I Need Some Help

What exactly is the difference between the comments made by Reverend Wright and those made by Pats Robertson and Buchanan? I'm really having a hard time understanding why Reverend Wright's comments don't seem to go away, yet the same man who wrote A Brief for Whitey and the following comments seem to have faded into the sunset?

-"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." –Pat Robertson, on the dangers of judicial activism

-"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." –Pat Robertson

-"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

-"Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up" –Pat Robertson, on blowing up the State Department.

So Pat Robertson can say that evangelical Christians are the most discriminated group of people in America, that feminism turns women into witch lesbians, that the erosion of judicial activism is worse than the events of 9/11 AND co-sign on Jerry Falwell:

- "Well, I totally concur." –Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell following the Sept. 11 attacks, after Falwell said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."

Why is it that all of this hatefulness can be spewed, and McCain suffers little to no criticism for aligning himself with the likes of Pat Buchanan, yet I'm still hearing about Rev. Wright's same comments 6 weeks later? Do people expect for him to go into hiding and never show his face publicly again?

In terms of the 9/11 comments, Robertson, Wright and Falwell should be ashamed of themselves. They're ALL wrong on that, and yet two of the three aren't receiving the intense media scrutiny of Wright. In terms of Wright's race comments, quite frankly, I think they make white people a little bit more uncomfortable because the comments are directed towards them than when Buchanan and Robertson make the same equally offensive comments towards nonwhites. I really don't think that Wright's comments are anything new, anything that mainstream America hasn't heard before from a prominent person in the black community. But I also think it's wrong to continually ask Obama about his pastor and use it as a reason to knock Obama when McCain/Buchanan aren't getting the same treatment. Or maybe it's just clear to everybody that Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson are off their rockers and paying them any attention is like feeding the gremlins after midnight.

So if someone could delineate the difference for me, I'd appreciate it.

Reject and Denounce

All the candidates at some point during this primary have had to "reject and denounce" something one of their supporters said or did. McCain had to do it in Ohio with the radio host who kept repeating "Barack Hussein Obama". Obama had to 'denounce' Louis Farrakhan after Farrakhan endorsed Obama. After a supporter in TX said that Obama's problem was that 'he happened to be black', Clinton had to reject and denounce his statements.

These are just examples, there is so much rejecting and denouncing going on it is hard to keep track of. Ben Smith from the Politico links to a site where anyone can get in on the action of "rejecting and denouncing"! So if anyone is jealous that they can't get in on it, now you have your chance!

Enjoy...

Flicks: Reagan Smash/John McCain Is Crazy Old

here are the two clips I mentioned in class today:



In case you missed the reference, Reagan gave a speech at the Berlin Wall in '87, challenging Gorbachev, the Russian ruler, to tear down the wall.

I forgot how hilarious this sketch was. "Seniorgate"

McCain's financial trouble

According to the article McCain Exists Campaign Money Raise published on politico.com, McCain is abandoning fund raising as the primary financing source of his campaign and is taking taxpayers money along with RNC funding to further finance his presidential bid. His campaign’s finance report shows that he has raised only $72 million during the campaign (including March results) compared to Obama’s $236 million and Clinton’s $195 million. Since McCain will be very restricted in his finances, he is running a high risk of being greatly overspent by a future Democratic rival. Limited finances also can limit McCain’s ability to immediately react to attacks or gaffes of Democrats because he would not be able to run an expensive response ad or an attack ad. It also means that Republican nominee will have to focus his presence in limited most important media markets, which would leave other segments vulnerable to appeals exclusively by democrats.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9737.html

DNC's First Ad Attacking McCain

The DNC released today their first ad attacking McCain. The ad hits him on the economy. It is pretty effective in portraying McCain as out of touch with America and what is happening to our economy. The ad is below. However, I think the strategy is flawed. Karl Rove's philosophy for attacking candidates had been to dismantle their biggest strength (see: John Kerry and Vietnam) and then leave them with nothing. McCain's experience with regard to foreign affairs is unquestionably his strength. The war in Iraq still highly unpopular and McCain has been explicit in his support of the war so why not go after him about that? The other possibility is that DNC doesn't want to show their best cards yet, we will see...Either way, it is good to see that the DNC isn't sitting and twiddling their thumbs while Obama and Clinton rip each other apart...

