The shift in California's primary.

As a result, California will select the next Democratic Party presidential nominee.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever she *documents* needs to be put in the context of schoolgirl spite. Some girls just can't tolerate others being up for prom queen.

What we do know is that MSM are like birds on a telephone wire. Whichever way one flies, the others are likely to follow. Consequently what we need on the left is more of the kind of balance we get on AlterNet.

Indeed, we have a long way to go. And no campaign in recent memory has been as productive of good political debate as we have seen so far. Let's keep it the great contest it has become.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Clinton campaign's schizophrenic strategy worked. To counter Hillary's cold image she wept, and at the same time went on the attack with Bill and her staff bashing Obama. So she can have it both ways...it made me think of an old Elton John song. I guess the public's stated aversions to the war and to negative campaigning didn't count for much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think the weeping was the larger factor in getting so many women out to vote. It was touching until I thought of who she is, NAFTA, etc.

Though no doubt, the effort by the rest of her campaign had its effect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Muskie teared up during his presidential campaign over a nasty attack on his wife and it helped do him in. Apparently a female candidate can tear up over the prospect of losing with positive results. However, I estimate that a female presidential candidate gets only one tearing up. So, whatever happens on the campaign trail, I believe that Hillary has cried her last tears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It’s past midnight, January 9th 2008. The press has declared New Hampshire primary winners and losers. Now the talking heads, most of whom are older white males (including the acclaimed xenophobe Lou Dobbs) are ‘pondering’ Obama’s loss. What happened? I have to admit that I’m enjoying their rehashed narratives of Clinton reaching out to her ‘heart’—a word she used twice in the first five seconds of her victory speech. The punditry and the blogosphere have been buzzing with the success of Clinton’s ‘feminine’ side, and the candidate herself alluded to ‘finding her voice’ in New Hampshire. All of this nonsense is very disconcerting to me as a feminist, for reasons that would take more time to delve into than I have right now.
I’m writing this post to put a damper on all of this rubbish—and to challenge my readers to pierce the punditry. Look at the pre-primary polls, even up to the last minute. Obama was practically declared the winner before the first vote—I remember seeing the numbers on TV, but cannot find them now. If I remember correctly, the press was buzzing over Obama’s nearly 10-point lead over Clinton. So what happened? Here is what happened: New Hampshire has no real victor but racism.
As the candidates, including the very strategic Obama know, talking about racism makes the collective American white stomach churn. White Americans absolutely refuse to engage in any discussion that of racism—after all, with a black man running for President, aren’t ‘we’ (we = white liberals who grudgingly support affirmative action programs and have black co-workers and friends) beyond that? The rhetoric of racial equality refuses to even analyze the numbers. I’ve found myself anxiously searching for the pre-New Hampshire numbers and asking (aloud) that the pundits flash them on my TV screen for a second so that we can take in the incredible discrepancy between what people said they would do and what they actually did at the polls.
According to Swarthmore political scientist Keith Reeves, in his prescient 1997 book Voting Hopes or Fears?: White Voters, Black Candidates, and Racial Politics in America, the Obama victory in Iowa and subsequent loss in New Hampshire were both predictable, given that the Iowa caucus is basically a large, open, public poll, and the New Hampshire primary is a private vote. To very succinctly summarize Reeve’s theory which he corroborates with rich data, white voters will tell pollsters that they will vote for a black candidate, but in the voting booth, they alter their vote. The result: instead of voting their electoral hopes, white voters let their racist fears determine their ballot choices.
Among the media glitterati, only the sensible and articulate Anderson Cooper raised this theory. He received three quick rebuts that were largely non-sequiturs, repeating the same nonsense about Hillary’s femine side coming through for her. Donna Brazile considered Cooper’s theory, but did not seem to have the will to respond, simply mentioning Harold Ford’s similar pre- and post election positions.
Obama is the black candidate that I hypothesized would challenge Reeves' theory-- I believed that Obama's insistence on not discussing racial inequality could mitigate the white populace's propensity to view him in racial terms. (The 'maybe-they've-stopped-noticing-he's-black-theory) In addition, as former presidential contender Biden pointed out-- albeit in a very racist manner--Obama appeals to white Americans because he does not conform to their racist stereotypes of blacks. Through my own skeptical political science lens, I doubt that Obama would have made it this far had he adopted a more critical position on racial inequality. Yet I am tempted anyway to pose an even more skeptical question. Has Obama earned this ‘loss’ by unabashedly avoiding the subject of racial inequality in America?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the democratic side, Clinton won by an edge; the republicans opted militarist as always. New Hampshire opted for fear, insecurity and the status quo, but narrowly!!

