Why Gibbs' hippy-punching incident is pivotal, not trivial

[kpete]

Why Gibbs' hippy-punching incident is pivotal, not trivial
by: Paul Rosenberg
Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 12:00
Gibbs Was Trumpeting Obama's Failure.

There was a superficial incoherence to Gibbs' hippy-punching, but that only masked a deeper incoherence. The superficial incoherence was (a) essentially dissing the "professional left" as elitist, out-of-touch & politically irrelevant while (b) blaming it for bringing Obama down.

But the deeper incoherence is Obama's own political philosophy, strategy, and ideology. He'd be fine, it could at least be argued, if he was up against Eisenhower-era Republicans like his grandparents and their friends. But no sane person in the world thinks that he is. And since he's not, everything he does is taking place in a sort of an Alice-in-Wonderland world. If he wants to lash out and blame "the professional left" for this, that's fine. But it doesn't tell us anything about anything except him--and how he blameshifts for his own failure on his own terms, the terms of a would-be "transformative reformer" out to battle special interests and return sovereignty to the people--something he obviously has not done.

Indeed, this supreme act of hippy-punching--barely more than two weeks after his supreme make-nice video message to Netroots Nation--seems like nothing so much as a declaration of Obama's own intransigence and unwillingness to face reality. He may be much more sophisticated, in language at least, but he's just as much close-minded to unwanted input as Bush & Cheney were, and Gibbs' hippy-punching was intended to triple underscore that in neon red magic marker, even as he overly denied it.

The very fact that Gibbs is outraged by Bush/Obama comparisons shows how significant they are. A stuck pig squeals. Like Bush before him, Obama would rather fail spectacularly on a global scale than admit his failures so far and take fundamental corrective action.

more:
http://openleft.com/diary/19811/why-gibbs-hippypunching-incident-is-pivotal-not-trivial

[BootinUp]

1. So Americans want the Dems to be as unreasonable as the fuckin repukes?

Is that the message from the Pros? Lol.

[villager]

2. No, Americans are upset that the Dems *are* as unreasonable as the fuckin' repukes

That's the message from the clue train. Lol.

[phantom power]

6. We seem to be locked into a downward spiral

The only reason that voters could be ever unhappy is that Democrats haven't moved far enough right, compromised sufficiently with the GOP and punched enough hippies.

The only reason that the economy could be circling the bowl is that we haven't cut taxes on the rich and corporations enough.

The only reason that our splendid middle east occupations are failing is that we all aren't clapping hard enough, and also because the natives just don't sufficiently appreciate our efforts.

Our fearless leaders are not capable of changing their tune.
:(

[Rageneau]

12. Well-put. The world seems to think that the only unthinkable thing is re-thinking a thing.

It's like being in a wheelchair pushed along by a lynch mob.

[earcandle]

123. when there is no energy, entropy ensues....... action creates energy... we got to get a move on it

here and now.  How?  Where is the leadership? Who do we
support?  Who has a clue?

Lets get some reliable (liberal minded) consultants to provide
some stats on what is up and where we are going without
control...
Then lets get some social media stuff happening to make the
politics pop out for all to see in the mirror.....

Lets make some animation so people can digest it in the
talkies..... 

Ready, set, go... 

I know people who can do this.  Google some for yourself. Lets
invest in some reporting, and knowledge management asap.
Ya think? Post results for contributors.  I can help. Lots of
people can be put to work doing this for leaders who can't 
manage.  Marketing folks, and change management folks for your
companies to become Certified as a Responsible Corporation.

This is important right now.  We need to get people who can
guide, manage media and generate some growth for those people
who need it, and train the rest for support work. 

If you have no funds, don't need more debt, then you might get
creative.  If you think you can grow, ask to offer percentage
of sales in exchange for services or offer some percentage of
gross profits (sales after direct costs or cogs)   

Maybe people will help out and pull together with skills and
resources.  We can do this.  
We on the "Professional Left" are the brains.  We
have been named, and found ourselves.

There is an old koan.

"When I don't know who I am, I serve you.  When I know
who I am, I am you."

It works in all directions.. There is more than one way.  

[tblue]

139. It's all our fault.

We didn't give up. We didn't sell out. It's our fault.

[Enthusiast]

152. Yup. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. Hoo! Hoo!

exactly. Assuming you are talking about DINOs and other endangered species.

[BootinUp]

23. Oh you pass the test.

Your talking point skills are fine. Americans will tune out to talking points like that with amazing regularity.

[Jakes Progress]

44. And you fail.

If you believe that talking points like "We are almost as good as a real republican" are going to resonate with the public.

[BootinUp]

48. I favor making progress not whining that its not enough. nt

[villager]

69. I favor making progress not backsliding apologetics. nt

[Jakes Progress]

198. You just like whining.

[DeSwiss]

68. No. Actually, "this" American is beginning to tune-out people who say things like you do. n/t

[BootinUp]

77. Get used to it

I've had enough of the bullshit around here.

[Cherchez la Femme]

90. Awww

He's had enough, how special! All these lefty hippies should just STOP being mean!
(Being mean is just the unwashed hippie nature, of course. Noooo, altruism is never a factor when it comes to Ugh, hate to type that word again: H i p p i e s!)

Stop it you damn dirty hippies,
and Chris Crocker says so too!


This seems more about mere 'talking points' as you, sir, are the very epitome of said points for the DLC.
Or hypocritical.
Hey, pick one. Or both.

I've seen threats here that another purge is on the way for those who don't bootlick the Pres, his family, and every golden bon mot (which is yea verily every single word, of course!) that issues from his sainted, sex-ay lips attached to that sex-ay body. Is this in that vein or is it a precursor to "Good-bye cruel DU"?

NM, I know the answer


















(and it's not the latter)

[BootinUp]

98. .

*PLONK*

[Cherchez la Femme]

130. Says the arbiter of all that's Right and Holy

[kenfrequed]

177. feh

Now you know how we feel everytime we turn on the damned tv and a political talk show pulls some damned blue dog conservadem on to represent the party against the right wing nut job conservative.