The media: whose side are they on, anyway?

Theoretically, journalists present objective accounts of campaign events, but over this prolonged contest for the Democratic nomination, charges of media bias have abounded. A steady stream of debates, gaffes, and other campaign events has presented ample fodder for soul-searching among members of the news media; that is, a lot of campaign coverage has been about campaign coverage.

A recent Politico article argues that the news media is "Obama's secret weapon." As others have already noted on our blog, ABC was widely panned for its handling of last week's debate. This article suggests that Stephanopolous and Gibson's questioning of Obama, although harsh, was not out of line. The article goes on to claim that the ensuing outcry over the moderators' tough approach actually indicates a broader media bias in his favor.

The notion of Obama as a media darling is not a new one; it's what led to SNL's oft-cited debate parody which fueled Clinton's complaints that the media favors Obama consistently. Media swooning was at its peak when Obama was an underdog, and it could partly be explained as a desire for a compelling storyline. Since Obama became a frontrunner, negative press surely has swelled--but has it been nearly as bad as the ugly stories Clinton dealt with during her long reign as frontrunner? This is the central question the article seeks to answer.

The Politico writers suggest that Obama was treated no worse during last week's debate than Clinton was treated in previous debates; why didn't journalists and political observers rush to her defense then? During the debate, Obama responded to the piercing questions by deriding the kind of campaign coverage that centers too much on gaffes and fluff at the expense of substance. This arguments fits into Obama's broad theme of a "new kind of politics," and for this reason, I think his criticisms of the media resonate much more strongly than his opponent's. Clinton was dismissed as "whiny" when she pointed to media favoritism; Obama is praised as courageous when he points to media shortsightedness.

With a likely matchup between Obama and McCain--both candidates having strong relationships with the media--it will be interesting to watch how coverage unfolds.

Profiling Cindy McCain

I'm posting an interesting write-up on Cindy McCain from the Chicago Tribune today, partly because I know I knew/heard little about her in relation to Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton, and partly because it appears she enjoys flying under the radar. With her husband's health seemingly always an issue in this campaign, the article notes that Cindy herself had a stroke about 4 years ago, at the age of 49. Her two sons are both fighting in Iraq, and she has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. She's been traveling to conflict zones around the country for some time now, and pundits are speculating that if she becomes the First Lady she'll be somewhere between conservative Ladies Laura and Barbara Bush and more active Ladies like Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and Rosalynn Carter.

The Contrasts of Cindy McCain

Babies for...

...Obama, McCain and Hillary! This is a cute package from CNN's Jeanine Moos on the Youtube phenomenon of babies for presidential candidates. Apparently there are a lot more 'Babies for Obama' videos out there, but according to the report, it's probably because the syllables 'ba' and 'ma' are a lot easier for babies to say. This video is a cute cross-section of politics and technology.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WBuEqzGm3VA

Meet Bob Barr

It may seem a little late in the game for new players to be entering the race, but we must remember that the Democratic and Republican Parties aren't the only ones choosing a nominee for November. Last weekend, former GOP Congressman Bob Barr announced the launch of a Presidential Exploratory Committee to kick off his pursuit of the Libertarian Party's nomination.

Barr's political reputation is that of a staunch advocate for civil liberties, limited government, low taxes, and secure borders; he likely hopes to provide an alternative for conservative Republicans who might feel that McCain falls short of their expectations. Barr acknowledged that some might view him as a would-be "spoiler," but said that the stakes are too high to let political expediency prevent his run. Barr stated: "America today faces a grave moral and leadership crisis, and those of us who care about our country's future can no longer sit on the sidelines and remain neutral."

