because I don't think it's plausible after this primary fight. Obama is running as a change agent, getting away from the politics of the past 16 or 20 or more years -- and that obviously includes the Clintons.

Clinton won't be the nominee, so I didn't really consider if from that PoV.

how does he win back the 30% or 40% of Clinton supporters who currently say they'd vote for McCain?  That's what I'm wondering.  If it takes a unity ticket to do it, I'm for it.

I think that's just emotion and frustration talking from some very committed Hillary supporters. At the end of the day, I think 90% of each person's base will support the eventual Democratic nominee, even though Hillary's base won't turn out in as large a number. I could be wrong, but I continue to believe either person would/will beat McCain this fall, and pretty handily, just via different red/blue coalitions.

Do they still exist?  Does Nixon's Silent-Majority/Southern strategy work in Pennsylvania and Ohio?  

I am 100% sure there are still segments of the white population that will never vote for a black man for President -- I just think the vast majority of them already vote Republican. In the context of a Democratic primary, even though they vote overwhelmingly for Clinton does not, in my eyes, prove that they won't vote for Obama. In certain parts of Ohio and Texas and Pennsylvania, sure, some Dems won't come out to pull the lever for Barack. But, I think either Hillary or Barack carries PA, I think Hillary has a better chance of carrying Ohio, and I think Barack has a better chance of carrying Texas once the Democratic machines line up down there in the valley.

Hillary in my mind is a stronger candidate in states like Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and maybe Pennsylvania (unclear), border and Appalachian states where the segments of the white population that won't consider voting for a black person are higher.

But, I don't think that adding Clinton to the bottom of the ticket will in any way, shape, or form make it more palatable for these segments of the population to pull the lever for Barack.  

Hillary has deep support in the party base, particularly among older women who want to see a woman on top of the ticket. On the other hand, she brings extreme negatives among independents and could well cancel out Obama's strength there if he picked her for VP. People don't generally vote for vice president, but they will vote against a candidate who makes a really bad choice, since that choice reflects on the nominee's judgment.

Clinton's negatives outside the base also make her a bad choice as far as supporting down-ticket candidates. Rural congressmen like Rick Boucher recognize this; it's why so many of them support Obama, even though their reddish districts may go Clinton's way in the primaries.

She also brings the complication of having Bill around. President Obama will not need the aggravation of having the VP's spouse meddling in policy, which is exactly what he will do. It's one of the main reasons I didn't support her for president to begin with. I have also had the sense going back to the pre-Iowa debating that both Hillary and Bill look down on Obama personally. They both think they're smarter than he is, and that will not play well for a number two.

I do think that the number of people who are telling pollsters they won't vote for the "wrong" nominee is way overstated in the passion of the moment. Most of those people will come back. Obama would do well, though, to consider a VP choice that reaches to her base. It doesn't have to be a Hillary supporter, either. Janet Napolitano, for instance, is a long-time Obama supporter who has proven appeal among both women and Hispanics. She is also from the Rocky Mountain west, an area where Democrats are in a good position to make inroads with Obama as nominee, and she should help with down-ballot races there.

Blah!  Their is too much difference to overcome in that ticket.  I think it would be better for him to have someone with executive experience and/or significant foreign policy experience.  At a minimum, he needs that to satisfy the talking heads in the media.  

He's a Senator, after all.  Or, would Webb be ok because of his "significant foreign policy experience?"  Thanks.

I would like Senator Webb to be the senior senator from Virginia.  I would not be opposed to him being the VP nominee and I think he meets the suggested criteria I laid out.  It still might be nice to have a governor on the ticket.

"You said 'x' about the person you picked for VP.  How can you now say s/he should be a heartbeat from the Presidency?"  "You said 'y' about the person running for President.  How can you say now that s/he is the best choice for President?"  Even with good responses, you don't want those quotes coming up again and again.  They shouldn't, but they will.

Senator Obama can reach out to the Clinton supporters by picking a high profile Clinton supporter as VP.  General Clark would be a good example, and I'm sure that there are many more.

"voodoo economics"

Bush I was highly critical of Reagan in 1980...didn't hurt him a bit in the general. It helped to be running against Carter but the same could be said about McCain.