Clinton or McCain in the executive will continue unabated business as usual, with perhaps a few crumbs on the domestic side -- mainly in order to neutralize and control the increasingly obvious differentials in conditions currently existing here. But this is New Hampshire (and Iowa demonstrated different tendencies!).

Keep on keeping on, I say; and keep fear and insecurity at bay -- there's a better world possible this year!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as the presidential election itself. The same anti-democratic forces which produced corrupt results in 2000 and 2004 will have seen the selection of the Democratic candidate as crucial. Make it a two horse race between a black man and a woman: genius!

Hillary, bright though she undoubtedly is, could be an even worse president than Bush if she seeks to out-macho the boys.

Where have I seen Obama before? In the 1979 film of Jerzy Kosinski's novel Being There. Peter Sellers played Chance the gardener, who succeeded by being a blank space where everyone could project their own ideas. Chance assured everyone, "All is well and all will be well".

I prefer Edwards' take of all is not well. The corporations must be taken on. I have a personal grievance, the suffering and premature death of a close friend brought about by the insurance industry and Big Pharma. But we all live on the razor's edge when corporations and government are as one (Mussolini's definition of fascism).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The entire media spectrum is twisting itself in knots to explain the difference in polls before vote, showing Obama winning by double digits, and actual vote. No mystery. Obama lost because of race. The difference between Iowa and New Hampshire was standing up in public (Iowa) versus private choice in the voting booth (New Hampshire). This has happened repeatedly to Black candidates. Look at Harold Ford in Tennessee Senate race in '06.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary and all the others need to be evaluated according to their past voting records and forget image and the posturing and disowning of past record. Hillary has tried to avoid accountability for her 100% Bush agenda war voting record for 7 years. She is a corporatist (Mussilini definition, see wikipedia) who is but a stealth Republican. What a joke, 'experience' and 'change'. See her performance by keying into U tube:" Hillary Clinton AIPAC" to see her endorse nuclear attack on Iran (fooled again?) and then key in Rev. Hagee, the Christian Zionist cultist to see him use identical rhetoric to Hillary's. She is a lost cause and a vote for death.

But campaign for nice man Obama? He is misinformed and is showing sings of having joined the Corporatists. Obama needs to be rejected because of his endorsement for Nuclear Energy.

There is absolutely no long term comparison between Nuclear and any other polluting source of energy. Why? The new Nuclear proponents are only short term thinkers. Can Asteroid miner and Nuke shill Comby take responsibility for the 146,000 year half life of the most virulently carcinogenic, Plutonium? Can the US government, the longest living Republic government in history (only 230 years) that has now come to an end, make any guarantees? They are absurd to ignore the fact that all waste and toxins of radionucleides are absolutely and unavoidably cumulative. They will raise the background radiation levels worldwide. Review the research of epidemiologist, Rosalie Bertells, MD, on effects of low level radiation. Death.

The solution mainly is a social one. Mankind must take responsibility for not confusing wants with needs. Energy use must first be reduced. There simply is no excuse for promoting Nuke.
Obama may not be a lost cause, if voters hit him hard on the campaign trail. But he is a compromiser.