A Representative of Georgia's 7th District from 1995 to 2003, Barr has since joined the Libertarian Party because, according to bobbarr2008.com, he felt it was important to align himself with "a party that is 100 percent committed to protecting liberty." In 1986, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as U.S. Attorney for Northern Georgia. He was also a CIA official for 8 years during the '70s. He is a current Board Member of the National Rifle Association. As an attorney and consultant, Barr has focused his efforts on advancing the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, and abundant individual freedom.

Clearly, Barr's conservative cred is solid, but it remains to be seen how viable his candidacy will be in the current climate. Might Ron Paul supporters rally behind Barr, since the candidates share many positions? Will many McCain voters embrace him as a candidate that better fits their ideals, or would the prospect of a Democratic victory inspire enough distaste to keep those voters with the guy who has a real shot? Ralph Nader will grapple with a similar conundrum on the other side. With polls indicating that the general election will be a close contest, it's worth keeping an eye on these third party candidates to anticipate what effect, if any, they might have on the ultimate outcome.

The darling of the news media

On March 26th, the New York Times ran an interesting story that fits perfectly in our class. The maverick and the media tells readers how John McCain has become the media’s favorite candidate. Indeed, while McCain started the campaign far behind the other candidates, presently, “the mainstream news media by and large don’t cover Mr. McCain; they canonize him.” According to Neal Gabler, the reason is that “Mr. McCain is an ironist wooing a group of individuals who regard ironic detachment more highly than sincerity or seriousness.” The article describes how McCain has cleverly transformed the relationship between the journalists and him; the (apparent) candor with which he approaches this relationship has allowed him to fraternize with them. As a result, journalist have become part of McCain’s communication team; “since the reporters on the bus liked Mr. McCain too much to report on his gaffes, he really didn’t need protection. His candor was without consequence. It was another blandishment of the press.” According to the author, “McCain can be called the first postmodernist presidential candidate” because of “his acknowledgement of the symbiosis between himself and the press and, more important, his willingness, even eagerness, to let the press in on his own machinations of them.” However, the author of the article highlights McCain’s experience as he knows that candidates are the very leaders of the relationship with the press. In fact, the media may have gotten trapped by McCain; “if in the past he flattered the press by posing as its friend, he is now flattering it by posing as its conspirator, a secret sharer of its cynicism. He is the guy who “gets it.”

Fundraising Trouble for Anti-McCain Group

An article posted Sunday on Politico discussed the trouble Democrats have had thus far in trying to raise money for anti-John McCain advertising.

Democrats set up the fundraising group "Fund for America" in order to change how "independent" attack ads are executed, as the party wanted to create a more permanent organization dedicated to supporting their candidates and trashing the other side. Therefore, instead of a 527 group, which became well-known as a category in 2004 for the impact "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" had in questioning John Kerry's Vietnam War service, this new Democratic group was created as a 501(c)(4) charity. This status allows the group to exist beyond this one election cycle, and it allows money they raise to carry over as well. "Fund for America," therefore, was set up as a central organization designed to raise as much money as possible for a concerted Democratic attack strategy against the Republicans, which will then be executed by the group "Campaign to Defend America." "Campaign to Defend America" will create and air the majority of "independent" Democratic attack ads in this election cycle, and their hope was to begin their efforts early on this year with a strong anti-John McCain push.

As the article mentions, everyone in politics and political advertising knows how crucial it is to define your opponent first before they get a chance to define themselves on their own terms. Painting McCain as a man tied too much to the policies of President Bush or the failed planning of the Iraq war might be effective campaign strategies later on this year and would make great campaign ads. The problem, however, has been that Democratic donors, for the most part, have been slow to come around to the idea that they need to be pouring their money into this group and its efforts this early on.

Democratic campaign donors, for the time being, are still transfixed on the race for their party's nomination, and therefore most money is still being poured into the efforts of either Clinton or Obama. The article mentions that there is growing frustration in the party that donors are not realizing the need to begin focusing on John McCain now, as the Democratic race appears to be somewhat heading toward a conclusion and McCain's polling is stronger than ever. Now is the time to begin attacking his character and record, the "Campaign to Defend America" argues, but the public and the big party donors have not yet turned their attention fully to the general election just yet. As one donor's representative stated, "We know we're going to have a good Democratic nominee — it's time for Democrats to turn their attention to John McCain."