1) it gives up two sitting senator seats instead of just one, we need every seat we can hang on to

2) The very few people who absolutely will not vote for Obama, still will not vote for him even with her on the ticket.  She brings nothing that he does not already have on the ticket...   Edwards, Gore, Clark, Kaine, Richardson, and yes, even Chuck Hagel bring far more to the ticket.  Each of them brings interesting people who might actually help voters who are unsure of Obama.  Webb and Bayh each bring a lot to the ticket - but man, we need them both to stay in the senate for now...

3) this is horrible to contemplate, but there are nut jobs out there who would go after any president with violence in mind... I consider Obama to be a great risk of attempted assassination should he win the election.  I feel Clinton would be too, and McCain... we need to be very careful because any of them have a pretty real chance of having to have a VP who is prepared to do the POTUS job.  While I think Clinton would say she is prepared, it would be a step backwards for what the entire Obama campaign is all about.  We must pick VPs wisely at this point.

Jim.  Webb.

How much of Hillary's campaign apparatus would an Obama campaign have to absorb for the general? And what are the odds that both camps could stay on the same page? (Read: Penn, Mark.)

As many have pointed out on this thread, the number of Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain over Obama will be small.  When it comes down to it, very few Democrats will actually cross over and vote for McCain (to be fair, the same can be said for Republicans crossing over and voting for Obama).  The reason for this is rooted in the fact that there are far fewer truly independent or independent leaning voters than there appear to be.  The idea that a huge segment of Democratic voters would vote for McCain if Clinton is not the nominee or on the ticket is not really as not as likely as a lot of people think.

If you look at electoral college math (which I would argue is far from being accurate at this point in the process), Clinton does not bring much to the table as a VP.  Obama (arguably) already puts in play states like Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington.  I don't think Democrats have a real shot at winning Florida, Texas, or Kentucky regardless of who is on the ticket.  In Ohio and Pennsylvania, where people argue she would help him a lot, Obama trails in Ohio by 3 points and is up in PA by 2 points.  This is hardly a cataclysmic situation if he is the nominee, and I think there are other Veep candidates who would help him in these states who don't bring the baggage of having throttled the person on the top of the ticket for the better part of two months.  

This is, perhaps, the biggest reason why a Unity Ticket won't work.  How on earth can you call into question Obama's qualifications as Commander in Chief, his experience, his position on just about every issue that will matter in this election cycle, and then honestly run as his VP?  Clinton had an opportunity when things began to turn away from her to position herself as a possible VP candidate, and a strong one at that.  However after her kitchen sink approach following the Wisconsin primary I don't see how she can reconcile what she has said about Obama with the idea that she suddenly supports him wholeheartedly.  

Not to mention neither of them would accept the offer to be the other one's VP.  

..yeah I know you guys know that I am not a Hillary fan for president. After she loses the nomination we'll see just how loyal she is to the democratic party and the process. I think an endorsement of Obama, and statement to all of her followers indicating that they should vote for Obama would be enough. No need to have her on the ticket. Then she could get on with her work in her "Home" State of New York. I am still waiting for Colin Powell to endorse Obama.

but I can't see them on a ticket. Not only because of her slah and burn tactics. How do you keep the ambitions of Hillary down and keep Bill under control?

I just can't see it.

What would Hillary Clinton add to the ticket? Obama's biggest weakness is lack of experience in defense and foreign policy issues. Hillary Clinton has no more experience in this area than Obama does. Nor does she bring new states into play.

Furthermore, her presence on the ticket could prevent a whole lot of McCain-hating Republicans from crossing over for McCain. My in-laws are a perfect example. They are Republicans who despise Hillary Clinton and don't think much of McCain either. They both voted in the Democratic primary for Obama. Will they vote for Obama in the general, too? Not if Hillary Clinton's name is on that ballot.

Finally, it would be like combining oil and vinegar in terms of the campaigns. Aren't we all trying to get rid of all that Mark Penn and Terry McAuliff styled negativity and truthiness? Put Hillary on the ticket and that whole bunch of backwards looking DLC anti-grassroots nincompoops has a free pass back into Washington.