How often do you hear hard core left wing democratic ideas debated on televsion or proposed? You need us a hell of a lot more than we need you, without us, the moderate positions on the airwaves sound more and more like moderate republican positions, with us... well at least the middles ends up being somewhere between the parties.

And this is why the DLC/blue dog/new dem/conservadem groups are bad and strategically stupid. Because they try to squat on the middle ground which wouldn't be terrible if they didn't also try to take over the Democratic party.

[Enthusiast]

153. Me too. nt

[GOTV]

155. No we want them to be sensible and continue working with the GOP all the way down the drain n/t

[BootinUp]

179. Is this the author of the crappy article in the OP?

You sound just like him/her.

Suggestion, demonstrate your theories in actual practice instead of just spewing them around the nets like a virus.

[GOTV]

183. That's the most feeble strawman argument I've seen in a while.

You could have tried to defend the Obama administration and Dem leadership working to enable GOP priorities but that would take more work than imagining who I might be and attacking me for that.

And you still ended up on the ground with a mouth full of straw.

[BootinUp]

187. Your posts don't suggest you are interested in serious discussion

really they don't. Get off the ideological talking points if you are interested in discussion.

[GOTV]

193. - said the poster who came at me screaming and windmilling his fists

Yeah, are you surprised you got a face full of straw rather than a conversation? Really?

[grahamhgreen]

174. Your logic needs tweaking - One can NOT reason with the "unreasonable" repukes. NT

[BootinUp]

178. I didn't say one could

One cannot reason with the ideologues on the other end either.

[grahamhgreen]

197. Just remember mopst of the Pro-left positions are supported by the majority of the people. nt

[gratuitous]

3. Yep, it was hippie-punching of the first caliber

Because god forbid the hat be put on the real miscreants - they might not invite us to their swell cocktail parties, and what's more important than that? So, we get the spectacle of the White House completely paralyzed by (take your choice) either (a) three (or maybe four) professional left persons that 90% of the United States couldn't identify; or (b) a vast throng of America that just doesn't understand that we can't have nice things because it would be too upsetting to people who alreay have nice things.

[lark]

52. Yep, totally agree

:toast:

[another saigon]

87. bravo!

:applause:

[tomp]

120. it really is that simple.

those who don't get it, don't want to.

[xchrom]

4. Recommend

[Fumesucker]

5. Obama isn't failing..

He is succeeding brilliantly, just because we don't grasp what his goals are and wouldn't agree with them if we did doesn't mean he's not reaching them.

[Poll_Blind]

22. Ouch! But maybe a fair point, really.

I have no idea what his goals are anymore. For instance, if he gave a shit he could inject himself into the same-sex marriage/rights issues. As far as I'm concerned, those kinds of issues are as core to Democratic philosophy as a woman's right to choose is. But he didn't and probably won't. I really don't know what his goals are anymore, cause he talked a mean talk about stirrin' up the pot in Washington, changing the way things are done. But I don't see much of that, unfortunately.

If his actions do represent his goals, yeah, I probably wouldn't agree with them if they were revealed to me.

PB

[lark]

54. Either he's sold out or he knowingly mislead us

it's one of the two and I have no idea which. I do know that the end product has been a selling out of the workers in favor of the rich. I'm so disgusted with his actions about BP, they are truly Bushesque and that's the worst thing I could possibly think of other than Cheneyesque.

:wtf: :puke:

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. +1

:thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. "Hippy punching?" LOL.

I'm loving how people insist on proving Gibbs' point for him.

[Fumesucker]

10. And we love how people keep proving Chuckle's The Sensible Woodchuck's points for *him*..

Funny how that works, innit?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Aren't you the guy...

that wants to pump in hot air from Mexico in order to solve the energy problem?

[Fumesucker]

15. No, my proposal involved using hot air from Washington DC..

Where there is a more than adequate sufficiency of that valuable resource.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bertman]

45. Damn!! that's working cheap! I wonder what one has to ingest in order to

shit out DLC hogwash??


Oh wait. Please don't tell me, Jim. My stomach can't take it.


:rofl: :rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

49. I won't repeat what I've heard, but let's just say you don't even wanna THINK about what goes on

at their office parties. ;)

[Cherchez la Femme]

91. Well for those wages

you sure can't call them 'professional'! :evilgrin:

[Dr.Phool]

95. Does the name Linda Lovelace ring a bell?

[Caretha]

79. ROFLMFAO

That's the best truism I've seen in awhile. Well put!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Aren't you the guy who's against the "ground zero mosque?"

Because that's some Aryan Nation hogwash right there.

[Jim Sagle]

121. Wow - so you think the majority view is Aryan Nation-like? Good luck with that.

[AlbertCat]

164. so you think the majority view is Aryan Nation-like?

Majority views like...uh....Prop 8?

[Jim Sagle]

199. Some majority views make more sense than others.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. Yes. It's deeply bigoted.

And wholly unprogressive.

[Jim Sagle]

200. Actually it isn't.

[dionysus]

186. so you're saying you're an admitted, proud bigot? really? hookay jim.

because you're defending pure bigotry.

[Jim Sagle]

201. No, I'm not. But if personal invective makes you happy, engage in it.

[dionysus]

184. calling people paid trolls is very classy, jim. you rawwwwwwk

:eyes:

[janx]

26. This is a diary or a blog...one of many on a web site.

The source is one of all of those random opinions out there and is about as credible as FDL. "Hippy punching" makes for some entertaining hyperbole, though. What kind of picture was in his head? :rofl:

[Cherchez la Femme]

93. In that vein your very posted opinion is just as 'valuable'

or invaluable, actually

non?


Mais oui.


But Hey! SO glad we hippies can entertain you!
& laugh away, have fun! Cause you know, it's sooo constructive to continue to alienate a big part of the Democratic base! :eyes:

[Chef Eric]

78. I didn't realize that Gibbs' point was that the left doesn't appreciate his BULLSHIT.

Because that's the only thing that is being proven here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

170. I'm a leftist and I appreciate his comments about these phony leftists.

[boppers]

86. Did you count how many times it was repeated in the article?

No less than nine times. Funny, that.

