Unstoppable Obama
When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: He's a "rock star," all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to the New York Times' Paul Krugman, to a "cult of personality." At best, he's seen as another vague Reagan-esque avatar of Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a credit card company-supported bankruptcy bill in 2001, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.
Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW ..." and "I BELIEVE ..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.
But I don't think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change." The promise of "change" is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and "change" means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don't much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.
Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise.
Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes - and many of them are admirable ones - but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words - "same old."
Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents "change." A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, "I love you America, but isn't it time to start seeing other people?" As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama's election could mean the re-branding of America. An anti-war black president with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!
So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't be so sure Ms. Ehrenriech, the general election isn't over yet. Dems all thought Kerry won also, alas, he did not and since he
turned out to be insincere and endorsed Obama instead of his former running mate, I'd say jealous. What a bunch of phonies, along with Obama and his campaign cronies.
It's deja vu all over again!!
38 years ago, I was a grunt in my student cultural group. The ambitous and hormonally evocative framed the issues and tactics. Funny thing happened on the way to the ramparts with the streets filled with tear gas and pepper gas: they were holed-up in the secret societies, fraternities, and other private clubs while we "true believers" were the fodder being gased.
Yet, I made my "bones" as a connector, politically and socially, with my street comrades. Particularly with the town-activists, I made FRIENDS, not a network for personal aggrandizement.
The military had my number, 36. I chose service as an enlisted than as a much desired officer-candidate or an ex-patriot in Canada. In the military, my drill who was 2 months my junior and who'd spent two tours in 'Nam. He was still the rocker who had been in an "American Band". I shared the experience with those who didn't have the fortune for connection or privilege. Obligation to duty, authority, and title made me, the ex-Space House-Human Tragedy, very sensitive to the "why" I do and would sacrifice.
At the caucus I saw the same ideologic-apparatchik whose passion for the cause has been subordinated to be a minion of the "network"-no matter its non-egalitarian structural inequities . The search for title and status still goes on.
In the 1970 movie "Cromwell", after beheading Charles and being given a monarch-free republic, the Parliment apparatchik sought the literal to metaphorical version of a monarch, that was eventually restored several years after Cromwell.
It's a consciousness issue of perpetuity: alterior motives by those having the ends be the dissemblage for the corrupted means. For those who would be and are the fodder of those means and ends, the apparatchik is as much the potential enemy as is the explicit subject of our ire.
It's for this reason the page needs to be turned and moved on from the corrupted cynics of the 60's-70's struggles to the true-believing idealists that live and suffer the struggle.
Two Questions:
Has Obama ever held a single job for more than 4 consecutive years?
Has Obama ever worked (in any number of jobs) for more than 7 years without taking a multi-year break?
This guy might survive the campaign, but his record suggests not a lot of horsepower on the job. Nevermind executive experience, this guy has a serious deficit of work experience of any kind.
One of the (few) constitutional requirements for presidents is they must be at least 35 years old on taking office. Seems reasonable - probably ensures some degree of minimum maturity and work experience. But, of course, most serious 35 year olds have more work experience than Obama (despite his being 11 years older).
At best this guy might be qualified to be a bureaucrat or work for some sleepy not-for-profit.
http://tinyurl.com/2mb5f4
He lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago School of Law for 11 years ('93-'04).
He was IL state senator from '96-'04 uninterrupted (contrary to the lie in your "source"). He resigned that when he was elected to the US senate in '04.
He has a proven mastery to govern and lead and organize. His campaign itself is ample evidence. He has overtaken an entrenched machine that nobody could have guessed he could rival.
He has more experience as an elected official than Hillary. Hillary was elected green to the US senate in 2000.
Get yourself some sources that are at least somewhat credible/accurate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
Despair: The Corporatists hand picked chosen candidates, McCain and Clinton, finally winning the nomination that they were supposed to clinch in the beginning, giving us no change, more of the same, status quo march into mediocrity, decline, debt, and increasing poverty for the bottom 90% of the population. (but with 300 cable channels to choose from in HD).
We'll now get to vote for the same old same old. Only one comes with a suit the other with pantsuit.
Obama's deep connections to Rezko can stop him. Unfortunately the Rezko trial has been pushed back to Mar. 3, 2008.
If this hits the fan AFTER BO wins the nomination, the GOP will make BO's Rezko dealings a bigger story than Whitewater ever was.
