Clinton On The "Anchors Of The Electoral Map"

Hillary Clinton on Saturday reinforced her campaign's talking point that she was a stronger candidate because she had won Ohio and Florida, crucial "anchors of the electoral map" in the general election, in her words. But she hedged when a reporter asked her to explain why her primary victories would preclude an Obama victory in those same states in the fall. Watch the full exchange below:

Reporter: Your campaign has made a big argument that you have won in the big swing states and this makes you a more viable candidate in the general election. Could you just explain that logic because if Obama lost in Ohio that doesn't necessarily mean he will lose in a general election As well Al Gore and John Kerry both won Pennsylvania in a general election. So could you just explain that argument?

Comments

[Trittydi]

She's so full of Sh** I just can't stand it anymore. I used to say I could vote for her. Now I just don't know.

*

[ME08]

She's so full of Sh** I just can't stand it anymore. I used to say I could vote for her. Now I just don't know.

Not half as much as you and the closet Hillary haters and open ones here.

Dem primary voters and caucus goers are by no means emblematic of the vast majority of American voters, as was the case with the Repub primary/caucus goers...ea­ch represent the extreme elements of their party...fa­ce it...Ohio was the closest to being what America at large is like in the general, and everyone knows Ohio decides elections.­..not Iowa, not Hawaii, not South Carolina. Obama could win every minor state in the Union, it still would mean shit come November..­.even the delegate total he has means shit in the long run.

[gallo146]

tell me about it. every time she appears in my TV screen I change the channel. No reason to listen to her.

[Opus007]

I feel your frustration. I feel like I have been slimed by the Clintons. First of all - why she claiming she won Florida is completely false. Dirty politics got her Ohio. She got less delegates in Texas and if you subtract the crossover Republicans she got way less votes.

She reminds me of Bush 2000. Who the hell would want to vote for that.

[the964kid]

Hillary's big state argument is a fallacy. First of all it's insulting to any state that she didn't win, and we want somebody who represents all of America - not just the ones who supported her. Many of the states Hillary won are the true blue states of America: New York, New Jersey, California. Most Dems will agree that Obama, if he's the nominee, should win those same states in the fall. However Obama has shown he can put more purple/red state into play. States like Colorado, Virginia and Nebraska, which all went with the GOP in 2004, could all go blue next time and he already proved he can carry the all important state of Missouri. And let's face it, after Bush, Dems in general should do well all over the nation. Obama has more pledged delegates, double the number of states won, more popular vote - what else does he need to do?? There's just no legitimate way for Hillary to claim she is 'more electable.­' Hillary's argument doesn't hold water.

[AlphaDoc]

>Many of the states Hillary won are the true blue states of America: New York<

I'm still trying to find some follow-up on the story reported here which stated that Obama didn't get a single vote in 80 districts in NY. One of those districts included Harlem, which has a very large African-American population. It's also where Bill Clinton's NY office is located.

[lvdragonlady]

I believe that the New York Times site had that story but I have not heard much more on it lately. Also, they are suppose to be doing a recount in NH but have not heard any updates on that lately either.
These stories need to be updated and shared with the public ASAP.

Where is the flippin media when you need them?

[gallo146]

polls of Obama vs. McCain in Calfornia, etc agree with you

[Nonamnesiac]

As I see Obama and Clinton as essentially the same guy (Hillary's warmongering makes her a guy to me, and as Obama intends to keep troops in Iraq he too is a warmongerer), I think whomever gets the highest popular vote count should get the nomination. An honest analysis demonstrates that each candidate could have problems with the base of the other, although most who voted for one would vote for the other. Warmongerer Hillary could have a hard time attracting many of Obama's younger, new voters and independents, especially if there is a perception that she stole the nomination. Warmongerer Obama could have a problem attracting many of the older women who are backing Hillary, especially against McCain, if it appears that he was awarded the nominaiton despite losing the popular vote.

As for places where Obama wins v. places where Hillary wins, it shouldn't matter, although victories for Obama in Mississippi, Georgia and North and South Carolina mean nothing with respect to the Presidential election, as they will go to McCain regardless of which pea in the pod gets the nomination. The majority in those states are still just too stupid, sexist and racist to make any other selection.

[truesoccermom]

If Obama is the nominee, Georgia could be in play.