:evilgrin:

[Cherchez la Femme]

94. Hilarious! nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. He could have at least added some variation.

Like "baby-raping" or "whale-burning."

[boppers]

205. That would have diluted the meme.

If you change the (often absurd) wording, choice phrases are lessened.

That being said, I would not be surprised if Obama was blamed for being a "whale-burning, baby-raping, hippy-punching, extremist".

Some people fall for that.

[Johonny]

9. fact that OP writers are outraged by Gibbs statements shows how significant they are

A stuck pig squeals

See this * is easy to write and no longer interesting to read on the DU

[villager]

17. ...as does the cacophony of snarky responses, which try to downplay that significance

...while simultaneously bemoaning it, then when all that fails, it's the apologists' last resort: all-out snark.

[Johonny]

35. sorry I see no substance

in complaints about complaining about complaints of his complaints of their complaining. Where you significance I see turtles on turtles.

These OP eds write themselves. It takes all of 5 seconds to turn them around, as my first post shows. Me I'm moving on to something that might really matter like if we build a mosque 2 blocks from ground zero... WTF that's an "issue". I give up.

[villager]

67. these responses write themselves, as well...

n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

103. But can turtles on turtles marry,

or just human/turtle nuptials in the few states that allow Gay Marriage? :evilgrin:

[earcandle]

126. wtf?

[Cherchez la Femme]

128. Google, or ask.com 'marry box turtle'

Or here

[Better Today]

21. True, we felt stuck when Gibbs jabbed us, we are the same

hippy, pot smoking, under/un-employed, lazy, socialist, gay lovin', war hatin', health care wantin', Gitmo closin', populist assholes we always were. Obama and his admin are the one's who changed.

The point to the article is that we aren't and have never actually gotten in his way, the Repubs have, and we voted for him in droves. Sure we've been stuck, because he lied to us about what his real priorities were. If he had campaigned on bipartisanship and corporations and Wall Street, we'd never have voted him into office. And couldn't have gotten there without us.

[Caretha]

82. I resemble that remark

you know the one about being a" hippy, pot smoking, under/un-employed, lazy, socialist, gay lovin', war hatin', health care wantin', Gitmo closin', populist assholes we always were.

It's a shame that we have supposed Duers who really believe that shit, btw they ain't my comrades any more. All I can figure out is that they are as 'Non Compos 'Menace'
as the Sarah Palin crowd or they are paid shills. Take your pick.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

47. Only Gibbs' fans ever expressed his comment weren't significant.

His message from the Oval Office came through loud and clear.

[Cherchez la Femme]

102. Pigs, now, are we?

This thread gets specialer & specialer!

But I don't understand: How does the Outrage (c'mon, not 'Poutrage'?) positively correlate with "how significant (hippies) are"?
You didn't, in your logic, quite connect the two. *puzzled*

Really though, you need to find a much better analogy than that
as 'Pigs' is used in DHS (Dirty-Hippie-Speak) for the Po-lice (usually the one's that riot and bust hippies heads cause it feels good! Yay!)

You don't want to be mistaken for a hippie now...

...do you???


"on the DU". Is that like a destination tube on the internets?


Any sentient being: animal, including the human animal, who is abused will respond in some way;
not just one that is knifed/slaughtered: Action, reaction.
But gee, thanks for thinking of us in that vein! /sarcasm

[Aramchek]

13. tripe, anyone?

[Cherchez la Femme]

104. and you, along with

poster #14 (and many others, of course) continue to crow about how unimportant we are -- and that goes for our votes, time and money too.

Cause, y,know, there IS a place we hippie hoi-polloi can go that actually hold our principles -- in top level in their platform in fact

(Hint: it's a color.)

[LWolf]

14. "A stuck pig squeals."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:rofl:

[cascadiance]

72. My feelings exactly!

[greeneyedboy]

16. worth reading the whole thing--thanks for posting

hits the nail on the head, IMO.

[zipplewrath]

18. A shorter summary

It still isn't clear exactly who Gibbs was talking about. It is almost assuredly a vastly larger crowd than his supporters have tried to claim, although probably a much smaller crowd than took personal offense. That, in and of itself is continuing evidence that Gibbs should go, because his one job is to be clear and informative.

But once you get past all the kerfluffle what is telling is that, despite Gibbs' implication to the opposite, the administration does care and they do feel they are being "damaged" by the criticism. And to some extent they know their critics are correct. Otherwise, they wouldn't be representing what they did as "good enough" or "as good as we could do". They would be representing it as "the better alternative". But all we get is "the GOP would be worse" and "it's all we could do". They are projecting the very disappointment to which they object. And on some level they know this, and are blaming the messenger.

[Poll_Blind]

20. And to add a little bit, a quote from Lessig in the OP's piece that stuck with me:

"But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised."

PB

[KoKo]

28. Haunting line: "projecting the very disappointment to which they object"

That's a key problem with Obama's media messaging group. When we hear from them the message is usually not strong but defeatist. Always saying: "We can't get the votes, the votes aren't there" but shutting out people who could defend them.

[Mimosa]

140. IF he had fought for what he campaigned on I'd still be in campaign mode, defending him

But after the Inauguration Obama seemed to change.

And the 'we can't get this, that or the other' (the 'weak presidency'?) is strange. Obama won big, many people were enthusiastic. Why was no single payer nor public option plan forwarded when that's what many Americans wanted? It wasn't publicly discussed.

It looks like big business is pulling all the strings still.

I'm no hippy type, btw.

Can anybody please tell me who is 'the professional left'?

I have no idea. Do they have a presence on TV? In the media?

[Poll_Blind]

19. The rest of that piece is a great read- I recommend people reading the whole thing.

Thanks for posting. I almost never actually read the full entry for a piece like this, usually going only by the snippet posted. And I realize you're quite constrained by the 4-ish paragraph rule. But I'm glad I checked out the rest of that, it was really worth my time to read through.

PB

[geek tragedy]

24. Article written by a professional Obama hater

From that same website, from that same weekend:

"Obama, man of anti-principle, strikes again--gives assist to mosque-haters and al Qaeda"

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19818/obama-man-of-antiprinciple-strikes-againgives-assist-to-mosquehaters-and-al-qaeda

Gibbs was right about this guy--the admin should punch back at this kind of character.

