Hillary Clinton set to announce presidential candidacy

User45701

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/?jp=CWSNEYCWIDMH

Well it happened. kinda knew it would the question is how many women will vote for her just because she is a woman and how many people will NOT for for her because she is a woman.

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

mike65

Well thats not a reason to not vote for her (there are many others!).

I'm not suprised she's got an ego and proberly reckons she's the best chace the Democrats have got. What chance a Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama ticket? Or would that alienate everyone east of Death Valley and west of Philly!

Mike.

aidan_walsh

Hell, even the Democratic Primary will make for an interesting race this time around, between Hillary and Barack Obama.

JohnK

I'm surprised its taken her this long to announce; I had thought she would be the first. I've no doubt she will have a huge female turnout but that wont be enough to get her elected so her VP choice will be extremely important. To be honest I’ve been under the impression she’d go for Obama as I cant see America electing a black president but the two of them together would have a lot to stand on. Add to that the fact that any negative ad campaign against them could easily be spun as sexist/racist means it will be tough for anyone to badmouth them whereas they will not have such problems.

simu

User45701 wrote:

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

I don't think people of such a mindset have a whole lot of repect for Americans in general tbh so it matters not whether the President's a man or a woman.

Also, I don't think women will vote for her just because she's a woman because ideology tends to come before gender in deciding.

User45701

simu wrote:

I don't think people of such a mindset have a whole lot of repect for Americans in general tbh so it matters not whether the President's a man or a woman.

What i was refering to was if there where any negotiations or anything like that in the future they would have less respect dealing with a female

sceptre

User45701 wrote:

What i was refering to was if there where any negotiations or anything like that in the future they would have less respect dealing with a female

It's pretty rare for the president to get involved in direct negotiations with foreign governments so I doubt it would be much of a problem. If she's stuck she could bomb Cambodia or turn a populated desert somewhere into glass.

Kojak

aidan_walsh wrote:

Hell, even the Democratic Primary will make for an interesting race this time around, between Hillary and Barack Obama.

I tend to agree. The way the republicans are going - there seems to be alot of unpopular candidates putting their names forward - it would be hard to see another republican president in the whit house after Bush is finished. Guilani, IMO, would be thier best candiate (if Rice won't go forward) but he will probably loose as he is seen as "too liberal".

Obama is probably too young at the moment but that doesn't mean Clinton is a cert to get in either. if Al Gore was to let his name go forward he could very well win the Democrat nomination.

Judt

Problem for Clinton is that they figure something up to 1/3 of American voters wouldn't consider voting for her under any circumstances whatsoever. However American politics is very varied... anyone else find it strange that we all know more about it than Irish politics?

dave2pvd

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

InFront

User45701 wrote:

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

Oh please, one Miss Fatima Jinnah in the 1964 presidential election in Pakistan, backed by Islamists? Ms. Benazir Bhutto's premiership of the same country in the 1980s and 90s accepted by the Islamist parties? Do you know who Begum Khalida Zia is? Or the Nobel prizing winning judge from Iran Shirin Ebadi?

The US really need to catch up. From an early age, I've been hoping they would follow the examples above and finally appoint a woman to their highest office. They don't seem to love our freedom. Welcome to the 21st century, America. I hope that you give her a chance.

dave2pvd

InFront wrote:

The US really need to catch up.

Huh? So when was Ireland's last female Taoiseach? I think the lack of female representation in high office is not just an American problem tbh.

ghostdancer

dave2pvd wrote:

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

well said.
from what i can gather, there seems to be an awful lot of contempt, even within the Democrats, for Hilary Clinton. even people who loved Bill hate her.
Obama doesn't have nearly enough experience to run the country IMO.

Edwards seems to be much closer to a traditional and strong candidate for the party, and while not as high profile as the other 2, wouldn't seem to have as much opposition as they do.

interestingly, were Clinton to win, 2 families will have held the presidency for over 2 decades....

Manic Moran

I like Bill Richardson. I could certainly vote for him in the Primaries.

NTM

crybaby

I think theres a serious danger shes going to chew up Obamba and spit him out already rumours of mud slinging going on there and she has the money and connection to do it

The US really need to catch up. From an early age, I've been hoping they would follow the examples above and finally appoint a woman to their highest office. They don't seem to love our freedom. Welcome to the 21st century, America. I hope that you give her a chance.

should be more concerned with appointing the right person for the job forget about the gender of the person

can I ask you dave2pvd what is it about Hilary Clinton that turns off so many democrats?

jhegarty

Rudolf Giuliani will be next president if she get nominated. He is only Republican who can compely distance himself from the Bush adminstirion but still have the support of Bush followers.

brianthebard

dave2pvd wrote:

Re Hillary and the female vote: She's not competing for all of the female vote, just 1/2 of it. The Blue half.