[realpolitic]

Yes, it is not only the big states that count, but the totality of the states. If she were now in Obama's postion she would declare herself the winner.

[northeast73]

Yes, it is not only the big states that count, but the totality of the states
==========

Perhaps you have never heard of the electoral college, which Hillary is one state from winning and Obama is not even close.

ALL STATES ARE NOT EQUAL!!

[ProgressiveBum]

Not only that, but the way her divisive arguments alienated many democratic voters, her nomination will cause a landslide for grandpa McCain. My predominantly white state of WA overwhelmingly caucused for Obama in every single county, and the statewide average was 70+% for Obama. I will not vote for that shrill biatch!

[SavonarolaGirolamo]

She totally spaced out on that answer. She did not answer the question. But the way this is playing to dumbass america is, he said, she said. So she drags us all down.

[OpenlyLiberal]

Nice argument Hil. Whaaaaa? "Well....b­lah, blah, blah... anchor states... blah, blah, blah..." staring off into space as if the answer to this question will come from on high. Hillary, the answer is, you don't HAVE a freakin' argument! Stop saying you're a better candidate because you "won" those states, and stop being disingenuous about Florida, that's oh-so Bush of you. Just stop, period.

[beright]

OL,

She's afraid to say "low class white people" are more likely to vote for me. This is why she hedged. White people ought to be infuriated with her classist remarks about them.

[cacique88]

Hillary Clinton's claim that she could win Pennsylvania , Ohio and Florida in a general election but Obama would not is highly faulty and has already been contradicted by various pollsters including Rasmussen. In fact McCain is leading in all 3 states over Clinton and Obama. The MCacin -Obama matchups are tighter in all 3 states making Obama more competitive in swing states than Clinton.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_2008_presidential_election

Add in the enthusiam and motivation of the Obama elelctorate with 100s of thousands of volunteers and you get an unmatched voting force capable of overcoming any barriers and obstacles to success.

[presto]

Well, cacique, if she's been contradicted by pollsters I guess that says it all. Maybe we should cancel the vote.

[exeye]

I wonder why no reporter has asked Obama how many of those "Red States" he's won - the ones that have given him the lead in the delegate count - he thinks HE can win in November? Or how many "caucases" he's going to win in the general election?

OF COURSE Hillary is saying what she's saying, and Obama is saying what he's saying because of where the delegate count stands. If the positions were reversed, you could use the EXACT same soundbytes, just reverse the one speaking.

Believe me, at this point, I don't care which one wins it, I'll vote enthusiastically for EITHER candidate, rather than have another repub presidency. But, people need to get over this obsession with soundbytes, and focus on the candidates stance on the issues. If you favor one's over the other's, then vote for them, support them, but stop trying to create an issue out of thin air. If there is a problem, the either candidate should deal with it, but "media created" problems should be ignored, not jumped on by one side, or another, since the pendulum swings both ways.

Now, let the Obama supporters parse every word of this post, since I'm sure they'll figure I MUST be anti-Obama, which I'm not.

[boombox]

See? No flames!

[OfficialA]

The question should be, "how many of those states Obama has won have already been written off by Hillary"? Like my grandma used to say, "Can't never could."

[joselopez]

Asked and answered exye. The answer was Nebraska, VA, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, you know the real toss up States!!!

[cindyw]

Well said. I'm an Obama supporter, but the nastiness between the Clinton and Obama supporters is disturbing. It's as if Democrats are searching for a way to blow what should be a sure thing.

[DC]

Hmmm, ......He won Virginia,--- Kansas, ....the Texas Caucus,...­. Nevada, ....Wyomin­g, ...Idaho, Minnesota, ...North Dakota, .... Utah, ....Nebras­ka, ....Colora­do.

All ruby red states.

[Fabienne]

Minnesota is NOT a ruby red state. He won Wisconsin, Illinois, Connecticut, all decidedly NOT red. At any rate, do we want a president who represents the entire country or simply represents the coastal states?

[CharlesC]

And in the general he will carry Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota (ruby red? You mean that most consistent of blue states, that was the only state to buck the Reagan trend in 1984 and has voted D in every election in recent history?), and likely pull one or two electoral votes out of Nebraska with their split delegate system, as well as help with down-ballot races in all the others. Sounds good to me.