Forget the real estate deal -- it goes deeper.
I just spent an hour reading through this blog: Rezko Watch ... several interesting reports, all backed up by reliable newspapers in Chicago and beyond.
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/rezko-obama-is-coincidence-not.html
Is this all you Obama opponents have? If so, you don't have much. I think this will hurt Obama about as much as Bobby Baker hurt LBJ. And if you don’t remember Bobby Baker, that just proves my point.
Write back when you have a substantive reason for opposing Barack Obama.
You mean to say that Obama doesn't walk on water? That the Emperor of Change has no clothes? That all his wonderful words may be Just Borrowed Words? Obama Nation doesn't want to hear it. I sure HOPE you are not a Super Delegate.
If this is the worst that Obama has done; friends with three less then perfect people, Obama may have a chance.
Obama is NOT unbeatable. Forget that series of primary wins. Think about that series of 80 shutouts scored against him in New York, including a big one in Harlem. Anyone who can lose like that can really lose. And you do know about those machines used in Ohio? You've heard? .... OK. So now you know.
Could one of the thousands of Obama supporters on here give me Obama's thoughts on what type of Supreme Court Justices he would appoint and how he expects to get them confirmed by the Senate? Is he going to compromise and pick centrist justices to appease the right or will he stick to his guns and pick justices that a more left leaning/pro-constituition since he taught constituitional law? Chances are Obama will have to appoint two or more Justices during his term and that is a decision that could have disasterous consequences for us all if he screws up.
The next democratic president will have a lock on Congress and a Senate majority, possibly veto proof. Unless they nominate Ariana Huffington or Mike Malloy, getting a Supreme Court nominee through the process should not be problem.
No appointments could be worse than two Nazis that Bush just appointed.
Do you believe that "bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain's Supreme Court appointments will be left of Hitler?
exactly! - You can probably find a few Nazis in hiding who would be farther left than Scalia.
Hey, 'Chief Justice Malloy'....
Blah blah blah!
Is it not apparent to you that we have much larger problems to worry about?
Without saving our environment and calming the Muslim world nothing else matters you dolt! It is myopia such as yours that has led the charge to war thinking it makes us safer. Nobody wins a war. We just keep fighting until every one is dead! If we can't make peace with our enemies and curb co2 emissions we won't be here to give a flying fuck who is on the supreme court! Obama can talk people into doing the right thing, which is obviously painfully dificult for Many people.
Well Barbara, it is a good thing that you are only speaking for yourself -- and not me.
Because I am embarrassed when I hear Obama talk. At first, I thought he was a good speaker, when I first heard him at the DNC years ago. But he is so overboard now, that he sounds like nothing more than a preacher or a motivational speaker.
I get embarrassed for him because I think he doesn't even realize there is no substance, no meat and portatoes, no policy talk, no reality. I just want to say "Please, stop, enough already. Don't tell me 'yes we can' again, it's too much, drop it, get over it. Say something real about something that you are going to do to make America better. No more motivational chants. I can't bear to hear it one more time."
I suppose you were embarrased for JFK and MLK when they gave great oratories with no "substance, not meat and potatoes, no policy talk, no reality"? To say that Obama gives no policies or substance shows how little you pay attention. Good luck with Hillary, though.
Obama '08
Clinton '16!
OBAMA '08, KUCINICH '16!
You obviously have not visited his website, which lists his plan of action in detail.
Wow! Someone who was not around when the Obama spell was cast. Refreshing!
Hi Monique, well said! if only more people could see the truth like you, we would save the country of 4 years of disaster!!!! And they would add up to 8 more years( Bush), for a total of 12 years!!!!It's nice to see how people haven't learned the lesson here and insist on the Obama's rethoric. Well, as I say now to people, DON'T BLAME ME, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM EITHER !!!!
