obama.  Obama will raise my taxes, which is a huge issue for me.  Obama considers my starting legal salary to be "rich" but I don't see it that way because I have $150,000 in law school debt to pay off and I'm likely not to stay in a big firm where I will keep that salary for terribly long.  So voting for Obama would increase my taxes to a level that would make paying back loans difficult, especially in a high cost of living city.  Hillary would have done this too, but not as badly as Obama.  McCain is a moderate on issues like the environment, campaign reform, etc.  So he is a better choice than Obama to me.  I don't think it's a complete turn.  Clinton was to the right of Obama to begin with.

You mention both Clinton & Obama would have raised your taxes, so your starting salary is going to be over $250,000???    McCain is a bit moderate on the environment and was somewhat on campaign reform, but he is even trying to skirt his own law(McCain-Feingold) so I don't exactly know how moderate that really is.  You say etc, well what other issues do you see McCain as being moderate on??

[Smash255]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Okay, valid point.  He did refer to himself as a professor.  There is some puffery with Obama.

Which I wouldn't normally mind.  I expect politicians to be a little bit fake to people, it's almost a good thing sometimes, it shows they can be diplomatic.  But Obama is holding himself out to be so much better than all us simple worthless and bitter people who couldn't attend Harvard Law School, so he should rise above all that if he's going to bring change to Washington.

How exactly do you come up with the idea that Obama feels he is better than all of those who didn't attend Harvard Law School?

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

I think you're also forgetting how heated the Republican Primary was between McCain and Romney.  I was really turned off from that too.  But mostly by Romney.  If it was Romney vs. Obama, I would begrudgingly pull the lever for Obama.  But McCain is a Republican I find completely acceptable. 

As for the Bush policies.  I don't really have the same interests as hardcore Democrats as I'm a registered Independent.  I never liked Bush, I voted for Nader in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004.  However, I don't like Obama either.  And it's not like I don't have my own policy reasons for being against Obama.  Obama will raise my taxes, which is a huge issue for me.  Obama considers my starting legal salary to be "rich" but I don't see it that way because I have $150,000 in law school debt to pay off and I'm likely not to stay in a big firm where I will keep that salary for terribly long.  So voting for Obama would increase my taxes to a level that would make paying back loans difficult, especially in a high cost of living city.  Hillary would have done this too, but not as badly as Obama.  McCain is a moderate on issues like the environment, campaign reform, etc.  So he is a better choice than Obama to me.  I don't think it's a complete turn.  Clinton was to the right of Obama to begin with.

You mention both Clinton & Obama would have raised your taxes, so your starting salary is going to be over $250,000???    McCain is a bit moderate on the environment and was somewhat on campaign reform, but he is even trying to skirt his own law(McCain-Feingold) so I don't exactly know how moderate that really is.  You say etc, well what other issues do you see McCain as being moderate on??

They have changed their campaign pledges a lot, but generally Hillary will make the limit higher.  My starting salary will be $195,000 most likely, depending on bonus.  McCain is a bit more moderate on the environment, taxes, judges (despite his recent rhetoric), civil rights like gay marriage, etc. - he will definitely not be a repeat of Bush.  I could care less about abortion and gun control so I'm not concerned about his policy differences there. 

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Okay, valid point.  He did refer to himself as a professor.  There is some puffery with Obama.

Which I wouldn't normally mind.  I expect politicians to be a little bit fake to people, it's almost a good thing sometimes, it shows they can be diplomatic.  But Obama is holding himself out to be so much better than all us simple worthless and bitter people who couldn't attend Harvard Law School, so he should rise above all that if he's going to bring change to Washington.

How exactly do you come up with the idea that Obama feels he is better than all of those who didn't attend Harvard Law School?

Well the fact that he believes he can flat out lie to everyone about being a law professor for one, and get away with it.  It takes a bit of arrogance to do that.  But I doubt MSNBC or CNN will call him on that any time soon.  The only network that briefly discussed his lie was FoxNews, which I don't usually view.

Then there's the whole bittergate comment. 

[Lunar]

Well, SLS, the idea was getting a slight amount of traction in the news and Politico and so on.  But it was immediately defused when the University of Chicago dean declared that A) Obama was offered to be a tenured professor many times and B) the terms "professor" and "lecturer" are used interchangeably (in one direction), especially in informal situations and the university considers him a professor...or something to that extent, I'm paraphrasing.  It's hard to drill him much after the dean came out, regardless of how one feels about the issue.  I don't really see that as a media failing..