Oh yeah, one more thing: Bill Clinton. He'd constantly be sticking his snout into everything. He's the former President of the US so, as Hillary Clinton's campaign has found out, it's hard for staff to tell him to get lost. With Hillary Clinton on the ticket with Obama, the Obama campaign would constantly be dealing with not only Hillary's bizarre lies and exaggerations (Bosnia, opposing NAFTA, etc.) but also Bill's high-profile flubs and temper tantrums (South Carolina, etc.)

There's just no good reason to put her on the ticket. It would be a complete disaster.

is her supporters, approximately half of Democrats who've voted so far this year, or at least the 30% of that half who say they wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the nominee.

As to the "oil and vinegar" argument, there have been a lot stranger political pairings in presidential history.  

But, in the end, you could be right, it could be a disaster.  I just find it interesting that almost all the Clinton supporters I've talked to like the idea, while almost all the Obama supporters think it's a bad idea.

She burnt her bridges, and there are better choices for balancing the ticket.  He could still reach over into the Clinton camp.  Wes Clark would be a much better choice than Clinton, and would conciliate many Clinton supporters.

Clinton has high unfavorable numbers.  Obama doesn't.  Of the surprisingly high percentage of Democrats who feel unfavorably about Hillary Clinton and don't like her, which candidate do you think they're supporting?

I think VaDem2008 was the most honest in his/her answer: "I can't stand Hillary."  I disagree with the sentiment, but I'm considering rating his answer as constructive because it was at least truthful.  Everyone else is mainly rationalizing, the anti-Clinton vitriol expressed by some of the people posting here has been apparent for the better part of a year.

Most voters place higher import upon the candidate's spouse than on the candidate's running mate, so I don't particularly care what the ticket looks like.  I like the symbolic gesture of the two burying the hatchet and running together, but whatever.  The horse race stories are all about the candidates, but election day is decided by the voters, so wake me up when people want to talk about the people casting the ballots.

Does Kennedy win Texas in 1960 without LBJ on the ticket?  Does Carter win Minnesota without Mondale?

For Democratic nominees it's true that the VP doesn't necessarily provide a national boost, but the VP can provide a regional or state based one.  

really?  I was honest in my response.  Every time I think of a unity ticket, I think of that song: "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off."  You know: "tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto, let's call the whole thing off."  

I don't personally hate or hold any ill will towards Hillary Clinton.  I'm just thinking that Obama needs his Dick Cheney as a running mate (I know bad analogy). =)  Someone who offsets his weaknesses or perceived weaknesses, because perception is reality.  In some respects, Hillary might be able to fill that role since she knows how to take the kid gloves off.  But he could just as easily choose Ed Rendell for that and get the executive experience and someone who can act as an effective advocate for him to working-class whites.

First of all, your comment is more than offensive.  You suggest that anyone not wanting Hillary is lying about their opposition.  But you never ask the fundamental question: Why?  Why are many Democrats outraged?  And you imply it is something about them.  You also suggest they are not honest.  

What you aren't asking, but should be, is what did Hillary do to lose so many Democrats?  If Bill and Hillary's excellent Adventure was really so excellent, why are many not jumping on board for Part 2?  If she is to be the second coming of Bill, what parts of the First Adventure do we not want repeated?  And what of her record (the real record, not the embellished one) is it that we find worrisome.  What of her trashing tone do we not approve of because we think this country ought to rise above personal attacks.  (Comparing records is not negative campaigning.  Questioning a candidate's patriotism most certainly is.)

Why did many who were not only pro-Clinton but worked locally to get them elected and defended them against "Whitewater" and impeachment (and all the other ring-wing noise attacks) become disillusioned?  

Your "theory" is nothing more than blaming anyone but the candidate herself for what she has voted, done, said, managed and mismanaged in her campaign.

"Silence Dogood," not tax2vadem, Jterp or TrueBlue

Senator Clinton's pandering to fearful elements of the Democratic base, her let's out boy the boys disgusting threat to obliterate Iran in a nuclear attack are, perhaps, understandable acts of political desperation.

But her channeling Joe McCarthy at the Philadelphia debate was a new low, even for someone as crippled by sociopathy as Senator Clinton.

Her overt attempt to conflate Senator Obama with his neighbor and constituent, Bill Ayers, Sixties radicals and bombing and 9/11 prompted the following post here on April 21:

http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...