If she wins the Dem nomination, there will be a Republican president again. I vote Dem, but would never vote for Hillary. There are many Dems that wouldn't cast a vote for her.

If, by some remarkable turn around, she wins the presidency, she better have a majority in both houses or nothing will ever get done.

As for Obama, he's a great prospect, but far too young. Not a hope in he11, alas.

Edwards may float to the top. He can appeal to urban and rural voters. Just not sure about his appeal to black voters.

Wouldn't have thought the black voters would be a swing category, I mean 13% of the American population is black, and an even smaller number would be represented at the voting booths. Also I thought the black population tended to vote democrat anyways, or at least the majority would?

InFront

I get the feeling that not just her candidacy but indeed her victory is completely inevitable because we've been hearing about it since before her husband's first term was even completed. That was over a decade ago.

When you analyze Clinton's political merits, it really isn't outstanding, and you realise that not only is the 'inevitable' label false, the entire victory isn't particularly likely. The only thing that seperates Clinton from other potential candidates in the popular media is hype. In real politics, she isn't tremendously superior. Her positions on social welfare, crime, and foreign policy, among other issues, are very middle of the road. She voted in favour of invading Iraq. She isn't an outstanding politcian, this is a gender issue.

I do think, however, that if she were to be next president of the USA, it would be generally a positive move. America needs to be seen to tone down its testosterone and start acting sensibly and with a bit of intelligence. A female president might be just the remedy for that.

walrusgumble

on a lighter note bill will get familair with the oval office for another 4 years if not 8 (16 years some time, so many happy lays, i mean times)

least this time he can relax,lie down and think of america.lol

maybe al gore might get the democrats nod with his recent new found concern for the environment and him being former vice prez. i here hillary is not overtly popular even within her party

dave2pvd

Re the black vote and Edwards: I was referring to the primaries. He may need the black vote to win the nomination. So in that respect, the black vote could be regarded as a swing vote. (Not that any demographic really votes totally en bloc at the national level...)

Hillary comes across as very opportunist. She jumps on bandwagons that move faster than anything even McCain could catch. Her social policies are far too left for me. She harvests the welfare classes' vote big time. She represents the left of the political spectrum within the democratic party. She lacks conciliatory skills. Although there hasn't been much middle ground to work towards in Washington these days! The single thing I do like about her 'manifesto' is free healthcare for all.

Keep in mind, anyone living on the Atlantic's right coast sees a very different perspective to what us left coasters see. You get your info looking thru a different lens. What I mean by that is that Hillary would be painted in a very different light in The Irish Times than she would be in a US newspaper.

The more I think about Obama, the more I think how daft his candidacy is. Is he in there just to be Hillary fodder? Then again, this is the country that has voted some fairly unlikely leaders in the past, so anything is possible. Jesse Ventura anyone?.....jebus I just need to move to Canada.

There is a great chance the Dems are going to screw up again and forward a weak candidate, just like Gore and Kerry were. Kerry was a huge disappointment to me. It's a shame that the party can't be a more cohesive unit and figure out a presidential strategy that gets beyond the primaries. I suppose to have a good plan, you'd need to be a united party first of all. That, they ain't.

jank

she lacks conciliatory skills.

Not at all. Many a republican in washington have been surprised on how easy she is to work with. This is common knowlege in DC

Its going to be very interesting.
I hope there will be a clinton/barack ticket. It looks a formidable team IMO.

RedPlanet

she won't win.

- she's already a hate figure for the repukes, they'll just dust off the old sound bites and fling them around again.
- she's a "(D) Senator from NY", and dems from the East do not win the presidency.

sceptre

RedPlanet wrote:

- she's a "(D) Senator from NY", and dems from the East do not win the presidency.

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

Gonzo_Reporter

I just want point out first that im a sceptic and i dont care much for the Republician way of doing things.
With that said there are some things that should be pointed out.

Obama lacks experience with foreign policy or has barely any political experience at all.7 years in the Illinois state Senate and nearly 2 as U.S Senate. However he was not in the Senate when it voted for/against the war, all those years ago, which may help him side step some tough questions.
Some see him as a new Bill Clinton because of his natural flare for politics and his gift of the gab.
On a kind of unforunate side note his middle name Hussein. He smokes, many Americans see this as a sign of weakness.

I doubt Obama will get many more 'Black' vote probably as many as Hillary will gain because she is a women.

Clinton does lack warmth and voted for the the war yet has a lot of experience in everything. She also has a political machine that has won two elections (Bill's terms) and the recent Mid Terms the recent.