Better Edwards for the straightest shooter who is electable. In fact, Edwards polls the best against the Republicans and may be the most electable with in the general election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually Obama and Hilary split the delegate count 9 to 9 and of the super delegates, Obama got 3 to Hilary's 2, so I am not sure her 2% victory could be called a true "win." She sent out mailings and robocalls that said that Obama would overturn Roe v. Wade. Deliberately lying about his abortion record. He is pro-choice and has a 100% positive rating from Planned Parenthood. I think that's why so many women turned out. I would like the media to focus on this more than her cry moment, or Bill's rant about "fantasy." You know, if Obama criticizes her, he is accused of ganging up on the poor woman, if he tries to stay above the fray and the dirty politics, the s...t she throws sticks. It's a Catch 22 situation. But it is a long race and I do believe the truth will out, and that is what the American people want -- the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How come no one is talking about the economic differences between Iowa and New Hampshire? The economy in Iowa is under great stress and voters in both parties voted for relative outsiders who are pushing for big changes in the way the economy is run. New Hampshire's economy is doing just fine thank you and voters in both parties voted for candidates who promise to tweak the status quo and make it somewhat more efficient. Doesn't it strike anyone else that perhaps this difference is more important than Hilary's near tears or Mitt's hair?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just for some perspective, I am for Kucinich first, then Edwards, then Obama and last Clinton. However, the tone of your article, Mr. Rosenfeld, seemed biased and off-balance. This was nowhere more evident than in erroneously calling her margin of victory over Obama "razor thin". The New York Times reported that with 96% of precincts in, Hillary had 110,550 to Obama's 102,883 votes. That's 7 1/2 % more, not razor thin, and, it seems, comfortable enough to justify the jubilation in the Clinton camp.

Ray Teurfs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A friend forwarded this link to me, interesting to say the least.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=266130

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I remember a book that came out not too long ago called "What's the Matter With Kansas" or something like that?

Right now it seems a more pertinent question would be "what's the matter with New Hampshire?"

No matter who you prefer in the Democratic primary any objective assessment would HAVE to agree that Hillary is the best hope for Republicans.

Not one of the Republican candidates has the potential to really energize the entire Republican base. Romney gets the corporatists and Huckabee gets the fundamentalists, McCain gets the war mongers. But none of them has the ability to really unite the Republican base.

But the Democrats have ONE candidate who can certainly unite the Republican base -- Hillary Clinton.

Personally I favor Kucnich, with Edwards as my second choice. I fear an Obama presidency would be as big a disaster for America as another Clinton presidency, but he'd be better than a Republican.

In theory Hillary would probably be slightly better than a Republican too, but she makes that Republican scenario much more likely to happen.

My state's primary is so late it doesn't even matter, but to those of you in states that actually get a say in the matter, please use your heads.

If you like Hillary's politics, please vote for Obama, you'll get pretty much the same results without helping Republicans. If you want change vote for Kucinich or Edwards or if you just can't decide between change and more corporatism go ahead and vote for Richardson.

But please, don't give Republicans a big, gift-wrapped present by voting for Hillary. There's just too much at stake!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul supporters have been flooding AlterNet for months, haranguing us non-stop, telling us that independents in New Hampshire would drive Dr. Paul to a surprising result.

New Hampshire voters have spoken, and they have said Ron Paul and his supporters suck. They have said he sucks even worse than Rudy Giuliani and his supporters in their New York Yank-me ballcaps and jackets.

And now, the blessed silence!

What will Ron Paul supporters do? Take up needlepoint or model trains?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The media and the pundits can say what they want, the voters made the call. This hopefully has become a real race for the White House.We need to bring the progressive issues to the table and try to get responses from the candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no longer any difference in the policies among the candidates and poitical parties
All of the remaining (contending)candidates are bought-and-paid-for corporate party sleaze. The only good thing about the NH primary is that it offers the scant outside chance of a open convention. In that case, after the first vote, with no candidate getting a majority, there might be an outside chance of getting a candidate who represents more than just the top 2-3% of Americans, the very rich business owners and investors. But that same group will probably cobble-together a charade of a fix for that chance and prevent it from happening.
The turnout shows that many Americans are still deluded that progressive change is possible thru the election system. This is good in the sense that more people, once they have participated in large numbers and seen that the policies don't change, will come to the same realization of those who worked the 2004 and 2006 election cycles - that change is not possible thru our rigged election system. Once that really sinks into the minds of the 90%+ Americans who have been poltically disenfranchised, and are now no more than political chaff, then maybe the process of difficult, serious, probably very nasty and contentious (hopefully non-violent) change can begin. I's still some time off. My take is that a significantly greater number of Americans are going to have to worry about where the next few meals are coming from. That could happen with a looming inflatonary depression caused by central bank corruption and consequent loss of "reserve currency" status for the U.S. dollar. It is all so sad, because it is so avoidable. And when the non-violent demands for change from the disenfranchised 90%+ of Americans materializes, it will be met with violence and repression (Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act -- already has passed the House) by the wealthy ruling class. It will not be a good time to live for the American people

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have heard so many of you state on this site that you vote for a candidate in the Primary to send a message, although the candidates haven't a chance in hell of winning.