[CWWest]

It's so sad to see her repeatedly saying things that are meant to mislead. How do you elect a leader who has a track record of misleading?

[hu.man]

The more I look at Hillary, the more unfit she appears to be the president. I hope I won't have to choose between her and McCain

[PlantGod72]

Seemed to work pretty damned well for GWB in 2004, wouldn't you say??

[Plank]

Why would anyone care what she has to say? She's loosing this race and has no way of recovering from her lackluster campaign. In the course of a few weeks, she managed to alienate more voters than anyone in history. A growing majority within the party is getting tired of the Clintons who have failed to understand that the 90's are over.

[hu.man]

We should care what Hillary has to say because that reflects how she will govern when she is in the oval office. So far, she has made a mess of it.

She could say something like "We are having a spirited contest. I am behind in the delegate count and I respect the will of people. But I am not so far behind that I am to quit the race now. Anything can happen between now and the end of the primaries and I am going to do my best to win this race and I owe to those people who campaigned hard for me to finish what I started in January. We are going to continue to debate the issues with senator Obama and hope that the voters see our side and put us over the top even though that may appear unlikely to some now."

This would be a far cry from the crap she delivers day in and day out which continually erodes her credibility and makes her look like a jerk who wants to somehow wrest this nomination out of Obama's grasp with chicanery .

[presto]

Plank, there are millions of people who care. You are just not one of them. Why is it so very difficult to acknowledge an opinion different from your own? You say "In the course of a few weeks, she managed to alienate more voters than anyone in history." That is just blatantly untrue. In history???? That is one of the more ludicrous charges I've seen today. Why would you make a completely unsubstantiated statement like that?

The Clintons understand that the 90's are over. Why wouldn't they? Do you have some concrete reason for saying that? It is 2008. Hillary has been a Senator in the 21st century for eight years and has voted accordingly. She has, in fact, voted pretty much the same as Obama for the short time he has been a Senator. Is he is the 90's also? Please stop putting other people on this blog down based on your own weak understanding of the issues.

[GreatFutureForAll]

Elliot Spitzer. Rudy Giuliani. Geraldine Ferraro. Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump. George Steinbrenner.

You likely could add a few more names to this ego-maniacal list. But their heads are so huge, there would not be enough room.

Welcome to New York "narcissism" City. It's the town that is smarter, fancier and far more sophisticated than every other American city combined. In this town, it matters not what political party you belong to. What matters is what social club you frequent or what "selfless" function you are a part of in order to help "the little people" (you and I).

I lived in New York for 20 years. And in that town, there is nothing wrong with prostituting a troubled young girl (barely out of high school) to fulfill sexual fetishes. There is nothing wrong with bypassing every primary in the hopes that Florida (with it's bevy of transplanted New Yorkers that have migrated to the Sunshine State) will make you President. There is nothing wrong with injecting race into an election and then calling your critics racist for differing with you. And, as all pompous New Yorkers have long known; there is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with calling Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Georgia, Washington, Colorado, South Carolina, Connecticut and most of the remainder of the union "small" and "meaningle­ss." All of these are "small states" in the eyes of THESE New Yorkers.

If you live in the midwest, in their minds, you are not on their level. If you voted for Obama, you've been tricked, hoodwinked, drugged, and maybe even abducted by aliens right before you went into the voting booth.

New Yorkers like Clinton and Spitzer and Rudy and Trump are all SMARTER than you. They have experience. They've managed things. They've lived where you never would be able to survive.

So, go ahead. Vote for one of them. They're not in this because of personal ambition. They are in it to help you because you are too incapable to help yourself or even think for yourself.

How dare some midwestern hick try to become President! TRUST HILLARY. TRUST BIG SISTER. TRUST NEW YORK.

The rest of America is too slow to figure things out.

[presto]

I love New York....

[boombox]

Wait a minute, that's a bum rap. There are a lot of good people in New York City, and quite a few who did not vote for Ms. Clinton. At least two in my household.­..

[Anie]

The results in the General Election will be based on maximum people voting.