As the most recent issue of the Economist says "Mr Obama is now standing in one of the most dangerous places on Earth- the road between Mrs Clinton and the White House".

John Edwards is now a veteran of the Presidential process. He too has more experience than Obama. He has spent the last 5 years profecting his image and his message. He voted against the war.

In my opinion America will eventually see that they need a President that has experience and will take them through the troublesom period they have home and abroad, who ever that maybe.
In a even world Democrats could runaway with it if one was to go on the new Red V Blue map of the states.
2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_US_elections_map_electoral_votes.png
2006 midterms (I cant find a map) BUT:
Nothern states turnned blue while middle America now voted both Dems and Reps. Even Florida has now two colours or colors.

Fact: African/ Native Americans, when they vote, vote Democratic. Both parties know this, yet it is the Republicians that actually do something about it. They made caging lists (lists of people, mainly Black or poor people, that they will try to stop voting) in 2004, which was illegal. And we all know about 2002. Polling stations in disavanaged/democratic areas either dont work because they are too old or are spaced to far apart for people to be bothered to vote. FACT.
http://www.gregpalast.com/

The Republicians could easily pull the wool over the citzens of America for the third time in a row in 2008.
This is why I said i was a sceptic!!!

Manic Moran

dave2pvd wrote:

Then again, this is the country that has voted some fairly unlikely leaders in the past, so anything is possible. Jesse Ventura anyone?.....jebus I just need to move to Canada.

What was wrong with him? My understanding is that the good denizens of the Great State of Minnesota rather liked him. Similarly, Arnold is probably the best thing to happen to California politics in years.

Richardson/McCain would be a fascinating race, if for no other reason that for the first time in memory the NRA would be throwing its not inconsiderable weight behind the Democrat.

NTM

metrovelvet

With Slick Willy back in the White House I,m sure the hiring of female staff will be kept to a minimum, which really only sets back the progress of women in the end, and no doubt the US cant afford the sexual harrassment suits this unlected power would bring with it should there be any women working there.

I hope she wins the primary, if only for the infinite entertainment value it will provide, and Im sure the republicans are praying for her victory, as its the best thing that could happen for them.

Terry

sceptre wrote:

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

also Robert Kennedy, had he not been assassinated, would most likely have been elected.
And Ted, had he not been caught screwing around.

sovtek

Gonzo_Reporter wrote:

Obama lacks experience with foreign policy or has barely any political experience at all.

This is not altogether a bad thing. Neither did Bill when he got in. Obama is an opportunist and has no integrity. He's also not going to end the Iraq war and possibly supports attacking Iran, along with Hillary.
This is why the Democrats may loose in 2008. When the Democrat congress was voted in it was largely because of the Iraq war. If they don't listen to the people that voted for them then they will loose! There only saving grace might be that the Rethugs **** up things worse in the the next two years.

RedPlanet

sceptre wrote:

Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson and Cleveland come to mind instantly as democrats from the east that have. If I went through the list of nominees I suspect I could find a few more. Obviously I'm not including Georgia as "east" and I could add on Van Buren but going back to 1840 might be pushing it.

Naw, the political landscape of America has forever changed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Before then even states like Texas would vote for the Democrats.
Since then, the only Democrats that can win the presidency are Southern Dems.

Gonzo_Reporter

sovtek wrote:

This is not altogether a bad thing. Neither did Bill when he got in. Obama is an opportunist and has no integrity. He's also not going to end the Iraq war and possibly supports attacking Iran, along with Hillary.
This is why the Democrats may loose in 2008. When the Democrat congress was voted in it was largely because of the Iraq war. If they don't listen to the people that voted for them then they will loose! There only saving grace might be that the Rethugs **** up things worse in the the next two years.

I can see that Obama not have much experience could be seen as a positive and i did say that him and Bill are quite alike. Im just saying that Americans mat actually choose a Leader how knows what they are doing rather than one that can just sweet talk you. Americans arent stupid as we whould like to think thay are just spoon fed wrong/biased information (or no information at all!) by their Govt. and their 'free' press.

As for Iran it is a potential timebomb but thankfully their President is losing support from his parties allies and citizens so he will probably be out by the next election (which are coming soon i think). He may just tone down his Anti West remarks. But their nuclear programme is definately a problem a new President will have to deal with.

Iraq might well be what 2008 is fought on too the Republicians have a lot to do in that regard. Their candidates will have to be 1st bipartisan and 2nd have to step away from the current President which few republicans like doing. But there are a few of these men that are but they will have to kiss a lot of babies. Or just hire Carl Rove.

jank

Like in the mid term elections I think the Republicans will find it hard to win.