Democrats wanted to "drop the hammer" on John McCain right from the get go after he became the presumptive Republican nominee, as many regretted their handling of political ads in 2004, when the Republicans were much better at quickly and forcefully defining the opposition. But with fundraising efforts decidedly "mixed" thus far for this central Democratic attack group, they have only been able to create one prominent advertisement, entitled "McSame," and were able to air it in only a few relatively-inexpensive markets. They have begun testing their messages and potential ads among swing voters and focus groups, but their efforts have been limited much more so than they expected by a lack of sufficient funding from the party.

Democrats are having a hard time looking too far ahead beyond the current Clinton-Obama match up, it seems, despite the need to begin running against Republican John McCain. Anti-McCain research and message testing may be adequate for the time being, but with McCain polling about even with both Democratic candidates and his nomination competition entirely out of the way, McCain may begin to open a real lead over his opposition in the coming weeks as he stresses his strengths, values, and personal history. If Democrats want to win in November, they need to start supporting the "Fund for America" and "Campaign to Defend America" now, as their long term success may depend on how well they begin the general election debate.

NE Sen. Chuck Hagel Surfaces

The Daily Show strikes again. Monday, March 31st, Nebr. Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep.) appeared to promote his new book, America: Our Next Chapter, Tough Questions, Straight Answers. Clearly the Senator is testing the waters --surfacing-- as a potential running mate to Senator McCain. On Stewart's show Hagel denounced the Iraq War and apologized to the American public for not asking tougher questions when Bush pushed for Congressional support of his preemptive strike. Hagel was an early favorite for the Republican Presidential nominee (and was profiled in a cover story by The New York Times in 2006) but failed to drum up the money to make a competitive run. Hagel could make a solid counterweight to McCain naysayers who worry about McCain's bullishness on Iraq. And the Senator could help haul in middle country "Heartland" states that are currently up for grabs. I only wish he'd consider crossing Party lines for a first-ever U.S. bipartisan ticket.

Candidates' Kids

It's funny that we discussed the role of Chelsea Clinton the other day in class because today a story called "Meghan McCain Has Offbeat Campaign Blog" was released on ABC News featuring the role of Meghan McCain, Senator McCain's daughter. It discussed her internet diary, http://www.mccainblogette.com/. The article talks about how the 23 year old allows for a different look at her father. The Web site is a "not about issues and rarely mentions other candidates. Rather, it is intended to make her parents, and politics, seem more real." She also addresses her father's age of 71 years saying, "I have yet to see Dad take a nap on the trail." The blog entering the news seems to serve to reach out to the young voter, going even further than the way Chelsea has campaigned for her mom. It offers the ability to reach its' readers at any time. Tis Meghan took advantage of when the story broke about Senator McCain in the New York Times about a possible affair. It will be interesting to see if and how this bog affects her father's run for the presidency.

The ABC News article was written by Libby Quaid.

Economic Forecast

An article posted today on Bloomberg discusses a model developed by Yale University professor Ray Fair that allows him to predict the outcome of Presidential elections based on several factors, including inflation, economic growth, how long the incumbent party has held office, and the unemployment rate. Since 1916 Fair's model would have been wrong in only three instances, and none of these mistakes were by very wide margins.

Fair, like other analysts, believes that the economy will be the driving force for this election, as a recession nears, personal life savings decline, gas prices rise over $4 a gallon, and the number of home foreclosures increases. Fair's model says the Democrats are in a favorable position, even if the economy does improve marginally, as he sees them getting 52 percent of the vote in November. That is because of the fact that any improvement to the economy between now and November will likely be minor, and anything done to improve the economy now will likely not have a major impact for quite some time to come. Analysts see the hard economic times continuing, with wages down and an increasing numbers of job cuts on the horizon, and Fair believes that voters will be walking into the voting booth with the economy firmly on their minds.