[EFerrari]

36. Because that's what good leaders do, lash out?

Okay.

[geek tragedy]

43. We always fault Obama for not giving as good as he gets. nt

[sabrina 1]

114. We meant the rightwingers, the teabaggers, who he has said

are just Americans with 'concerns'. How about giving THEM as good as he gets from them? Or do you prefer he go after the people who elected him? Great strategy there. The people who will never vote for him should be ignored or even exused, but those who want him to succeed should be attacked at every opportunity. This is the kind of advice he's getting?

[geek tragedy]

161. Not all of his leftwing critics want him to succeed.

Indeed a great many of them--people like Jane Hamsher and many people on this board--think he's actually the enemy who's up to no good and must be stopped.

[sabrina 1]

182. That is pure nonsense. An overwhelming majority

of Americans want him to succeed because if he doesn't THEY are the ones who will be adversely affected. I cannot read the minds of bloggers as you apparently can, but even if Hamsher didn't want him to succeed, which is a scurrilous statement about someone you do not know btw, she is one person. She hardly caused the drop in support from Independents all by herself. And to interpret the fair criticism of people on this board as not supporting him, not one of whom I have seen say they do not want him to succeed, since most of them voted for him, is pure childish speculation.

Where are your attacks on the Rightwing? In fact, if I were a mind-reader like you, I would think that those who relentlessly attack his supporters are the ones who do not want him to succeed by alienating people on a daily basis. But I'm not a mind reader and can only shake my head at the incredibly bad strategy of doing the kind of thing you just did, ascribe the worst motives to the very people who worked to get a Democratic majority in the first place. And with no basis for it.

Speaking for myself, I never wanted a president to succeed more, because the alternative is unthinkable and when I see the vicious attacks from the right against him every day, I wonder why people like you spend your time going after democrats instead of taking on the right.

Even Pelosi has demanded that this WH stop attacking Democrats as it is affecting their chances of winning in Novemenber. Why don't you listen to her instead of worrying about what is in the minds of a few bloggers and start fighting with the president's real enemies for a change? That is who I reserve my anger for, Republicans!

[me b zola]

25. K&R

[KoKo]

27. A little more from the article:

While it's no doubt true that Obama deliberately encouraged a wide range of people to read their hopes into him and his broad-bore promise of "hope" and "change", the examples Lessig cites are clearly typical of themes Obama returned to again and again and again. If he was deliberately vague on a wide range of substantive issues (notwithstanding web-only position papers he could easily walk away from), he repeatedly returned to this promise of sweeping change and unprecedented openness at the proceedural level. This was the substance of his campaign: The promise of opening government up to the people. And that is the promise that has been broken, more than anything else.

It's the promise that was broken when single-payer advocates were excluded from the health care debate, and had to get arrested on TV in order to break through the barriers that Obama had helped construct to keep them out.

It's the promise that was broken when activists pushed to have war crimes investigations of the Bush Administration, and Obama ignored them, despite the priority given in his own issue-selection process.

It's the promise that was broken when Wall Street insiders were given exclusive control over "fixing" the mess that they and their friends had created--and left the rest of America behind.

It's the promise that was broken when parents and educators were excluded from the corporate-oriented "Race to the Top" educational lottery system was used to force money-starved states to fall into lockstep with a neoliberal educational agenda that was nowhere to be found in Obama's campaign speeches.

It's the promise that was broken when veterans who campaigned prominently for Obama grew increasingly frustrated with being frozen out, as the same old unresponsive establishment remained firmly in place.

As Lessig's critique starts to sink in, hopefully progressives will press harder and harder on Obama's failure on this front--not to embarass or humiliate him, but to continue the work of building the coalition that Chris pointed to nearly six years ago, because that coalition of potentiality is what really won the 2008 election, and it's up to us to keep that potential alive, and find ways to manifest it, regardless of how its promise is betrayed and obscured by Obama and Gibbs.

In the long run, Gibbs' fit of hippy-punching may well turn out to be a turning point, the point at which the Obama spell was broken, and people began to reconnect with the emerging promise of a liberal/reform coalition that truly can lead us to a renewal of the promise of America.

[glitch]

56. I would love to see the hope realized from that last paragraph! :) nt

[KoKo]

70. It definitely would help......n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

105. I dunno, mine are burnt pretty crispy by now...

...my 'thing with feathers', you understand...

[burnsei sensei]

195. +1 nt

[blindpig]

29. Naw...

In actuality Gibbs was tearing the curtain, explaining the reality which many refuse to accept.

That reality is that the Democratic Party is not what the 'leftists'/progressives of the party think it is, it is not a 'socialists lite' entity. The Democratic Party is fully on board with Capitalism, which means that it is fine with imperial wars, the superiority of Capital over Labor, the privatization of everything.

When it comes to the Democratic Party the whistle pigs got it right.
We are on our own.

[janx]

40. Democrats are not socialists; that is true.

As for the parts about imperial wars and the privatization of everything...please spare us the hyperbole.

[blindpig]

42. Are your eyes not open?

What hyperbole? Bush may have initiated the Mid east aggression but the majority of Dems have voted for funding time and again. The Administration spearheads a drive to privatize education. A private company causes the worst environmental catastrophe US history and is allowed to conduct mediation on entirely it's terms. Bankers get billions on demand while the unemployed suck wind. That ain't hyperbole.

[Autumn]

46. Not hyperbole, definitely a

fact.:thumbsup:

[janx]

99. The federal government is not trying to privatize education.

The federal government will hold BP accountable.

[blindpig]

162. Tell that to Arne Duncan...

or perhaps you might ask the numerous teachers on this board...

Well, perhaps the federal government might hold BP accountable to the massaged numbers, circumscribed conditions and restricted research that are by, of and for BP. Woo hoo, Capitalist justice.

[liberation]

62. "Hyperbole" does not mean what you little talking point exercise wants it to mean...

The more you know....

[Cherchez la Femme]

106. You are far from blind

although it appears, reading above, you may be 'stuck' :(

[janx]

118. ...dans la merde n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

127. "in the shit"

*puzzled* Who?, or What?