Unpossible

RedPlanet wrote:

Naw, the political landscape of America has forever changed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Could you explain?

I'm asking out of ignorance, not trying to be funny.

sceptre

Unpossible wrote:

Could you explain?

I'm asking out of ignorance, not trying to be funny.

Put simply, pretty much all the former confederate states had voted Democrat in every election since 1876 but never voted for the Democrats in any election after 1964 except when Carter won in 1976. Before 1964, memories were still strong that it was a Republican president that beat them in the civil war and freed the slaves. After then they punished what they saw as the greater crime of taking steps to attempt to actually ensure that all citizens were equal before the law. No Democrat from outside the southern states has won an election since (Clinton's home state of Kentucky wasn't part of the confederacy but would generally be taken to be part of the group of southern states). George Wallace, running as an independent, even took five and a bit states in the 1968 election because of people who had always voted Democrat, didn't want to vote for Johnson's VP, Hubert Humphrey, and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Nixon.

Personally I wouldn't agree with the view a dem can't win the presidency without the deep south (and hence wouldn't agree with the view that only a southern dem can win), it's just been a little more difficult recently. After all, the Republicans won plenty of elections between 1876 and 1956 despite getting hammered in the former confederate states every time.

Victor

jhegarty wrote:

Rudolf Giuliani will be next president if she get nominated. He is only Republican who can compely distance himself from the Bush adminstirion but still have the support of Bush followers.

Giuliani doesn't have the state / national / military experience every other president has had.

crybaby wrote:

I think theres a serious danger shes going to chew up Obamba and spit him out already rumours of mud slinging ....

"Mud"?... ah you've started it yourself.

User45701 wrote:

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country

Ehem.

purple'n'gold

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country.

The only Middle Eastern country that has any respect for George Bush is Israel. Some of the other countries out there fear him but they don’t respect him. Actually I don’t think she will be president. The republicans will dig up sp much dirt on her it will bury her chances.

Unpossible

A Female president would have absolutely no respect in any middle eastern country.

I remember a few months back some of these countries claimed we (the west) were not truly tolerent, this would fire the ball back in their court.

jhegarty

Victor wrote:

Giuliani doesn't have the state / national / military experience every other president has had

In this race (the made up one in my head) you could say no other president was a woman...

storka

purplengold wrote:

The only Middle Eastern country that has any respect for George Bush is Israel. Some of the other countries out there fear him but they don’t respect him.

If anything i'd say the Middle East is praying she doesn't win because unlike dumbass Bush she wont just walk away and not deal witht them she'll be much tougher.

purplengold wrote:

Actually I don’t think she will be president. The republicans will dig up sp much dirt on her it will bury her chances.

If anything this is an advantage to her because they have already dug up everything they can, including making up lie afer lie to crush her and Bill. She's a pro at dealing with the Anti-Hillary Campaign where as Obama has never had it and will fade with it.

Guys its Hillary 08 for the dem nomination, look at the latest poles beating nearest rival by over 20%!

MorriganGael

Ireland has had lots of Irish Women War Queens, Maeve for one.

If Hillary Clinton gives 5 billion USD to our Ireland a year, instead of to Israel, then she's okay with me.

If Hillary Clinton gives Ireland F-16 jet fighters and helicopter gunships and money to buy German destroyers and submarines and a few nuclear cruise missiles, then I vote for Hillary.

If Hillary diverts all the Billions of dollars now going to Israel and sends them to Ireland, telling Israel they must accept all the Lebanese and Syrian immigrants and multiculturalize that apartheid in Israel, or no more US democracy money.

Israel needs to open up her borders to the Syrians and Egyptians in order to qualify for any more US funding. Israel is a racist apartheid state, Ireland is not.

Hillary should put Ireland ahead of Israel on the F-16 fighter jets aid subject.

Does Israel ever figure out that if they opened their borders and had a loving multicultural state, that they would even need the F-16 fighter jets?

U2 needs to make a concert for Palestine, like George Harrison's "Concert for Bangaldesh."

Hillary has to get wiser to international politics before the Americans should vote for her.

User45701

i don't like the idea of us getting weapons the way you said.everyone will know!
i mean if the us gives us weapons the whole world will know like the way we know they give Israel weapons but as it is now noone knows about all the secret underground and underwater WMD faculties Ireland has. When we finally finish building our naval armada and court massive air force in secret Ireland will finally be able to take over the world...

Well anyway on a different note would Hillery not have a interest in the north? Clinton did and i think she did/does as well.
The question is would us intervention be good or bad then things start to heat up up the north?