Note the differences in both Washington and Texas between primaries and caucuses in those same states, where older people (similar to Obama's written memories of "old, parched nuns" ); those without transportation; blue collar workers who can't get out of work when they feel like it ; those who can't drive for hours to get to much fewer caucusing sites; parents with very young children who can't easily go spend hours doing this, etc., tend not to vote in those. Activists do, especially those in college who are freer to spend the time.

Washington:
Caucuses: 68% Obama; 31% Hillary 150,000~ voters
Primariy: 51% Obama, 46% Hillary 552,000+ voters

Texas (where people were asked to vote in both caucus and primary)
Caucuses: Won by Obama in good numbers
Primary: Won by Clinton

One has to look at how the candidate would do in an actual
whole-state-voting situation.

[midwesthousewife]

I think you missed the reporter's point, which is how many Democratic voters will vote for the Democratic candidate--whoever it is--against McCain. What is needed are poll numbers showing the results of match-ups between Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain during the general election. Just because someone preferred Clinton over Obama for the candidacy doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to support Obama against McCain. The big states which Clinton keeps touting usually vote Democratic, so why is she claiming that only she can carry them?

[loria]

Since the delegates in Washington were determined by the caucus not he primary, which was labeled a beauty contest and took place a week after the caucuses, there is no point to your argument. One counted the other didn't and Obama won both. However, he mobilized many more voters than Clinton on the day it counted. I mean how do you argue that a 37% defeat is anything but what it is. By the way, Obama has won primaries in huge numbers too (how about SC, WI, MS, GA,, AL, IL, MD, VA, LA, but you probably have reasons to discount those huge losses by Clinton),

Hillary didn't win TX. Obama got more delegates. She won the primary and lost the caucus. She may well have lost the caucus because her campaign was unaware of the Texas procedure until a few weeks before.

The argument that only Obama's supporters can make it to a caucus is ridiculous. A majority of Hillary's could make it if the support were there. I heard on the night of the TX caucuses that there were parents there with their children in large numbers. Maybe Obama's supporters are just more motivated to support their candidate and they do what it takes to make it to the caucus. Hillary has lost several state (both primary and caucuses) contests by huge numbers. That is why she is behind by 150 delegates. She lost huge in February and hung her campaign on TX and Ohio. While she won Ohio and RI, the delegates she gained have since been wiped out in WY, MS, and the Iowa convention where Obama gained 10 delegates (nine of Edwards and 1 that switched from Clinton to Obama). Hillary didn't get one delegate in Iowa on Saturday.

[savertime]

Caucuses have been used for decades. Why is it the Clinton campaign did not plan a strategy for winning caucuses? Bill Clinton campaigned in 1992, in states with caucuses, what was his strategy? Hillary has had one excuse after another for losing: caucuses, media bias, gender bias, unimportant states, little states. It is quite simply whinning. Every candidate faces the same challenges. The problem is a pathetic campaign strategy They obviously spent more time planning attacks on the challenger than trying to sell Hillary. Who thought "Experience" was a good campaign theme, particularly since the experience they were selling was Bill Clinton's and not Hillary's

It is also important that Hillary one some states by a few percentage points (fewer delegates), which means that Obama has support in those states too. She might be able to use this big state premise if she had really big wins , or a shut out in the big states. The New Hampshire primary was won by three percentage points and that vote count was contested because she defied the polls and won on the machine-counted votes. Then , there i the unexplained voting in 80 New York districts that registered zero votes for Obama, even though some of the 80 districts were in districts with large African American populations. What's going on? What happened to the Clinton Machine?

[samuraijack]

Well, uh, duh. Hillary stumped!!!! Zingah!!!!

[PrinceHal]

Oh no! HuffPo has caught Hillary HEDGING! Oh my God! What will be her next major sin? Might she just . . . HEDGE AGAIN? Day after tomorrow?

Can't be . . . and yet . . . watch this space!

[realpolitic]

Hedging is a sin. It says so in the bible.

[jorydozier]

Hillary sounded like George W. Bush with that explanation.

[realpolitic]

Is Karl Rove advising her?