[blindpig]

181. How so? n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

202. blind pig, a "stuck pig"

Regarding Reply #14: "A stuck pig squeals."

[Scurrilous]

30. LOL

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VIt42ZwDrR4/S7dK_8dXddI/AAAAAAAADwk/WmVPYHnMRLg/s400/sex+pistols+kill+the+hippies+front.jpg

[Cherchez la Femme]

108. With your avatar you post that graphic??

Breathtaking. Simply breathtaking.

[BzaDem]

32. "Obama's own intransigence and unwillingness to face reality"

:rofl:

You can't make this stuff up. Gibbs entire (and obviously accurate) point was that the "Obama is like Bush"-ers are the ones who are incapable of recognizing reality.

So what do these people do? They accuse Obama as the one who isn't recognizing reality (as if Obama is the one having the problem counting to 60). Isn't that the textbook definition of projection?

[Jim Sagle]

37. No, your comment is.

[BzaDem]

38. Ooooooh, nice one. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Counting to 60 is not Obama's job

Being a leader is his job. Doing what he said he would do, that is his job. Obama himself says his policies are faith based, "I'm a Christian so I oppose equality" that sort of thing. Reality? Beliefs in unseen beings telling him to oppose his neighbors, this is not a realist. I take him at his word, he is faith based, believes that some are 'Sanctified by God' and other groups are not and that civil law should be framed to reflect these superstitions. Big pragmatist, knee deep in dogma and theological traditions based on visions and angels.
The idea of pushing a anti equality religionist as a 'realist' is so silly. Absurd. He's a Donnie McClurkin style born again, or so he claims when he is on the 'one man, one woman' song and dance.
So whatever. Realists, counting angels on the head of a pin.

[BzaDem]

51. Being a leader means modifying your proposals to achieve 60 votes.

After all, the usual point of legislative proposals is to PASS the legislation. This means finding the votes required, by persuasion if possible or by changing the proposal to get the votes.

All of this garbage about "leading" meaning forcing unwilling Senators to switch their votes is really childlike, and mainly the result of cognitive dissonance on the part of those who don't know the difference between wanting something and actually getting it.

[sendero]

55. Even if..

... the legislation you wind up with is not worth passing.

[BzaDem]

57. People who think the stimulus, HCR, and FinReg were not worth passing

need to get their heads examined by a professional licensed psychiatrist.

[Caretha]

83. Says who?

You??? Oh for god sake enough of your 'hyperbole'!

[BzaDem]

132. Yes, says me. Though it helps that the facts make it obvious.

There were plenty of "progressives" who bashed FDR and Social Security at the time it was enacted, saying it was watered down to the point where it was not worth enacting. Today's "progressives" who think the stimulus/HCR/FinReg were not worth enacting are no more relevant than the SS-bashing "progressives" of FDR's time.

[Cherchez la Femme]

109. Yes. Otherwise he can't do a single blessed thing!

Just like my freshly washed loong hippie-hair, I can't do a thing with it!

If you're old enough to remember that meme (before Memes were invented)

[sabrina 1]

122. So you're saying that Obama didn't know any of this when

he was a candidate? He thought he could get things done the way LBJ or Bush got them done? How childish of him ...

[BzaDem]

133. Bush actually got little done outside the 50-vote reconciliation bills, regardless of the myths here

SS privatization failed, immigration failed, and ANWR drilling failed. Because they all required 60 votes.

Obama was promising to work for his platform. No candidate can promise to ENACT legislation, because the Constitution doesn't give the president the power to enact legislation. It gives Congress this power. Obviously, you wouldn't demand Obama enact single payer if Republicans controlled Congress.

[sabrina 1]

180. Bush got two wars started, he got the Constitution

shredded with bills like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, he got torture accepted as a policy. He was on a roll until Katrina, after which he got some pushback on the rest of his agenda.

And while he failed to privatize SS, that was because of the fight put up by the left a fight that I hope will continue since that is still on the agenda.

The people wanted an extension of Medicare, across political lines. Senators vote for what will keep them in their jobs. A campaign pushing for policies that the people want is what shames politicians into supporting them. That never happened.

[BzaDem]

203. You are talking about foreign policy, not domestic policy.

Presidents have a huge amount of power to act in the realm of foreign policy. He can certainly start wars on his own (with or without a formal declaration of war from Congress, as many precedents indicate). The fact that the President has so much authority (or at the very least, the fact that Bush was asserting so much authority and would have acted unilaterally without Congress) obviously changes the incentives for Congress to act.

Domestic policy is a whole different area. The President has no power to enact laws unilaterally. Congress is in control there.

[sabrina 1]

206. The Patriot Act was not foreign policy

nor was the MCA. These acts were voted on by Congress because clearly the president did NOT have the authority to acct on his own. The only area where he can do that is in starting a war, but he still Congress' approval to fund it and legally, Congress is supposed to review these wars at least every two years to decide whether or not the goals have been achieved and they need to end. Obvdiously Congress did not do its job on these wars.

As for Domestic laws, Bush got plenty of controversial laws passed. He even got Democrats to support him. He got his tax cuts for the wealthy passed eg. He twisted arms, he threatened, he had his minions smear Democrats who did not want to support him.

Democrats otoh, are leaning over backwards trying to get just one Republican to say he likes them. Bush didn't care if anyone liked him or not. It's either that, or they are all playing a game and decisions on important issues are already decided and we just get to watch the game where they pretend there are two parties.

[jeff47]

160. No, it means modifying your RESULTS to achieve 60 votes

Pre-compromising your proposals means you are not a leader. You are being lead.

You ask for what you want. When you can't get it, _then_ you start worrying about compromising. And if you compromise, you make it abundantly clear you aren't completely happy with the result.

[BzaDem]

204. You are again assuming that bills like these are "negotiated" to reach a "compromise."

This is false. When the bill hinges on a single vote, that Senator reads his list of demands and gets every single one of them. There is no negotiation, because there is no disincentive for the 60th vote to simply walk away and kill the bill (and perhaps a large political incentive to do so).