What hurts John McCain the most in this situation is that he is a member of the party currently in power, which is the one that is being blamed by many in the public for leading us into the dark economic times we are now in. Stuart Rothenberg agrees and is quoted in this article as saying, "the president's party usually gets a disproportionate amount of the blame." Also, McCain has explained his interest in continuing much of Bush's economic policy, including making his tax cuts permanent. His main new ideas include reducing the corporate rate and eliminating congressional earmarks, which do not appear to be wildly popular ideas to the public and will not seem like major changes to the system. Also hurting McCain, in the present, and surely down the road in this campaign, is his sound bite from December, when he stated, "[The economy issue] is not something I've understood as well as I should." It would clearly not be a surprise to see this quote reappear in several Democratic campaign ads heading into November.

The Democrats are trying to portray McCain as a member of "the party of old" and unable to turn the economy around with the same old methods that President Bush has tried. According to the article, that is why the "change" message seems to be working so well, especially for Obama-- because it's becoming evident that what's in place now isn't working. Obama and Clinton, therefore, have an advantage as long as the economy remains a significant issue to voters, which Ray Fair and others quoted in this article believe it will. Clinton has taken the issue to Bush, and Republicans in general, by accusing him of "fiscal irresponsibility" and stating that, on oil prices, "there is no sense of urgency or presidential leadership." Clearly Clinton and Obama want to pin the blame of the current economic woes on the Republicans, despite their own recent run in power in Congress.

However, neither Clinton nor Obama has yet to offer a broad plan to pull the nation out of the current economic recession, but such a move would make sense in the near future. They have already offered proposals on taxes and the mortgage market, as Obama has pushed for a $1,000 tax cut for lower-income people, while Clinton, has called for a moratorium on home foreclosures. Moving forward, it is seen that the Democrats will have an advantage in this election due to the prominent role that the economy will play in the minds of voters, but Obama and Clinton must capitalize on this advantage by coming out strong with new ideas and an overall plan that will highlight their ability to lead the country out of our current dark economic times. It appears to be their advantage to utilize or squander.

McCain's Threat Appeal: Helpful or Hurtful

In a recent town hall meeting in PA, Republican John McCain revealed that he feared terrorists might increase attacks in Iraq in order to tip the election against him in November. While he is known for saying the U.S. could have presence in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years," both Clinton and Obama have promised to withdraw troops. Attacks and casualities abroad could potenitally increase anti-war sentiment as people see that American presence is more detrimental than helpful, thus bringing support to whoever the Democratic nominee will be.

I wonder, though, if such attacks could cause as much damage as people might think. Could it possibly have the opposite effect? Might people feel that more troops need to go and fight "the enemies" to sort things out?

I feel that fear of terrorists and homeland security are what put our current leader in office. The 9/11 attacks were actually were helpful for him because he promised security and protection that his opponent did not. I feel that by capitalizing on our fear and positioning himself as a hater-of-all-evil, he gained a lot of support that he would not have received otherwise.

If there more casualties abroad, will that elicit reactions of withdrawal or fuel support for war? What if they happen on American soil? Would that change people's reactions? Threat appeals have very powerful persuasive impact, but to whose advantage will it swing?

My thoughts were fueled by this NY Times blog post.

The other election issue

Since September 11, foreign policy has been the overwhelming focus of many political discussions, including the 2008 Presidential election. What is the best way to deal with the Iraq situation? How strong is Al-Qaeda? Is there a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan? How strong can Obama be on foreign policy? Why did Hillary flip-flop on Iraq? While all of these issues will certainly play a role in the election, I think the economy may turn out to be the overriding factor in the election. With oil prices quickly approaching $110 a barrel, the inevitable drag on consumers via high energy prices will not be ignored. This emphasis on the economy could prove problematic for McCain. While he is no doubt strong on foreign policy, his economic resume is quite light. In fact, his hawkish foreign policy could like continue instability in the Middle East, ensuring oil prices stay high. McCain should quickly seek to develop complex economic strategies beyond stereotypical conservative slogans like free trade if he wants to win the election.