It's easy to list the reasons why "No we can't". What you're missing is that the Obama Organization, and the movement, keeps growing, learning, adjusting. Complain about his Federal Earmarks and they're published. More focus on Asians and Hispanics..done...looking for a detailed economic program....published. The movement is organized and responsive. Noone ever said it would be easy...and he repeats how much effort is involved and tieing youth opportunity with community service. But believing that all white folk (like me a senior suburban white guy) will show their color in the voter's booth is just another act of denial...insisting people don't change. No, they adapt. If Obama wins the nomination, what will Hillary do? Pull more women into the movement? Obama lives family values and it's visible ..he still goes to parents night at his daughters' school and his wife is warm to him in public. Can he step up to the national security and terrorist issues, beyond Iraq? Can he step up to the Oil, Insurance, and Pharma lobbies and work for change? Will he engage the international community in the Middle East, Pakistan, Russia, China, India,the EU, etc? Can he develop a rational immigration policy that engages Mexico and others? Can he stimulate America's entrepeneurial spirit and overcome lobbyists of the status quo? Can we and the world believe in a new shing light on the hill? The current administration with all its experience has put leadership integrity, seperation of powers, anti-terrorism, and economic stimulation in a quagmire. Yes, America will have a choice, not black or white, but hope and inspiration versus and fear mongoring and manipulation. McCain feels he can restore integrity to the repubs, but he's already buckleing to the conservatives by endorsing torture...of all people. The answer is if Obama is derailed, it will be by the Democratic machine, not the Republican machine. The question the Dem's should ask is can we keep the unification process going until at least 51 % of the nation joins the movement? Yes we can.
Remember that Bush only needed 51 percent of the Supreme Court.
I'm white. I'm a liberal. I'm a woman. But, unlike my white liberal brethren, I believe Obama is stoppable if he wins the nomination.
However, before I continue my opine let me say:
I support African-American voters in the Obama camp. You deserve your first viable opportunity to elect an African-American president. You've earned it, your ancestors died for it. And you owe it to your children to secure for them this moment in history.
But someone has to ask the following of my fellow white liberals who get dewy-eyed for Obama:
Would you be this excited about the first potential African-American president if the candiate was ...
... Al Sharpton?
A moot point indeed. Black leaders like Sharpton make white liberals uncomfortable. Be honest, my white liberal breathren ...
... Barack is your perfect "some of my best friends are black" candidate. Al is not.
While Sharpton gets in your face about the racism that still exists in America, Obama reassures you, "That's the past."
And you love him for it.
But after all this feel-good intoxication delivers the first Democratic nomination of an African American candidate ...
... Obama will lose to McCain.
Obama's ultra-liberal votes in the Illinois State Legislature will be the red meat the GOP needs to motivate their extreme right wing.
- Obama voted against allowing licensed gun owners in Illinois to carry their weapons outside their homes. The NRA will go after this with a venegance.
- Obama voted against allowing doctors to attend fetuses who survive abortion. The religious right will demonize Obama for this.
- Obama voted against death sentences for gang members who commit murder as an initiation into a gang. Three words: "Willie Horton" ads.
With this ammunition, the GOP will squeak out a win for McCain.
We know it's probable. But we risk it because Obama makes us liberal white folks feel America is no longer racist.
That is, until the GOP proves us wrong.
it doesn't sound "ultra liberal" to me, it sounds ultra reasonable.
I heard Sally Hemmings wrote a draft copy of the Constitution. Could this be right?
What you are saying is so clearly true, Susan, that only people in a dream world do not believe it. Whether the dream world is that of a mid-life crisis in which Obama is the trophy wife, or the dream world is pretending 51% of American voters are not racists, or this election is one long bad American Idol dream, the result is the same. Eight more years of famine. For some reason I am thinking about the phrase, "For as much as God hath shown thee all this, there is no so discreet and wise as thou art." This was the answer to the question, "Is there such a man as this, a man within whom the spirit of God is?" America is looking for some hope of eventually being led out of the land of Egypt. Oops, I mean Bush.
Americans want someone to lead them who is inspirational. I share your concern that on November election day the red state sea will close in on us and we will drown. The donkey and the rider will fall into the sea.
Are you nuts?
Obama could be purple for all I care.
Al Sharpton isn't too "black"; he's incompetent.
As to the three issues you brought up, if the election comes down to the NRA and the pro life movement after the mess we're in, I would be stunned. Even the right to lifers don't want to have to make painful cuts in their lifestyles.
What Obama offers that Hillary doesn't is at least the possibility of honesty and fairness. Hillary is in the corporate back pocket. She is nothing more than a shill at this point----why people who are mystified by the appeal of Obama don't ever seem to grasp that is beyond me.