Exposing Senator Clinton's gross hypocrisy did not generate a single comment on RK.

On April 22, Hendrik Hertzberg, the lead political commentator at The New Yorker, savaged Senator Clinton's sinking to red scare and fellow traveler McCarthyism at the Philadelphia debate without apparently being aware of her despicable hypocrisy.

I emailed him a link to information about Senator Clinton's legal internship at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.  He's included it in a piece published today on The New Yorker blog entitled "You (Really) Don't Need a Weatherman".  Here's the salient excerpt, but follow the link to read the whole piece:

... [The Clintonistas'] backup justification is that they are performing a service to the Party and to Obama by toughening him up and giving him practice in parrying the Republican thrusts he would face as the nominee. And they are surely right that those thrusts would be nastier than the ones he has faced from the Clintons. The reasoning is that while Clinton is (to quote myself from this week's Comment) "a seasoned survivor of the worst that the Republican attack machine can dish out," Obama isn't.

Or is she? Clinton has thrown her kitchen sink at him, but-for hardheaded as well as high-minded reasons-he has not thrown his at her. (I know-turning the other cheek got Jesus crucified. But it also got Montgomery's buses integrated. And India liberated.)

Consider this.

In the Philadelphia debate, Clinton amplified ABC's odious question about Bill Ayers by saying piously that Obama's "relationship" with Ayers

" ... continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they [the Weather Underground] hadn't done more [bombing]."

... Hillary has her own vulnerability in this general area, and it is larger than the fact, mentioned by Obama in his riposte to her, that her husband, on his last day in office, commuted the sentences of a couple of old Weather Underground jailbirds. (After a decade and a half in stir, they had been denied parole, apparently unfairly. Good for Bill.) What Obama did not mention was Hillary's internship, back in the groovy summer of 1971, at the Oakland law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. Treuhaft (Robert Treuhaft, husband of Jessica Mitford) had left the Communist Party thirteen years earlier, but Walker (Doris Walker) was still a member, and the firm was a pillar of the Bay Area Old Left. I assume that Obama didn't mention this because doing so would have rightly pissed off a lot of Democrats, because he is running as a non-kneecapping uniter, and because there is no evidence that Clinton has or has ever had the slightest sympathy with Communism. (Of course, there is no such evidence with respect to Obama and Weather Underground-ism, either, but that didn't stop Hillary from twisting that particular knife.)

My point is that Hillary Clinton has not, in fact, survived the worst that the Republican attack machine (and its pilotless drones online and on talk radio) can dish out. We will learn what the worst really means if she is nominated. The Commie law firm will be only the beginning. ...

http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...

Espeically with Obama as the nominee, to have Bill Clinton looming in the background could cause a great deal of conflict, especially in an Obama/Clinton administration.  Having the former president so close to the White House with someone other than his spouse as president could create a lot of problems.

obama is just not ready to be president. yes he is a great leader and a great orator that can draw huge emotional crowds but that does not mean that he will make a good president. he may be an asset as a vice president that would be well prepared to take over the top spot in a few years.

Was Bill Clinton ready?

What makes anyone thing Hillary Clinton is ready?

I am pretty damned certain I am not ready and I certainly don't want to be.

Obama is more ready than either Clinton or McCain... ready for change.
He can actually listen, and that will be very welcome after 8 years of Bush who listens not at all...

Obama has something that is pretty rare these days, -good judgement. I wouldn't want Mrs. "obliterate Iran" or Mr. " bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to have his or her hand on the button. Who wants Mrs. "Boo hoo, tear, tear, I'm just a little girl and this is so hard" Clinton, or Mr. "Hold me back so before I break this guy's neck" McCain in the White House? We need someone who is cool headed, has good judgement, and doesn't lose it under pressure.

I find myself agreeing with your comments a lot, on many different subjects.  Thank you for stating, more eloquently than I can, what I feel people need to read...  You rock.

and so is clinton. actually spent time working in the senate for an entire term before she started running for president. obama began running for president from day one in the senate a few years ago. can't say he's not audacious though.