Negotiations do happen when both sides want something (i.e. bipartisan bills, or bills that a one-party-Congress passes that must survive the other party's President's veto pen). But not when there are clearly always going to be exactly 60 votes or fewer for a bill. That turns the "negotiation" into more of a ransom demand.

[derby378]

41. Last I heard, a majority in the Senate is only 51

What is this mysterious "60" you allude to?

[BzaDem]

50. Last I heard, a majority gets you NOWHERE in the Senate.

A simple majority results in a failed cloture vote, and nothing more. It is only useful for passing reconciliation bills, which do not require cloture.

[derby378]

53. And who should we blame for that?

See, there's the rub. The idea that 51 is not a majority in the Senate is nobody's fault but the Senate's.

[BzaDem]

58. At least we're getting somewhere. You're not blaming Obama.

You can put the blame on the Republicans. You need 67 votes.to change the rules.

[KoKo]

61. Harry Reid..he was good for Repugs with less votes...not so good with Dems...

He doesn't seem to have the Repug or even Oldie Dems facility with "Parliamentary Rules" and how they can be bent. They were BENT for REPUGS....but Harry didn't learn that....he wouldn't do the same for his DEMS when WE WORKED SO HARD TO GET HIM THE SENATE VOTES HE NEEDED!

He doesn't twist arms like the Old Dems did...but then...it's not his fault...the LOBBYISTS RULE...so he's up against some bad stuff. STILL...there are the SENATE RULES that can be used by "clever Dems."

So...which way was it for Harry Reid?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Well, there's the first U.S. Senate which set up the rules in 1789.

Then there's the 1917 rules that allowed the 60 votes for cloture to end the filibuster.

Damn that Obama and his time machine.

[Curmudgeoness]

59. I will not go so far as to compare Obama to Bush...

and I am greatly relieved that we do not have a president McCain and VP Palin. But that does not mean that there aren't serious flaws in this administration. His political philosophy, strategy, and ideology are just not working. And we were probably at fault for falling for the "change you can believe in" slogan.

[KoKo]

64. It would be hard for folks who've been watching this for years not to

agree with you. "There are serious flaws in this Administration."

Those of us who were here since 2001-02 on DU when it formed have a long history of "watchers" and "activists."

We see things we fought so hard for go down the toilet..while others think they just found the Rest Room... It's sometimes hard for us all to get on the same page...given our different experiences and the time involved that some who've been watching longer see more flaws than those who had so much hope that are new to the game. (Not that ALL OF US didn't HOPE SO MUCH FOR OBAMA TO SUCCEED)...it's just harder for many of us who've been at this longer to see the terrible, tragic stuff that's coming to pass.

Some probably feel it was their last chance to get a GOOD DEM PRESIDENT IN who would REALLY WORK FOR CHANGE the COULD BELIEVE IN...and are feeling the worst of all in this...

It's very hard on Dems to find some kind of balance in this...between the Newbies and the Oldies and the Inbetweenies.

[Curmudgeoness]

66. Newbie here, but not to politics. I just stayed away from discussion

boards in the past. I first worked for McGovern, and still find that I am disappointed when what we expect is not at all what we get. Maybe I am just naive thinking that there can be change, but I cannot give up hoping for it. And I won't.

And I have seen enough shit here to know that I have found the rest room.

[Skidmore]

60. Oh, for pity's sake....

what a steaming crock.

[rhett o rick]

65. The constant attacks of the left is a tactic to show the center-right that he, not only isnt a

leftist, he hates the left. Looks to me like he hopes to win the election with the center-right vote instead of the left.

[DeSwiss]

71. K&R

Words from candidate Obama:

If we do not change our politics -- if we do not fundamentally change the way Washington works -- then the problems we've been talking about for the last generation will be the same ones that haunt us for generations to come.

But let me be clear -- this isn't just about ending the failed policies of the Bush years; it's about ending the failed system in Washington that produces those policies. For far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans.

Do we continue to allow lobbyists to veto our progress? Or do we finally put our national interests ahead of the special interests and address the concerns people feel over their jobs, their health care and their children's future?

We are up against the belief that it's OK for lobbyists to dominate our government -- that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We need to challenge the system... And if we're not willing to take up that fight, then real change -- change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans -- will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo.

I think I see what the problem was back then. Nobody thought to ask him exactly how he was going to change the "failed system" and the lousy way "Washington works." Nor did they ask exactly how he was going to "get the dirty 'ol lobbyists out of our political process."


- The only differences I've seen in any of the things he talked about changing, is who it is that is not changing them......

[Caretha]

85. He let the pharmas buy out real health care reform to start with

You know, that was changing the way Washington works, right? HEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!

[DeSwiss]

116. Precisely.

Not to mention putting the same foxes who were the architects of this financial fiasco we're in, in-charge of the hen house at Treasury and as his Economic Advisor.

Same old, same old......

[Mimosa]

141. I'd jumped up and cheered listening to that speech, DeSwiss!

Thanks for reminding me why I worked so hard and contributed money to elect President Obama.

I actually had believed him.

[Skittles]

73. "unwillingness to face reality"

applies too too many DUers also

[FrenchieCat]

74. "Obama would rather fail spectacularly on a global scale than admit his failures" FALSE!

so much bullshit in that article, till this time,
it's funny. :rofl:

Most folks wouldn't know a real hippie,
if he punched them in the face.
So many wannabee hippies without shit to do.

[Bluebear]

75. 'A stuck pig squeals.'

:rofl:

[flyarm]

76. In the primary it was women age 50+ , now it is Hippy / druggie Professional Liberals.

Hell I was a Hippy 40 freaking years ago..and I wasn't much of one then, it was peer driven.

I just want to know ..who can be a professional in todays world and be a druggie?

I know I was tested but I was in the airline business, but even Ballplayers are tested now.

So just who is Obama happy with ? Just the middle right???????????

He hasn't done squat for the Gay community.

He hasn't done a thing for the environmental activists.

He has shit all over Teachers.

His folks have smeared Move-On calling them retards.

He also took on the Unions with the Retard bullshit.

Just who in the base has Obama done a damn thing for , but call names and alienate the Base?