Obama represets the promise this country has never lived up to, to paraphrase MKL. How can he possibly do a worse job than the current president? Can anyone argue that even Dan Quayle wouldn't have done a better job?
When the general elections starts, you can bet the GOP will come out with stuff that makes the Willie Horton ads look like a joke (I wouldn't be surprised if Rove has them do a push poll saying that B.O. was charged with raping a white woman) -but they'll just be showing their true colors.
In any case, if "hundred years war" McCain wins, it's a moot point; you can kiss this country's economy, among other things, goodbye.
Susan1968 . I understand where you are coming from, but you have to remember that the Democratic party cannot react to what Republicans "might do" or else it will stagnate and continue to lose the battle to Republicans. I totally disagree with your argument and I guarantee you that your way of thinking is a losing blue print for any Democratic politician.
Right now, I think the Democratic party is going through its own issues with race a gender - things that they've championed but now they are forced to look in the mirror. Its called, GROWING UP. The Republican, in many ways, have the edge, because of Bush they have had the kitchen sink thrown at them Whereas, Democrats have had the luxury of being the champions of justice but with very little experience being ridiculed for their injustice.
Obama is leading Democrats out of the fear mentality, not an authentic Democratic trait, That's what is attracting people of all ages, incomes, genders and races to Obama. And the ones fighting him, on the Dem side look selfish .
Republicans also they give the appearance of putting Country over self interest. Look at Hillary Clinton - with the dropping out of Guiliani and Mitt Romney, it makes Clinton look more selfish, strategic. a trickster. That's the way it is. And that's what people are seeing. This is why the Democrats lose, and need to grow up.
As far as the race and gender, granted, maybe there are racist in the GOP and maybe in the Democratic party but to vilify the GOP and the entire Country is pointless.
But look the GOP was able to life a woman/black up the highest rank and all the Democrats did was call her a tool.
I think you, and Democrats are reflecting the Identity crisis Democrats have and just throwing out empty threats like "the GOP are racist", "racist GOP will eat him up" this and that, and "willie horton" is caving into the undemocratic thinking of fear.
correction -
But look the GOP was able to lift a woman/black ( Condi Rice) up to the highest ranks of a non elected position in the Republican Party and all the Democrats did was call her a tool.
"Obama is leading Democrats out of a fear mentality"? What exactly, has W been doing for the last 7 years? That's all he's ever had.
You have a point though: the republicans do have an edge with regards to growing pains of race and gender insofar as they have no race or gender issues, being composed entirely of old white men.
Democrats lose because, with John Kerry as an example, they continually try to fight a gentleman's fight against a group of sucker-punchers. Rove is no genius; he's just willing to slink lower than anyone else to get what he wants.
Nice deflection, but it is not a case of "maybe there are racists in the GOP". Not that the democratic party is racist-free, but try to imagine a neo-nazi or white supremacist actually wanting to join the democratic party (Remember the skin-head "Reagan Youth"?).
The GOP will indeed try to eat B.O. up, but will be unable to contain their latent racism (see: Reagan's visit to a club (in America) with a sign prominently displayed outside barring blacks -while president, Katrina, W's hand picked Civil Rights commissioner bragging that he has never hired any blacks in the department, etc.), resulting in the parties ultimate -and long overdue -implosion.
unless she's a republican trying to sound like a liberal, on a doubt-planting mission...
Two points: Hillary is on the Democratic Leadership Council. She is the embodiment of "impeachment is off the table" and "centrism". No matter that the center is somewhere left of Mussolini today. Why shouldn't she be a lightening rod for the America's disdain for our "do-nothing" Democrats? When I look at her all I can see is "Little Miss Flag-Burning Resolution".
Can't remember the writer from a couple weeks ago but he clarified Obama's situation brilliantly. Basically we have to trust Obama that "change" will be positive because he _can't_ run on a platform of social justice. If he did he'd just be blown off as another disgruntled black preacher type in a long string of disgruntled black losers. It's an unspoken agreement we have to accept that he has to play it this way.
There may be reason for genuine hope. Thom Hartmann makes a good point that, the country in crisis, _whoever_ gets elected may be _forced_ against inclination to be creative and visionary. Then the only question is whether a person at the core of the current democratic leadership is most likely to rise to that challenge or whether a younger person has more flexibility to lead us into the future.
THE REPUBLICANS WILL STOP HIM.