[midwestvoter]

What a damn shame. I loved the Clinton's, voted for Bill twice, bought every book they wrote and defended them against my Rush Limbaugh regurgitating friends. I can't believe I put so much misplaced faith in a couple so filled with personal ambition they are willing to destroy a genuine movement that is bringing in millions of young voters willing to give up school breaks and summer jobs to get involved in politics, millions of Independent voters too cynical to believe they had a voice until now and many moderate and disgruntled Republicans, sick of the neocon trajectory. Obama has brought them to this place and for once we were talking about what brings us together, not tears us apart. I now understand completely who the Clinton's are. They coined the phrase "politics of personal destruction" and have turned it into their life's work. God help us all.

[MaxxEliot]

OH it's all the Clinton's fault...Ev­il Do'ers. OH My......Wa­ke up moron...th­is game is played at both ends and because one side is better at it doesn't make them evil. This is what is wrong with you Sheep...yo­u want to dream...an­d hope...and believe...­well this is the real world and you all best get used to it...its is what it is...and if we want to win in November we better pick the fighter over the dreamer.

[Morpheum]

Yes, racism and race baiting is alive and well in America. It will even get some votes in the Democratic Party.

I never saw anyone stoop so low as the Clinton's have with this Geraldine Ferraro fiasco.

Don't bother to hope and dream. It's all shrill racism and innuendo. Welcome to the Clinton nightmare.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

That's really going to work like a charm. All the Republicans and Independents who already can't stand the sight and sound of Clinton are going to suddenly feel enamored towards her, because she throws the kitchen sink at McCain. Clinton supporters don't have a good understanding of logic, or the Republican and Independent mindset. The more Clinton is attacked, the more protective you feel, don't you? That's how Republicans are X 2. Get it yet? Keep dreaming..­. of your fighter... fighting herself into political oblivion.

[CWWest]

This "trial by fire" argument is no justification for nasty, unfair, and damaging tactics. This is exactly what everyone is sick of, and it's quite clear that the only reason Hill's doing it is because she knows it's her only shot.

[mesuki]

MaxxEliot a typical Hillary supporter,full of hate and pessimism. I'm not surprised. Hoping and dreaming is a good thing, That's what keeps people going in this dreadful world. Have a nice week MaxxEliot!

[dutchess2]

How unAmerican­..... not to hope and dream and believe!


Think I'll continue my support for Obama, thank you.

I am very concerned about Hillary's health plan, and her tin ear about it. She says she has the only plan that is mandated..­.. and the estimated costs for hers is much more costly than Obamas.

The mandate will put consumers, us, the voters, right where Big Pharma wants us, unable to opt out for any reason to the point of garnishing our wages, while they continue to raise the prices.

Obama's plan works on making it affordable and encouraging people to
buy it on that basis, which is why his plan is so much less costly. His plan does not mandate - because people in Massachusetts are mandated, and they are being sued and forced to purchase what they cannot afford. That's a costly nightmare for us and more cost for the government to file the suits and force people to purchase it.

This is the difference Barack Obama is talking about..... Hillary owes Big Business and Pharma and Oil allegience, and we are afterthoughts.

With Obama, we are first at the table, and lobbiests need not apply.

[Anie]

According to a cable news show I was watching, an analysis was made of the Texas voting results, and it was found that the ones most likely to vote only for the presidential slot but showing a total disinterest in all other issues being presented were the ones voting for Obama, most of them in the young demographic, the new ones brought in.

In other words, they were going for the Celebrity candidate, or the one that made them 'feel' more, possibly 'hope' and possibly just feeling at all. That they didn't place a vote for the other issues indicates a lack of interest in politics itself and/or the party, though an increase in 'party'-membership has been something that has been hoped (sorry) for.

In a general election, would they then not feel part of the Democrat party but instead just part of a narrow movement and therefore not help with the other candidates running against Republicans?

That's a serious question, because with all that is happening this week, the Republicans will be out in droves, whether it is Clinton they're voting against or Obama.

[Cuneo]

Therefore, Clinton is being beaten by an ephemeral candidate that represents a narrow movement, that would think that saddling Obama with enemies in Congress is a neato idea.. Hmmm, therefore she can be derailed by a featherweight of no substance. Therefore she sucks as a candidate from the word go.

[presto]

Anie, It's a very valid point and it is really being talked about, just not here. There are tons of new Democrats who don't really understand the difference and, in a snit, many say they will either stay home or vote for McCain. That is inflating the Democratic numbers and it's not a good sign for the general election. No one is talking about the big stuff - the war, health care, the Supreme Court - everything that matters in the 2008 election. It is all personality and this nonsense - so much of it hateful and ignorant. The Republicans are gleeful.

