MORE

Oh, and by the way -refer back to this post and tell me if I'm wrong:

She says that Obama is basing his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a speech he gave in 2002?

NO HE ISN'T. That's just unmitigated mendacity.

It's one thing to claim that you have experience -but you'd better be able to back that up, and you'd better be able to show that that experience MEANS something.

Obama needs to keep showing 1. that her claims of experience are silly, and 2. that no matter how much experience she's had it hasn't seemed to affect her judgment.

WHOSE SIDE IS SHE ON?

UPDATE: so it appears that the total delegates from not-so-super-Tuesday that Hillary has picked up is 8. That hardly makes any difference and Obama is likely to cancel that out as CA certifies the votes that had the "double bubble" trouble, or in this weekend's primaries in Wyoming and Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Hillary keeps praising McCain and slamming Obama, creating more for McCain to use against the eventual nominee with every utterance:


There's worse and the piece below chrystalizes it. This is one of the most powerful pieces of advertising I've ever seen:



Too bad it'll never see the light of day on the MSM.

As Rachel Maddow said on MSNBC Tuesday night: "this is the kind of thing you say when you're hoping to be picked as John McCain's running mate".

OY

Ok, so it's the morning after the Super Tuesday II hoohah. And the Oscar goes to...Hillary Clinton for "The Big Comback" MSNBC, CNN and Mark Penn producers.


To hear her tell it she's kicked Obama's ass and is "going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York … And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeeeeearrrrrrhhhhh!!!"

Reality check folks -know how many delegates she picked up after last night?


...Drum roll please...


ONE. That's right -as of now- one. The delegate totals? 185 Clinton, 184 Obama.


To be fair she might pick up a couple more as the vote totals come in but regardless it's by no means a blowout, and without blowouts of the remaining states she can't possibly make up the gap she has now.

I think it's time for the gloves to come off. Ok, Ok, calm down -I don't mean that Obama should resort to the lowlife cheap shots she's leveled at him. But he definitely should start taking it to her with regard to her claims of "experience". First as to the amount of experience she claims she has (she says 35 years -that would mean every year since undergrad since she's 60) and then as to what she's labeling experience (First Lady? Governor's Wife? Rose Law Firm?) . Finally, he should hammer home the judgement her "experience" has produced as he's already been doing.

A comment at TPM calls her Iraq war vote into even greater question and totally kills the "I didn't know Bush was going to take the AUMF and actually attack Iraq" bullshit argument she's made.

She's even now saying that she'd entertain a Clinton/Obama ticket -with her at the top of course. How magnanimous "well I can't beat you, so how would you like to work for me?" This of course is after she claimed Obama is less ready to lead than McCain. If that's the case why would she want Obama as her second in command?

The only way I see a joint ticket happening is if she pulls waaaaaay closer in the delegate count and cuts the crap. Why should Obama agree as long as he wins in the delegate count? Plus she's not going to back off the BS any time soon because with this new burst of not entirely justified energy Mark Penn is going to take credit for the "victory" and claim it was a result of the negative press he created against Obama. She'll never drop Penn now, and he's the douchebag responsible for all the cheap shot attacks.

BTW they're now blacking Obama up in their ads -darkening his skin and widening the video to make his nose appear broader just like Time did to OJ.

This isn't going to get any better. And if Obama keeps going strong she's only going to hit harder and lower and in the process sever any possibility of a joint ticket.

Finally as I said at TPM:

I think back to a Thom Hartmann show from a few weeks ago live from the CPAC convention. He (or a guest I forget which) said that the booths there all had anti-Hillary bumper-stickers, t-shirts, buttons, posters etc. for sale whereas there was shockingly no anti-obama paraphenalia.

None. At all.

They can't wait to get their hands on her, and don't forget that the fact that they've done it all before also means that they've practiced it all before -i.e. the "research" is already done, formatted, packaged and awaiting distribution.

I don't agree that the longer this goes on the more the Dems can get their message out and keep McCain off the front pages. McCain's a known quantity and becoming moreso every time he embraces Bush or his policies. The American People know what they'll get with McCain, and frankly every time he speaks he just looks old and tired -that message is stark and clear. They think they know what they'll get with Hillary (though they don't), but the problem is they have yet to grasp what they'll get with Obama -and all the prolonged nomination process will do is give the wingnuts time to gear up against him, because he'll have to spend all his time fighting attacks from someone in his own party rather than putting his best foot forward.