This article contributed:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8942.html

When the DNC Attacks...NOT on Fox

A few weeks ago a posted about how frustrated I was about the lack of McCain attacks from the DNC while the RNC was hitting and hitting hard. Finally they have decided to fight back! Yesterday Jonathan Martin posted a DNC video that is being blasted out this weekend. The video ties McCain to Bush in a very tight, succinct and convincing manner. The full video is below. The strength of McCain is his reputation as a "Maverick" and a "Straight-Shooter" and certainly not a Bush Republican. However in the last few years he has sold his soul to the Bush administration in hopes of securing the nomination, he has now done just that. Except Bush approval ratings are in the tank and McCain is going to need to seperate himself from the failed Bush policies. The first video is the DNC video I mentioned earlier and the second is from a group called the "Campaign to Defend America". For your viewing pleasure...

Bush’s endorsement

I have been waiting for this moment for several weeks. President Bush has finally decided to endorse Senator McCain last Wednesday. This campaign event turned into a non-event. Firstly, I found President Bush’s endorsement very formal. Indeed, President Bush waited Senator McCain on the steps of the White House, they posed inside the White House seating in front of the fire place, and then gave a short press conference in the Rose Garden. The fact that President Bush received John McCain the same way he receives statesmen gives McCain a statesman dimension, but, in the meantime, Bush’s endorsement appeared to be a little bit cold and forced. Secondly, President Bush waited Senator McCain to be sure to win the GOP nomination before receiving him. By doing so, on the one hand President Bush has clearly chosen not to take part to the presidential race, and on the other hand he has chosen not to stand aloof from it.
On John McCain’s side, the question is: will President Bush’s endorsement benefit him? It is a fact that Bush’s popularity has never been so low. However, by being received like a statesman, McCain can boast a picture that none other candidate will. Moreover, by making this endorsement a non-event, it is not an episode of the campaign that the other candidates will usefully use against Senator McCain. In order for McCain to avoid any critics regarding his endorsement, President Bush used a surprising way to endorse Senator McCain: “If my showing up and endorsing him helps him — or if I'm against him and it helps him — either way, I want him to win."

The Michael Moore Effect

With all of the attention focused on the fierce competition between Hillary and Obama over the democratic nomination, seemingly little attention has been paid to John McCain in recent media cycles. I read, however, an interesting article today that talks about a new documentary being published about the Jack Abramoff scandal, including John McCain’s role in the matter. The film will be done by recent academy award winner Alex Gibney. While it is unclear the level of implication related to McCain, it will be interesting to see if this could play a role in the primary elections. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was certainly welcomed by some liberals. That being said, it also quickly raised questions about the journalistic integrity of the documentary and seemed to mobilize and equally strong anti-Michael Moore conservative force (e.x. when he spoke at the USC campus before the 2004 election or the Fahrehhype 9/11 production). It’s probably too early to tell but it’s interesting to see if these sort of media productions could play an important role in the election, and how each side will respond

Obama -- Avoiding the National Media

The article “Obama Stiffles, Stiffles National Press” that appeared on the politico.com describes a new practice adopted by Senator Obama – avoiding the National Press. National correspondents are not allowed to monitor interviews Obama gives to the local media outlets and traveling media has no access to the candidate during flights, the usual practice for Clinton and McCain. Contrary, breaking all traditions of Republican candidates being distant from the media, McCain goes out of his way to develop positive relationship with National Reporters, even if it means “sitting them on his campaign bus”. Doing this, he develops necessary media connections that will prove useful during the national campaign.
Obama’s choice of avoiding National Media has been a common strategy of the frontrunners in the previous elections. However, just looking at the candidates, one can understand that this election is not like any other one. Moreover, Barack Obama has been critiquing Clinton for the lack of transparency and media coverage when the senate voted on the first healthcare reform. Why when he is committing the same mistake and denying people from “non-crucial” states the right to follow his campaign closely.
Is the Senator afraid that the media will discover inconsistencies or he is just not comfortable speaking without his speechwriters?
Regardless of the reason, by avoiding the National Press, Barack Obama is loosing necessary connections to ensure proportioned and favorable media coverage in case he becomes a democratic nominee.