You are wasting an important vote!!

If you don't take a stand now and send a clear message about change, you won't have a choice in the November election...... again!!!!

Read Edwards speaches and check out his website and his issues. If you haven't already done so you will pleasantly surprised.

You all need to get it together now or your choices will be business as usual with Hilary or Obama!!!!!!!

Neocons don't want and the main stream media will continue to ignore Edwards, unless we shove him down their throats!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They vote on touchscreens in NH. I'm not at all convinced that she won. If she did, then I am terribly disappointed with NH voters, especially the women. How can you vote for her just because she is a woman? 13 years ago she put forth a not-for-profit, single-payer universal health care plan and got axed for it. Now her campaign is bought and paid for by insurance companies, health management organizations and pharmaceutical companies and her current plan insists that everyone carry health insurance. I don't know how that is going to be enforced. Then there is her "all options are on the table" re Iran and we'll still have a military presence in Iraq when she leave office. How we can we support this??? ON THE ISSUES SHE DOES NOT DESERVE TO WIN. I won't vote for her just because we are both female. I will vote for Kucinich on the ISSUES!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a small correction for your headline:

"Hillary Wins New Hampshire, But the Presidential Race Has Just Begun"

make that: AND the Presidential Race Has Just Begun.

Extraordinary Rendition: Outsource/Impeach BushCheney

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The proven solid anti-war candidates (Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul) all lost by huge margins, while solid pro-war candidates and ones who voted for the war in at least large majority of the over dozen votes in Congress took the lead. Iowa and NH either voted for war, or don't care about it enough to read the candidate's voting records.

I don't care who they call a "leader", I won't vote for war supporters, period. I'm not a lemming and I won't follow them over the cliff when my turn comes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using proprietary software and equipment. The large offset between pre-election polling and the outcome is very troubling, but then there are the exit polls, which so far seem to match the vote count. Still, people whould be very concerned about vote rigging in this election.

It happened in 2000 in Florida, it seems to have happened in 2004 in Ohio, and you can be that the Republicans will be rolling out every dirty trick in the book. They think they can beat Clinton in the fall, so they're pushing for her.

For a variety of viewpoints, see ALL Diebold ALL the Time - It's the New Hampshire Primary - Michael Collins

NH Primary: Pre-Election Polls Wildly Different Than Results Announced for Clinton/Obama, Brad Blog

Diebold and New Hampshire, Drunkard's Lamppost

So far, if the exit polls match the vote counts, that's some evidence that there wasn't massive fraud - however, as the last link above says,

"For democracy to work, the system must be transparent and maintain the confidence of its participants. Proprietary voting machines fail both these tests."

Diebold provides all the optical scan and vote counting equipment to New Hampshire. They are controlled by Republican political interests - see Voting Machine Controversy by Julie Carr Smyth, 2003

"O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

Out of control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, no one but Hillary knows how real her weepiness was. But in a way, it doesn't matter, because it won her the primary- assuming the vote-counting was not fixed.
At over 55 years old, I've been manipulated by weepy women with an agenda too many times to count, and Hillary's "Hallmark Moment" made me suspicious immediately. I think her "tears" were more calculated than real; or else it was one heck of a convenient coincidence, that right when she acted weepy and needy, (implication: "All the boys are bullying me! Waa Waaah!!"), and informed us she really DID have a heart -or whatever she said- and sort of, almost, kind of, sort of cried, she got the votes.
Sympathy votes.
And of course, she knew Barack couldn't cry and get away with it.
Extremely clever.
Also, what about the "Iron My Shirt" person? Who was that? Was that real, or a plant from the Hillary camp? The Clinton campaign should PAY that person for helping her win! (Maybe they already did).
Dang, I miss Steve Irwin. And where's Captain Hook when ya need him? We have a crying crocodile running for the Democratic nomination.
p.s. I hope that by now, Hillary has taken her dose of Tears-B-Gon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a double digit Obama win. What an ass. Can someone find this guy a boyfriend to occupy his time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poll numbers:
Suffolk-WHDH --Obama +8.3
American R.G. --Obama + 5.0
Reuters-Zogby --Obama +9.0
Rasmussen -----Obama +13.0
CNN/WMUR ----Obama +9.0
Mariat -------- Obama +8.0
CBS News ------Obama +7.0