What, Hillary went to work in the Senate and after her first term was approached by people NOT her husband who suggested, to her surprise, that she run for the presidency?  Maybe you're too young to remember that she was being mentioned as a potential candidate as Bill wrapped up his term, and a major reason for the decision to move to NY and run for the Senate was to build her political base and ready herself for a run.  She and her supporters discussed seriously a 2004 run, but decided that she had not spent enough time in the Senate - which IS the only political office SHE (and not Bill) has ever held, and so they decided to hold off until 2008.  

There is no way, after all the negative attacks, a unity ticket will work.  Obama needs a running mate who can bring more positives to the table.  A governor would be preferable.    

I do ding Obama for breaking faith with the Illinois voters by running before finishing his first full Senate term...  but it is a small ding.  The Illinois voters will have to understand that "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few" in this case.  Out country as a whole needs a positive agent for change, and once it became clear that Edwards was not going to be the nominee this time around and that Obama was on a roll and had momentum, it also became clear that the change needs to happen now.

We have no alternative to Obama if we are to avoid a pre-emptive strike on Iran. We have no alternative to Obama if we want to ditch the Bush policies (spying on you and me, police with martial law powers, etc., etc., etc.). We have no alternative to Obama if we want to turn back the march toward a unitary executive (this is dictator in lawyerly language).

In short, its better to take a chance on Obama's possibilities than to follow the current path to destruction.

for how we are going to change our country for the better. you would have to be an idiot to believe that we would be led to war with iran or continue the bush policies of big brother.
we have to have someone who can do more than hope our problems away.

I've watched Clinton long enough to believe she will continue these policies. She even voted for some of them in the Senate.

you would have to be an idiot to believe that we would be led to war with iran.

Inversely, given her vote for preemptive war, her Armed Services Committee track record and her recent threat to obliterate the 70 million human beings who live in Iran, you'd have to be a naive college student to believe Hillary Clinton is secure enough in her womanhood to withstand the provocations with which Muslim extremists would immediately test her if she somehow managed to lie and claw her way into the White House.

was James Buchanan. Buchanan was a quintessential "inside the Beltway" type 100 years before there was a Beltway. He had an impressive 35 year resume as a member of Congress, ambassador and Secretary of State. As a Pennsylvanian who stayed close to southern conservatives, he was also the 1850s equivalent of a DLC candidate.

And yet Buchanan was possibly the worst President ever; his southern friends brought him nothing but discord and, ultimately, secession and civil war. He also presided over a major recession, the Panic of 1857. My feeling is that, hard as this may be to believe in 2007, history will rate him a worse president than George W. Bush.

His successor, Abraham Lincoln, was a young (51), great orator with no Washington or foreign policy experience beyond one term in the House of Representatives. He did OK in most historians' minds; certainly he was a better president than Buchanan.

Experience is a fine thing, but don't put too much faith in it.

Hillary has destroyed any chance that 1) they can work together and that 2) Obama supporters ought to cut her any slack whatsoever.  

Challenging Obama's patriotism ended any chance that Hillary will get anything from me.  I have always said I would still vote for her (but not work).   If she keeps, and she continues to push this line, it up it will not be worth going to the polls at all.  She will have damaged the party beyond repair.  I have agreed with those here and elsewhere that allowing others to elect McCain )I could NEVER vote for him) is no solution.  I have never missed a federal election in my life.  But every single day she makes me despair for our party and nation.  

No pummeling, please.  We have been patient enough with Hillary and have earned the right to be outraged.  When will the superdelegates make her stop the GE-defeating, vile, and malicious attacks?

I will have more to say on Hillary's neo-McCarthyism later.  But it is a deal-breaker.  I am mad as hell (at her behavior) and I am not going to take it any more.

I firmly believe that all those polls that indicate Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if she does not win the nomination, and that Obama supporters would vote for McCain if he (Obama) does not win the nomination are to be discarded out of hand.  Most of the polls have very misleading phrasing, many of the polls have very leading questions, and people are angry right now and likely to say things they do not mean when they have a cooler head.

Should Clinton win the nomination, I am afraid that I'd vote 3rd party candidate.  I cannot vote for either Clinton or McCain because of their voting records and positions on really important things like wars of aggression.  I feel that I am in the extreme minority though, and that most people will pick one or the other of the two party candidates.  I am guessing that something like 95% of the supporters who are actively supporting either Clinton or Obama today will be supporting the Democratic nominee in November, whomever that is.