My question is how is he going to actualize change when he is all about being a uniter and ignoring the differences? The only real change we can believe in would be for him, he'd be the President! And frankly that's what really counts, his whole facade of playing the messiah is really wearing thin for me.
Well the cure for the mysterious fainting of women At Barack Obama rallies ( Obamaplexy ) has been found, now he is truly unstoppable.
http://oldgloryradio.podbean.com/2008/02/16/mysterious-fainting-at-barack-obama-rallies-identified-as-obamaplexy-cure-found/
I did not start out thinking about Obama in a negative way. A number of months ago I was awed with the possibility that Obama "might be the one". I asked myself where that feeling came from. I desired hope and optimism. I desired a leader that would make me feel those emotions. Obama said he would and he did. It was when he announced his candidancy for president that I attached those emotions to Obama. I called it "the voice of authority" and I believed he had superior judgement like he said he did.
Then when he got Imus ( a radio personality) fired (I believe), I realized how much power he already had. I began to ask myself questions about his judgement. Did he really want partnerships or like he said, he "would not go on Imus' program again". Imus was fired because of Obama's words. It worried me. The power of it worried me. Everyone's acceptance of it worried me. Imus was powerful but not equal to Obama's power. Many were giddy with how powerful Obama was (because he got Imus fired). The giddiness worried me and subsequent racial divide blogs worried me.
When I was in NYCity going to school in the 80's, I was thinking that future radical change would happen by a "voice of authority" and that the voice would be a black american male voice. And that it would be so powerful as to influence masses because of a new technology. I wanted to research why this "voice" could influence masses by comparing it to the way Hitler had used the new technologies of his time - the microphone, the radio, and film. People had little experience before Hitler, of a leader using these technologies. The new technology increased by 10/100/1000? Hitler's influence or power. In my thinkiing, I imagined this voice to influence radical change. The 60's were a time of radical change. I felt good about the changes in civil rights, womens rights, human rights.
I no longer trust radical change Obama style.
Vsign,
You start very reasonably.....which is a prelude to all the negativity that is to come. We have seen these signs before. And then you veer off into "Obama got Imus fired."
Sorry, Obama did not get anyone fired. It was the advertisers who could not take the heat, from the all the protests of listeners, after he got his foot in his mouth, referring to the Women of Rugerts's Basketball team, as
"nappy hos".
So let's make things perfectly clear Barack
Obama had nothing to do with Imus's fighting:
it was all Imus's doing, and a little word:
"accountability". Ok?
It is about time we stood up for something.
Yes, We Can!
Enough said.
Imus who?
Are you saying Obama had bad judgement when he called for Imus to be fired?
In April of last year, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team--most of whom were African-American, including a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy--after they lost in the NCAA championship game, as "nappy-headed hos."
Every single presidential candidate decried those remarks at the time, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Sponsors, including American Express Co., General Motors Corp., Procter & Gamble Co., and Staples Inc. -- pulled out of the show.
CBS suspended Imus and Imus apologized repeatedly, but by then Black leaders, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, were demanding that he be fired.
Guests began to cancel their appearances on the show. Newsweek turned a cold shoulder to Imus.
Imus was particularly upset by the lack of support from one black politician, Senator Harold Ford Jr. of Tennesee, because Imus had backed his campaign. Ford said others could deal with it and he didn't want to "pile on," but he thought the comment was "reprehensible".
Against the lukewarm response of Ford (also head of the Democratic Leadership Council), Obama stepped up his response and called for Imus to be fired.
He said, "There's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."
He continued: "He didn't just cross the line, he fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women -- who I hope will be athletes -- that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It's one that I'm not interested in supporting."
So, Obama didn't get Imus fired. The whole world came crashing down on Imus' head, and Obama was only one of many people calling for him to be fired.
Actually, the real reason Imus probably got fired is because he was devoting too much of his talk show time to discussing how thimerisol in vaccines is probably responsible for the increases in autism we've experienced in recent years. His employers were just itching for an excuse to shut him up.
How did Obama do anything to get Imus fired? Are you completely clueless? It sounds like it.
"All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!"
Wooo hoo!!!
If you want to find out why Obama is very, very stoppable, and why it would be an egregious error for the Democratic Party to nominate him as their presidential candidate:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Why isn't this getting more play? It is the centerpiece to his campaign and it is a fraud!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