Don't get me wrong -if by some miracle she gets the nomination I'll dutifully vote for her in the general, but she's making it increasingly more difficult for me to do so enthusiastically.

It's going to be a long seven weeks. *sigh*

CLEVER JOHN

Apparently John McCain has developed a staggeringly clever plan to take the lobbyists out of Washington by putting them in his campaign.

HEH

Indeed.

SHE SAID WHAT!?!?

Tonight's Democratic primary debate in Ohio was typically contentious. Obviously Clinton is completely oblivious of the fact that she polls higher when she's more professional and gracious as she was at the end of the last debate. Her handlers are equally oblivious and have taken tens of millions of dollars from her supporters to make her look like a laughingstock.

Obama held up unsurprisingly well -even in the face of Tim Russert's ridiculous hypos about Iraq : "what if the Iraqi government says get out now, will you leave?" what utter shit, and slime about Ferrakhan "Ferrakhan supports you and he calls Judaism a 'gutter religion' therefore are you an antisemite too?" Outrageous. This is what passes for neutral moderation now.

Kudo's to Clinton for calling Russert on his BS hypotheticals:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's --

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No -- well, it isn't reality. You're -- you're -- you're making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

Pretty good answers from both overall, however the most surprising moment IMO was in this exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back? Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, obviously I've said many times that although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again. I would certainly as president never have taken us to war in Iraq, and I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war, which I warned against and said i disagreed with.

[...]

MR. RUSSERT:
But, to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back.

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.

W-W-WHAT? She's said *what* many times? That her Iraq vote was a mistake and that she wishes she had it back? Really?

Gee that's the first time I've ever heard of her saying that! In fact that was my original reason for backing Edwards: that he'd had the guts to come out and say that he voted yes on the AUMF for Iraq and that it was a mistake whereas Hillary (until tonight anyway) hadn't.

Unbef**kinglieveable! How can she say that with a straight face? I mean credit where credit's due -she IS saying it now -but to say that she's said it many times?

Complete unadulterated horsesh*t.

...AND SPEAKING OF DODD

DODD ENDORSES OBAMA

Recieved this email today:

"Dear [OP],

We have been through a lot in this past year and your friendship and support have meant so much to me. That is why I wanted to let you know of my decision to endorse a Democratic candidate for President - and that I have decided to support Barack Obama.

We all understand how much is at stake in this election and that it is more important than ever that we put a Democrat in the White House.

And while both of our Party's remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.

I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.

Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.

That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.

The last seven years have been as difficult as any I can remember. More than ever, we need a President who will inspire us to take part in the political process and change our country's path. Today, when we need it most, we are hearing a new call from Barack Obama. And I hope you, like me, will answer it in the affirmative.

Please get involved in Barack Obama's campaign now.

Sincerely,

Chris Dodd"

In the next week or so as Hillary's campaign implodes, look to see more of the Veep other presidential candidates hopping on board with Obama and providing the final nails in her campaign's coffin.

Interesting that Richardson hasn't endorsed yet as he was reportedly on Hillary's short-list. Hmm. And, of course Edward's endorsement will lose more traction the longer he waits to give it.

OBAMAMANIA EXPLAINED

The rising tide of the Obama campaign is undeniable. Supporters are so upbeat about his candidacy that they've been labeled fanatical like here and here. The campaign has even been called a cult.

There's a relatively simple explanation for this, and it has to do with leadership style, as gleaned from his past, and yes, his speeches.

I was once told something by a mentor of mine that I have adopted as one of the Essential Truths of Life: There are two types of leaders, "Bosses", and "Coaches". They exist in all fields, and I'm sure that you've experienced both -at least I hope so, but the truth is that the latter are few and far between.


Bosses

A boss is someone who leads toward their own ends. Those ends may or may not coincide with the goals of the company or the people below them. A boss never allows questioning, rather choosing a "do what I tell you because I tell you (or because that's why I pay you)" style. People work for a boss, but only because they have to, and they only put in as much time as they need to in order to get by. Employees don't really care about a boss -it's not that they necessarily hate him or her, it's just that they don't really feel that the boss cares for them or is at all interested in their situation so they're likewise disinterested in the boss.