[The Green Manalishi]

96. If you think of him, objectively, as a lawyer

currently making a bit over $400K a year but certain to be making many times that once the current gig is up, why the HELL should he be so supportive of 'the left'?

"The left" wants change. Why should someone who is a world famous celebrity, with a guaranteed future, beautiful wife and kids, handsome and healthy *WANT* things to change?

Not that I don't like the guy a hell of a lot more than I ever liked Bush, nor will I not vote for him in 2012, but anyone who expected radical change was/is either *REALLY* dumb, or conservative (wait- I repeat myself)

[Cherchez la Femme]

110. Oh God

dess fly -- now they'll be calling you a 'Puma'! :rofl:

[flyarm]

131. I Have been called worse by "them"..and now I am a Retard, Druggie Professional Liberal

If i remember correctly ( and i do) i was called the nastiest name a woman can be called.

I just want to know who hasn't been attacked but the farthest right DLC'ers? ??????????

[Cherchez la Femme]

136. There's a lot of us, all under the 'Big Bus' *TM*

Methinks you're in good company LOL

OMG, this administration LUVS the farthest right DLC'ers -- people after their own tiny, hardened hearts! :cry:


I know your gender is undeclared, but for some reason I always pictured you as male; don't really know why... perhaps because your always excellent (IMHO of course) posts are just so damn pithy :)

But I have to admit I've used that word (C-word, right?) but only towards such as Ann(e) Coulter, if that's any defense
I'm still not proud, but it 'was just a word' for much of my (unexamined) life
and it can sometimes just slip out :(

[Contrary1]

134. This part of the article pretty much describes how I feel about it...

"But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

When Candidate Obama took on Hilary Clinton, he was quite clear about what he thought about the way Washington works. And he was quite clear about why he was running for President. As he said:

'Unless we're willing to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way, nothing else is going to change. And the reason I'm running for president is to challenge that system.'

Read it again: 'The reason I am running for president is to challenge that system.' "

[LoZoccolo]

81. Now my empty cup is as sweet as the punch.

[Dr.Phool]

100. Don't leave yourself open like that.

It's too tempting.

[janx]

107. And then along comes Mary... n/t

[PufPuf23]

84. The trajectory could be changed in 6 months

by changes in tax rates, prosecution of white collar and political criminals, and re-allotment of funds to the public interest rather than war for special interests.

Neo-liberals and neo-cons are 21st century fascism for empire and do not in fact exhibit traits of a representitive Democrtic Republic.

We are a rogue nation domestically and internationally. I don't want this. I think most of you agree.

[boppers]

88. Do you favor shutting down the pentagon?

[PufPuf23]

92. What a stupid question. Of course not.

I do support a reduction in international belligerence and the funding that allows perpetual war including covert.

We executed individuals and led in the creation of international agreements based upon the supreme criminal act of pre-emptive war post WWII.

The Neo-cons and neo-liberals are guilty of the same crimes and have bl;red the nation into groups of haves and have-nots where elected polititions do not reflect the will of their constiuents.

[CocaNova]

115. I totally agree. n/t

[boppers]

129. So, you agree with Gibbs, then.

He was talking about folks who wanted to shut down the Pentagon, consider Kucinich to be a sellout, etc.

[Enthusiast]

156. +1 on 84 and 92.

The country has become dysfunctional. Corporate influence has overwhelmed the political process. Nothing is being done to correct this crisis condition. It isn't like we can continue along our merry path. "Oh look at the wonderful health care reform we passed." This is simply unrealistic.

[Barack2theFuture]

89. Is there any example since the day after the election

of the Obama administration interacting with or communicating about those to Obama's left that was not insulting, dismissive or a flagrant rejection of a progressive campaign promise?

[boppers]

97. How many examples do you want?

Did you have a specific quantity in mind?

[Barack2theFuture]

101. one would be good

[boppers]

111. Have a few hundred:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog

[Barack2theFuture]

185. really?

I don't see any positive characterizations of liberals in any of that.

[boppers]

112. *Directly* targeting the left:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/barack-obama-netroots-nation-video_n_658193.html

[Barack2theFuture]

188. Thank you. There was one in which he or his henchmen

were not gratuitously insulting.

How did the fucking r****ded, drug-addled pony-wanters respond?

And what did Obama do for them other than ask indirectly for their votes?

[dionysus]

192. obama has "henchmen" now? oh my.

[Barack2theFuture]

196. not many other words would describe Rahm or Gibbs as well.

[The_Casual_Observer]

113. Anybody else remember when the liberals turned on Jimmy Carter ?

Accused him of selling out to the "Trilateral Commission" & the rest of that "he's corporate" shit????

Oh, those wise ass do-gooder bastards did everyone a great big fucking favor that time & now the same shit is happening again. It's heffers to the slaughter.

[Dr.Phool]

143. Nothing like revisionist history.

Carter's downfall was getting caught in an oil embargo, the Iran hostage crisis, 18% mortgage rates, a major recession, and many more things beyond his control. Liberals had nothing to do with it. I voted for him twice. Reagan was able to bullshit a lot of CONSERVATIVE democrats into voting for him. Liberals knew what he was.

And he did piss a lot of people off when he started taxing half of people's unemployment benefits. Then Reagan came along and taxed the other half.

[Enthusiast]

157. +1, I voted for Carter twice.

Events beyond his control caused his loss.

[pnorman]

117. MISS ME YET?

[Phil The Cat]

135. I think some people here do miss Booosh

I may be wrong on that, but that's how it seems! It was SOOOOO much easier to hate on Chimpy McNutbar than Obama!

Bush was so ignorant you could trash him guilt-free! Obama, on the other hand, you have feelings like "Am I racist? Am I disloyal to the Democratic Party?" when criticizing him!

Me? No! I don't miss him!

[pnorman]

138. Here's another meme to ponder over:

"There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between....."

Pop question: Those bubbleheads here who supported Ralph Nader over Joe Lieberman in 2000 (myself included), took mucho VENOMOUS abuse from the hard-headed pragmatists. How many of the latter are now bedecking themselves with badges of political purity?