[loria]

And what cable news show were you watching? Because we know if it comes from the news it is a fact. I hate to break it to you, but I really doubt TX is a swing state. I have a feeling that McCain will be their favored candidate. Many in TX still love GWB and won't have a problem with a 3rd Bush term.

How can you call Obama the celebrity candidate, when the candidate with the most name recognition is Hillary. Hello, she is married to a former president who is very popular. Obama came from total obscurity and has energized the voters in a way she hasn't. I would argue that many of these young voters are more aware of the world and the issues than older voters who get their information from the cable news networks.

[ayak9]

Nice try. "Democrat Party", indeed. You Republicans would do well to at least learn to say "Democratic Party" when you spew your bullshit.

Everyone knows your illustrious leader, Rush Limpballs, and his cohorts want Hillary to be the nominee so badly they can taste it. That's the only chance the Rupukes have to survive as a party this election. Hillary will ignite the base to turn out against the hated Clintons. Obama, not so much, and he has the potential to turn out new voters in a tidal wave that can wash away the filth of Georgie Boy,his side-kick Dickless, and the rest of the gang.

Everyone knows the cons can't stand John "Amnesty" McCrazy. All I can say is good luck, and good riddance. When the bitch drops out, you Repukes will be facing ultimate accountabilty and hopefully extinction as a party.

The rantings of the unstable Rev. Wright won't save you, because you guys have more nutty religionists spewing hate that you can count on both hands and both feet.

[rwferr]

The race is a virtual tie. Neither side can attain 2025 before the convention. So Mrs. Clinton should quit to make a bunch of students happy is what you are saying? So Obama can promptly lose in Nov? But it was all worth it so some young people could feel some hope and feel rewarded for giving up a sping break in Cancun. Well gee I feel better already.

[SaskiaStars]

Midwestvoter - I couldn't agree with you more. HRC has really shown her true face with these slash and burn tactics. i guess I was just blind

[kellygrrrl]

I really feel the damage to the Dem Party is irreparable

Never in history has it been more important to get the incumbent party out of the WH.

In a year that should have been a cakewalk, we have managed to screw up this bad?

[itallstartedwithelian]

because there are DEMocrats, and there are THEMocrats and its up to us to decide which is which.

[dutchess2]

I think you may be grieving too soon.

I don't think Obama supporters will support Hillary.

I think in due time Party elders will convince Hillary it is over. She can withdraw on her own, or
lose most publically.

She is pinning her hopes on superdelegates, thinking they might swing her way if she convinces them she can win the states crucial to winning the White House.

That's because the Clinton campaign has never understood the power of us.....Oba­ma is correct,
we are what we have been waiting for. Enough numbers to decide who gets into the white house,
what place at the table we give lobbiests, and who represents us in Congress.

He's talking about a leadership that builds from the bottom up, she's talking about a leadership that
plugs in at the top and continues using us without listening to us...

Its a big difference, and it means whether we get our country back or not.

[3443649]

Two GE votes lost here, if HilleryBill should pull an underhanded stunt to steal the nomination!
We will not vote! We have heard enough of her " I, I will, I, I was, I have, and more I's". Never we !
Face it ! You and I are nobodies to these two. Obama for sure will be a new effort, good or bad. But it will deffinately not be the same old s--t, As these two and thier entrenched busom buddies have in mind for themselves. And that does not include you! Go along with them...and our asses are mudd !

[presto]

Really helpful. If every Democrat felt like you, the Republicans would win and the war would go on and on. How many dead soldiers are you willing to offer up for the sake of your Hillary-hating tantrums?

[mice]

She looks extremely tired here. Her eyes look sleepy. She needs to drop out of the race and take a good long vacation. (Hillbots -- please don't reply that I'm being sexist by commenting on that)

[RButler]

Good thing she hedged, BECAUSE if she had a ready answer, she'd be 'cold and calculating and scripted'. Go Hillary.

[rwferr]

Obama should take a religious retreat with his pastor and reconsider whether he really should be President with his views on America.

[presto]

She should drop of the race because she's SLEEPY? That's not sexist, that's just dumb.