Coaches

Contrast that with a coach. The term comes from the sports world, but doesn't just apply there. It is however best explained by sports analogy. In reality there are many sports teams who are coached by "bosses". Players will play for a boss, but only as much and as long as it advances them. But for a coach players will "walk over hot coals". They'll put in long hours and sacrifice their well being. Why? Because they know that the coach is only asking them to do something that in the aggregate or in the long run will benefit the whole team, not just the coach or the owners. They know the coach isn't requiring any level of sacrifice from any individual any more than any other or any more than the coach him or herself is giving. They know that the coach would never ask anything unreasonable or frivelous. That's not to say that the coach won't be hard-assed or tougher on some players than others, just that s/he'll not punish or criticize anyone who doesn't deserve it and won't do it except for the benefit of the team.

That kind of leadership inspires trust and when you trust someone you necessarily make yourself vulnerable, and that vulnerability naturally lends itself to an emotional outlet.

So to apply the above to Obama supporters: They (Ok, we) view him as a "coach". His background and past accomplishments indicate that he really does care for the state of the country and that he's willing to fight for principles and legislation that would benefit the whole country, not just his donors or constituents. It's in his words as well. When he speaks he says that it (in this case change for the better) won't be easy and will require sacrifice, but you don't get the feeling that he's not willing to sacrifice himself or to work as hard as he's asking others to do. For that matter, he's the only presidential candidate I've even heard of since JFK who's ever asked for any sacrifice from the American People for the common good. Usually those who talk about the common good are labeled communists (unless of course they're talking about defense). That by itself makes him unique.

The promise of that kind of leadership in a candidate for president is intoxicating. I don't know what an Obama presidency would actually be like, but if you want to know why people are so enthusiastic about his candidacy, that's why.

PLAGIARISM?

Well, she did it.

In the Texas debate tonight Hillary was actually conned into following the stupid script her handlers wrote and dropped the "change you can Xerox" lead balloon. She didn't even look comfortable saying it.

And now here it comes:



AND



So this plagiarism thing was an unbelieveably stupid exercise in attempted Rovian attack smearing that failed miserably and now lies coughing up blood in a heap on the floor.

How do you feel now Hills?

Interesting though that the very line she ripped from Edwards seems to some pundits to be an indication that she's ready to concede. I don't think so, but if she gets her ass whooped in Texas it'll be closer and if in both Texas and Ohio it's a certainty.

So the skinny is that she's making nice now strategically to either shore up a veep invite or to preserve her chances for 2012 or 2016. The veep thing seems more credible because she'd be challenging an incumbant Obama in 2012 and in 2016 she'll be 68 -young by political standards, but while sexism is fading, it's not gone, and she'll be (to paraphrase Goldie Hawn) well out of "District attorney" and well into "Driving Miss Daisy" by then.

Also I just don't see her "go[ing] gentl[y] into that good night" without some quid pro quo -it's just not her style.

So IMHO Obama won because it was his to lose and he held on without making any big mistakes.

ROVIAN ATTACK POLITICS 101

The latest smear against Barack Obama is that his "just words" speech:



was "plagiarized" (gee there's a loaded term) from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, whom as it turns out is good friends with Obama and who suggested he should use the comparison in his speech.

This is Rovian attack politics 101:

1. Identify the opposition candidate's greatest strength
-Kerry's war record
-Obama's oratorial skill

2. Turn that strength into a weakness by

a. pretending that the candidate is touting it him or herself as a strength.
-e.g. "Kerry isn't really the war hero he says he is" (never mind that he never said it himself)
-Obama is "running on his oratorial skills" (Oh, really?)

b. then undermining the basis for the strength
-Kerry "lied about his war record"
-Obama's "speeches are not his own"

c. associating
that strength with some negative idea and repeating it ad-nauseum in association with the candidate's name.
-Kerry "Lies"
-Obama "plagiarism"

This whole story has been concocted to connect Obama's name with the word "plagiarism". It's Obama's swiftboating. Hillary should be ashamed of herself for taking part in it. This is not what our party represents.