Clearly there are a number of Republicans trying to mess with the nomination process, they will certainly not vote for either Democrat in November, because they are really already voting for McCain - so I am NOT saying that 95% of all people who voted for Obama and Clinton will vote Democratic in the fall, just that 95% of the real Democrats (old and new) will vote Democratic in the Fall.

I do think the polls indicate that a lot of current activist/volunteers might drop their presidential race work efforts and simply vote though... that is very likely.

I think the real dream ticket would be Obama and Howard Dean, especially since it is his 50 state strategy that will help Obama win.  My next pick would be Richardson.  Edwards would also be good, buy maybe better as Attorney General.

even Rendell, or Strickland before Clinton.

I'm not entirely set against an Obama-Clinton ticket -- although I would say that right now I would opt for another choice before having Clinton on board.  I agree with Ron1 that adding Clinton diminishes the "turn the page" argument -- and it might alienate some cross-over support.  If the net-net is a gain in base support and enthusiasm . . . maybe.  I pity the president who has the Clintons living it up in the Old Executive Office building -- the real question is: Can they be team players?  Can they play a constructive role on a team in a supporting role?  What role in policy making will Clinton have?  e.g. If the two don't see eye to eye on health care would Clinton scuttle the attempt to go for an option that expands care, but doesn't universally mandate it, or would the two be able to broker a deal that both could live with?

I continue to believe that Sebelius will be the VP pick, and one that will ensure victory. But Richardson and Napolitano are also great picks -- as is Webb, but I just don't think he's interested in being VP. Those are the four.

Obama-Sebelius is what I'm hoping for.  

I disagree with any public polling by Democratic groups about the running mate decision.  It is the prerogative of the nominee.

Having said that, Hillary Clinton would not be the best running mate for Obama.

A lot of people seem to have issues with a Senator as running mate.  FYI, I hear that Jim Webb may really not want the position.

I think we may be looking at Richardson, Napolitano and Sebelius.  They are great candidates.

I think he could be talked into it.

This is the real question. The main reason I have read so far is that Hillary's hardcore supporters need to be won back, those who stated that they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general election.

However, I don't think these will vote for a "unity ticket", either. From their point of view, Hillary has been betrayed, she should be the nominee, and Obama is not ready to be president. VP would be considered as a disgrace, a second place, an acknowledgement of failure - they wouldn't vote for Obama with such a ticket. And I believe that everyone who would vote for this would also vote for Obama in the end (after some cool down and healing.)

She is not entitled.  She doesn't own the nomination.  The ones who have been betrayed are those who have been ridiculed, talked down to, intimidated (by fear tactick), and openly mocked for supporting Obama.  We've had to put up with Hillary outrageously impugning Obama's patriotism, and by extension, ours.  Betrayed?  I'll give you betrayed.  She and failed and betrayed us.  Hence, she lost us to a better, stronger, candidate.  I'd even say more qualified because his judgment is far superior to hers and he's shown it.

obama supporters have been "ridiculed, talked down to, intimitead by fear 'tactick', and openly mocked for supporting obama"? i believe quite the opposite is true. 90% of the people on this blog are obama supporters and constantly bash hillary, as  is popular to do these days. 2 or 3 years ago most democrats and progressive minded people would say they liked hillary and the clintons in general. all the right-wingers out there have been trying to perpetuate the idea that hillary is a bitch for the past 20 years and apparently it has caught on even among some "democrats".
that's one of the annoying things about obama...he is so "positive" and stands for "change" while many of his minions are overtly negative. he can make it look like his hands are clean while all of his people go negative for him.

Hillary Clinton has caused her own downfall.  If she had stuck to policy and principles, instead of sliming Obama, she would be winning.  She is her own worst enemy.  Bill is her second worst enemy.  Terry McAuliffe and the Ragin' Cajun are third and fourth.

Voters are going to make their decisions on all the available information, positive and negative.  Hillary Clinton has a lot of negatives.  When she starts out with 50% of the people having a negative view of her, she must either change or lose.  She chose the latter.