However, the poll numbers were off ONLY for the Clinton and Obama predictions. They were very close for all the other races.

Candidate ----- Prediction ----- Outcome (Zogby)
Edwards ---------17-----------17
Richardson -------5------------5
Kucinich ---------2 ------------1

McCain ----------36-----------39
Romney --------- 27 -----------31
Huckabee --------10 -----------11
Paul -------------9 -----------8

Something doesn't look right here. Most likely explanation? Republicans view Clinton as the candidate most likely to be defeated, and are trying to throw the election to her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Bill Clinton the Carl Rove of Democrats?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The MSM kept predicting an Obama steamroller since Iowa. Independent-minded New Hampshire citizens didn't want their strings pulled by the media and voted accordingly.

Btw, all the best our "911 hero" Rudy Ghouliani could do is to be just one measly point ahead of Ron Paul despite Ron spending next to nothing in comparison with Rudy. hehehehehe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a member of SEIU Local 1107, Las Vegas, NV. We are the largest health care union in the country.

SEIU International did not endorse a presidential candidate, leaving that decision to each individual state or local.

Our local had not endorsed a candidate until last night when Obama took second in New Hampshire.

They endorsed Obama, not because he has the best national health care plan (Edwards does) or because he has voiced support of unions (Edwards does), but because he is better than Hillary (who is in the pockets of drug companies and insurance companies).


I intend on caucusing for John Edwards. He IS the best candidate in my opinion. Like he said last night. Two states have voted, there are 48 more. The 99% of the population that has not voted will still have their opportunity to voice their choice.

The main thing is PEOPLE NEED TO VOTE! ONLY THEN WILL THIS ELECTION TRULY BE AN ELECTION OF THE PEOPLE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Message to the young supporters of Obama. Politics is not one quick dash. You have to stay and work. The Clintons have been at the game for 30 years. They don't give up. They've come back from the dead many, many times." -- Counterpunch

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

test

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good god, that is all we need is to four years of "Bush Lite" in the form of Hilary as pres.

For heaven's sake...haven't we had enough in this country of political dynasties? Ms. Clinton is nothing but a stooge for the "Walmart" democrats and the drug companies and the right wing Dems who are so close to the Republicans that they are almost falling out of the same bed.

What really makes me shake my head is how so many "progressives" when pressed about it just seem to fall back on "but..she's a WOOOOMAN!". I swear some of these pro-gender types are so "woman anyone for president" that if Hitler was to put on a wig and high heels they would vote for him/her.

Sorry for my rant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sad to say, but that's what America is.

Britney for President!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Talkville makes a serious mistake if he thinks Hillary won by a squeak. You believe that, talkville, because you haven't taken into account, that "independents" were allowed to essentially interfere with demcoratic and republican vote totals. If Hillary's win is viewed simply from the standpoint of democrats, which is what counts, her win over Obama was over 2 times as large. She massacred him in NH.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

see video: It's Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When Hillary was expected to lose the New Hampshire primary, her campaign was thereafter expected to be finished. Her candidacy was lost. Now that the opposite happened, and Obama's campaign sputtered and failed, do we hear that Obama's campaign is lost, and dead? Of course not. On balance, Hillary's campaign had as much reason to be expected to continue after a couple of initial losses, as Obama's. But media prejudice and hatred against Hillary is so ingrained, so pervasive, you have this outrageous double standard against Hillary. This isn't so called mainstream media, this is Alter Net. You people are pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4</