SLAUGHTERHOUSE FOLLOWUP

I posted the video below that shows a slaughterhouse in Southern CA that was slaughtering cows that were too weak or sick to stand by themselves by pushing them with a forklift and or kicking them or spraying water in their noses and mouths (a la waterboarding) to get them to move to the slaughter.

Apparently the outcry from that video has resulted in a recall of 143 million pounds of beef -much of which was being used in school lunches, and an investigation.

Let's keep the pressure on.

UPDATE: Yahoo now has the story on its front page.

IN A NUTSHELL

Yesterday I was having lunch with my family and inlaws and we were talking about politics. We all thankfully agree politically so the conversations rarely dissolve in to arguments and this was no exception, as we were agreeing about the current state of the democratic side of the race for president.

My 5 year old son with whom I'd had limited discussions about politics before -enough that he knows that "we" are democrats and that there are other people who are republicans- chimed in asking "why are we democrats?"

Nothing gives you a dose of "gut-check time" more than when you're forced to put your entire political belief system into a perspective that a 5-year-old can grasp. Moreover, I felt it important to give him a real answer and not just sluff it off with an "it's too complicated to get into" response.

I paused for what seemed like an eternity and finally responded with: "Because we believe that the government should help all of the people and not just the rich ones".

*whew*

That's really it though isn't it? Isn't that the idea behind "we the people"?

It's not that the republicans don't believe that the government should work for all of the people -it's that they don't believe that the government should work at all. Period. They don't believe in representative government -that's why they're perfectly happy handing over the reins of every function of daily life to private business and then letting private business follow its own agenda which is of course profit. For itself.

By definition that means that not everyone will be able to have access to those services/functions.

Therefore, since the republicans believe that business should fulfill many of the functions of government, they necessarily don't believe that those functions should be available to all of the people -but only the ones who can afford to pay a private business to do them. That is the traditional definition of "rich" -being able to afford private services: private schools, private hospitals, private security, private mail, ad infinitum.

How anyone could look at any of the actions of the republicans and the measures they support and come to any other conclusion is beyond me.

So, in 5-year-old terms Democrats believe that government should help all the people, Republicans believe the government should only help the rich.

"...and that's why we're democrats."

GOODBYE AMERICA

Well they finally did it.

Years of planning and hatred and deceit finally paid off today and the Senate -the Democratic Senate- voted to give the telecom companies who enabled the White House to illegally spy on you complete immunity from any and all prosecution, removing the last tool to investigate and discover just how deeply the illegal activity and corruption went here.

What's more and particularly sickening is that they actually voted against Feinsteins amendment which basically declared that "OK this is now the law" voting instead to allow the President to decide to reject it if he feels like it.

You no longer live in the country where you thought you resided. This isn't America anymore. The law used to mean something, and it was the only thing that separated America from despotic and repressive nations where only the rich and powerful were protected from their government.

Look, I'm not naive -I know that in reality even in this country the rich and powerful have always held a huge advantage because they could afford to use the law to their advantage -but somehow through all of that our law itself -the Constitution- still protected the rights of everyone. It still mattered. It still meant that, at least in theory, you were protected from unreasonable repressive and unjust actions prepetrated on you by the government or those acting "on its behalf".

This vote means that the fourth amendment protection against search and seizure can be completely disregarded by the executive branch if they feel like it. No warrant is necessary to listen to conversations between US citizens and non as long as there is an alleged national security interest as provided by executive order. This essentially means that executive orders trump the Constitution.

The long and the short of it: dont talk on the phone with anyone with a foreign sounding name.

Now the House is taking up the resolution, and they're a little less friendly to it, but don't hold your breath.

We had a beautiful idea, but we let assholes ruin it in just over 200 years.

MY NEW FAVORITE QUOTE

This is brilliant:

"If the Goverment is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributer cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, 'See, this proves that people were meant to walk'.

And they do this so that they don't have to chip in on gas."

OK, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT

Alright, I'm sold so would someone tell Scarlett Johansen to please stop calling me (Ok, it was a recording -but I can dream can't I?).

Here's a guy who makes the ultimate case as succinctly as anyone (and gee he's a writer- what a shock!)

"The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy.