From Day one to the present, ALL that we here on DU despise are UNITED in the common goal of rendering Obama`dead in the water. The SUREST way of doing that would be to engineer a repudiation of him in the mid-term election. Rush Limbaugh wants him to fail, but do we here on DU blindly follow Rush? Is it asking too much to rally behind Obama until AFTER the upcoming elections this November?

[Dr.Phool]

142. I wish he would give me something to rally around.

Besides a catfood commission, caving in to conservadems, more war and empire, and Wall Street and big pharma policies.

It would make it so much easier.

[pnorman]

154. Suit yourself. I gave it my Best Shot.

"Cat Food Commission" ---clever, cruel, and above all, COOL! That's the sort of wordsmithery that Rush Limbaugh had built his financial empire with. He's probably GREEN with envy! So if it works for you, go with it! But first, repeat after me: "There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between....."

[Dr.Phool]

159. Actually, I prefer not to repeat after you.

As for "wordsmithery", I did actually write speeches for Democratic congressional candidates. Right now, I'm just lowering my language for the target audience.

But, I guess you still don't understand.

[LWolf]

169. Deja Vu.

I hear this every election year. Then, after the election year, it's "They need time. Give them time." Then it's an election year again, and the cycle repeats. Every 2 years like clockwork.

[pnorman]

175. Hardly any point in even bothering to vote, is there?

n/t

[LWolf]

176. Not when you allow people to silence you, or to control your voice and your vote. nt

[Enthusiast]

158. When I criticize Obama I

NEVER feel I am a racist of un-loyal to the party. Why would any of us feel "Am I racist?" We know our own hearts. Gee, your words are very suspicious.

[dionysus]

190. i swear, the professional crybabies really do miss those days.

wailing and gnashing teeth in an impotent rage, an overriding sense of oppression, is what makes them feel right at home.

[laughingliberal]

119. K & R nt

[flyarm]

124. Leaning Republican: Gibbs' Gaffe Tips Off Conversion

Leaning Republican: Gibbs' Gaffe Tips Off Conversion | The Smirking Chimp

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/30769

Leaning Republican: Gibbs' Gaffe Tips Off Conversion
by Robert Becker | August 16, 2010 - 9:43am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The tirade from Press Secretary Gibbs, nicknamed "Bozo the spokesman" by Rep. Grayson, is a boon to all those who favor reality over wishful thinking, or delusion. This White House invective settles it: the president isn't a liberal, barely campaigned as one, and picked only a smattering of senior liberal advisers. Nor do they have a clue why liberals and centrists are fleeing in droves, preferring to blame the victim, not hear our horror stories.

American soldiers are dying in stupid, endless wars bankrupting our country. Washington feeds big corporations and starves, or puts on diet, 80% of the country, with perhaps 50 million people unemployed, underemployed or hopeless. Leftwing anger is far less about the betrayal of progressive dreams, even watered-down centrist legislation, or uninspiring Supreme Court nominations. What infuriates the left is what Obama hasn't done, attend to Task One: Reverse Bush Crimes. Restore Constitutional protections, investigate and thus heal across-the-boards rights violations, deal seriously with energy, oil spills, and genuine threats to national security, like climate change.

That this White House doesn't get real-world Main Street concerns is my takeaway, more telling than the tirades themselves against a fabricated "professional left" which doesn't talk about Canadian health care or "doing away with the Pentagon." Does obliviousness alone explain unsolicited aggression by the wobbly Obama team's against its own base, even more puzzlingly, by making up lies? There's no controversial bill or program on the table - and with the estranged center aghast at a jobless recovery, why cut and run from the left? Like Rahm Emanuel labeling Howard Dean "insane" for disputing health insurance reform, Gibbs didn't simply express frustration but calumny: liberal whiners aren't just ingrates, but insatiable crazies in need of "drug testing."

Abuse will certainly calm the waters, won't it, Gibbsy? The closed-minded deny legitimate dissent (and no recovery) by denigrating the dissenters - even our right to unsullied debate! Close to the president, Gibbs sadly confirms Obama's bottom line for the common folk: "the fierce urgency of never" - except on corporate bailouts, war-making, deference to BP, or overpriced, predatory counter-terrorism. Because articulate press secretaries don't speak for themselves, nor commit random acts, I smell another rightward lurch - to prove Obama's no socialist? - and more shockers to come. Chances for an Obama primary challenge just doubled.

[dionysus]

191. "Chances for an Obama primary challenge just doubled."

:rofl:

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

137. K & R!

[DemocraticPilgrim]

144. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

145. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

146. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

147. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

148. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

149. Worryingly it has some truth to this. Although he is not like the last President himself.

[DemocraticPilgrim]

150. dupe

[DemocraticPilgrim]

151. dupe

[bigtree]

163. I'd like to see a 'pivot' toward spending this time attacking republicans

instead of the endless, navel-gazing grousing about Gibbs.

[Fumesucker]

165. You don't appear to have much of a handle on human emotions..

It's far more hurtful when someone you think is on your side or should be on your side slams you than when it's someone you consider an enemy or an opponent.

This is a natural and entirely predictable reaction to Gibbs' statement, telling people to get over it is every bit as silly as Republicans telling Democrats to get over the 2000 selection of Bushie over Gore by the SCOTUS.

Have you never had a scab you kept picking at even though it was painful to do that?

[bigtree]

168. not just 'get over it'

move on.

[Fumesucker]

171. It would be much easier to "move on"

If the irritating stimuli from the Democratic politicians were not so constant and ongoing..

Sort of like that scab that itches horribly, the urge to pick at it becomes all consuming, even when you're not picking at it you're thinking about not picking at it.

[Poll_Blind]

166. +1 No shit, is it because the Republicans will attack back?

Aw shit, what a mess.

PB

[Uncle Joe]

173. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[bigbaddan]

189. Gibbs is the worst White House Press Secretary, EVER.

He is wildly disliked inside of the D.C. media. He has turned a once friendly press against Obama.

[earth mom]

194. Gibbs is a DINO. He should be fired stat.

But of course he won't be, which should tell everyone exactly what they need to know about which way the wind blows in the Obama WH.