Since I started talking and writing about Obama I have come to see that this ruling fear, and nothing else, lies at the back of every objection or reservation people raise or harbor regarding the man and his candidacy.

Fear whispers to us that white voters have a nasty tendency to tell pollsters, friends and neighbors that they support an African American candidate, then go into the voting booth and let the fear known as racism pull the lever.

Fear tells us that ugliness, rage and brutality are the central facts of human existence, that decency and tolerance are luxuries on whose altar our enemies will be only too happy to sacrifice us.

It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us -- a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves -- that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye's old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage.

Fear and those who fatten on it spread vile lies about Obama's religion, his past drug use, his views on Israel and the Jews. Fear makes us see the world purely in terms of enemies and perils, and leads us to seek out the promise of leadership, however spurious it proves to be, among those who speak the language of that doomed and demeaning, that inhuman view of the world.

But the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul. I say "pitiable" because this fear of disappointment, which I hear underlying so many of the doubts that people express to me, is ultimately a fear of finding out the truth about ourselves and the extent of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. If we do fight for Obama, work for him, believe in him, vote for him, and the man goes down to defeat by the big-money machines and the merchants of fear, then what hope will we have left to hold on to?

Thus in the name of preserving hope do we disdain it. That is how a phobocracy maintains its grip on power."

Hear hear, and without resorting to the old Ben Franklin quote

Looking at both Hillary and Obama policy wise, they some out about even. Sure, there are differences to quibble over, but on balance they come out the same. Therefore the real difference is that Obama is inspirational and Clinton is not.

It's strange to be in a position to be casting a vote based on such a gut-level feeling -being one who has always chastised those who do the same and having prided myself as one who votes based on substantive policy issues and not the sloganeering bullsh*t soundbytes that seem to capture so much of the electorate (purple band-aids? Flip-flop sandals? How do you feel now a**holes? ). But policy is determined at the party level and I think most people who vote based on substance have drawn their lines there, so when voting for candidates who are from the same party the "X-factor(s)" are what ultimately tip the scale in favor of one or the other.

Which is an extremely round-about way of saying something simple: he inspires me, she doesn't.

Speaking of inspirational:

WELL THERE GOES MY GUY

It's my fault.

I shouldn't have endorsed John Edwards -how else to explain his dropping out of the race today??? ;-) Should'a kept my big "mouth" shut. *sigh*



Well now what to do?

I'm tempted to still vote for him on February 5th just to send a message to Hillary and Obama. The problem is, I've been historically against "message voting" because it was that practice that gave us Dubya to begin with:

The Nadir voters (and I misspell his name on purpose ) in 2000 threw the election to Bush an order of magnitude more than the SCOTUS -it shouldn't have even been close and wouldn't have been if the moronic message minded Nadir voters had pulled their heads out of their a**es and thought through what a W presidency would have meant. It's not as if the signs weren't there.

But I digress, this time around the "message" would be in a primary and wouldn't necessarily affect the general -except for the fact that I'm marginally more for Obama than for Hillary and if voting for Edwards handed CA to Hillary it would be wrong.

Look, if Hillary is the nominee I'll still hold my nose and vote for her in the general because her presidency would be fundamentally better than a McCain one, but I'd rather not if I didn't have to.

I guess I'll have to think about it more.

THIS IS SCARY

FOLLOW UP II

Received this (bulk) email from John Edwards this afternoon:

Dear [OP],

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

Barbara Boxer, (D): (202) 224-3553 Dianne Feinstein, (D): (202) 224-3841

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power --including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards
January 24, 2008

Coincidence? You decide. ;-)

I had already left a message for Boxer this morning. Feinstein's number was busy.

FOLLOW UP

Well the first vote on the FISA Bill -the motion to table the Senate Judiciary Committee's bill (which contains no immunity for telcos)- passed 60-34. That means that the Intelligence Committee's version (which does grant immunity) will be considered the base bill and will begin debate soon.

Apparently BOTH Clinton and Obama voted "not voting" and didn't even bother to show up. I guess Edwards didn't say anything to them. Of course even if he had, it's unlikely it would have been covered in the MSM anyway.

*sigh*

So now it's up to Chris Dodd to filibuster the Intelligence Committee's bill. Go Dodd!!