MorriganGael

Bill Clinton, her former husband, and president, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England. Thus Bill Clinton had English and Loyalist sentiments.

User45701 wrote:

Well anyway on a different note would Hillery not have a interest in the north? Clinton did and i think she did/does as well.
The question is would us intervention be good or bad then things start to heat up up the north?

Hillary had a very bad last few years of marriage with Bill Clinton. Furthermore she has no long standing ties to England.

There is no evidence that Hillary is more fond of Northern Ireland than the Republic of Ireland. In fact because of her acrimonious relationship with Bill, she would very likely be even pro-Republic, but her advisors would be telling her what to do in any event.

purple'n'gold

I read on a yahoo news report that Hilary is being compared to Mrs Thatcher. Seeing how that horrible excuse for a human being is so reviled by Irish people everywhere, she (Hilary) would be advised to shy away from comparisons to her. She cleaned up the Irish vote in New York in both of her senate elections. She will want to keep it that way.

sceptre

MorriganGael wrote:

Bill Clinton, her former husband, and president, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, England. Thus Bill Clinton had English and Loyalist sentiments.

Er, please let me be the first to say you're taking the piss. Even assuming you're not trolling, which frankly you are, that would mean that others with "English and Loyalist sentiments" include Boisfeuillet Jones, Bill Fletcher, Terry Malick, Gen . Wes Clark, Lester Thurow, Kris Kristofferson (no, I'm not kidding), Joe Nye, Edward de Bono, John Searle, Robert van de Graaff (obviously now dead), Bill Bradley and Stansfield Turner. Which is rather laughable.

MorriganGael

I recall reading something, a statement, Bill Clinton once made about Northern Ireland, it was pretty mild and it looked he was being pushed a bit to comment on the issue.

We also have to remember that not every Rhodes Scholar goes into politics, or cares about politics, as Bill Clinton did.

I should clarify that the Bill Clinton "sentiments" that I had read of were mild and probably some political favor. I don't think Bill Clinton had any very strong sentiments regarding Ireland. I'm sure Kennedy did.

One thing about Bill and Hillary is they are tenacious survivors, and while they may hold popular, common, democratic and not elitist political ideals, their will to survive in US politics has caused both of them to form some very unusual alliances. They are a force and unpredictable.


I do see Hillary reacting to some of her husbands policies, as Hillary did change over time, though they both did share a common political life in their beliefs. One of the reasons Hillary and Bill bonded together early on were shared political beliefs and that people should take notes on.

Most likely Hillary will concede to a Vice President position after a very tough campaign. That alone will achieve what she wants to.

kevmy

I reckon that Hilary will win the Primary pretty easily. Obama doesn't really expect to win it I'd say. She's in it to win he's not. He'll settle for a VP slot with Hilary. His anti-war stance, leftist image and common touch will soften Hillarys cold image (along with Bill of course).
Edwards couldn't beat Kerry, he won't beat Hillary anyway he looks to sleazy to win a national election.

As for the race for the White House the above ticket might pull it off. They should win Illionois, California and New York. Three huge states, add in most of New England probably Kentucky and Arkansas as well and they'd nearly be there before any work is done.Also don't underestimate the Bill factor, if he can bring in some of his swing voters with Hillary they'll win it. While a lot of people don't like Hillary most of them wouldn't vote for the Dems anyway.

Her gender will bring in as much as it will lose so she'll be ok in that respect. As for the Middle East not respecting a woman then why make Condi Secetary of State.

RedPlanet

You usually get these unheard-of candidates winning Primaries.
Like Clinton, govenor of Missouri, nobody had heard of him until the primaries.
Same with John Kerry last time.
Id say it'll be the same round, these big named canidates like Hillary may take an early thumping then pull out.
My only hope is that she doesn't spoil the pot, for the rest of the dems.

oscarBravo

Conspiracy stuff moved to here.

User45701

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070128/ap_on_el_pr/clinton2008_13

She now says its bush's responsibility to withdraw all us troops before he leaves office and passes his problems to the next commander and chief

purple'n'gold

Her gender will bring in as much as it will lose so she'll be ok in that respect. As for the Middle East not respecting a woman then why make Condi Secetary of State.

She is just a token black in Bush’s administration. Albeit intelligent and clever, but any one of hundreds would do her job as well as she does it. It really makes no difference that she is a woman (to the Middle Eastern leaders) they know that she has no real authority. That lies firmly with the president.

MorriganGael

oscarBravo wrote:

Conspiracy stuff moved to here.

Sorry, yes we should try to stick to political facts.

She did look worried to me in that American satellite broadcast. It could have been just that she's always been a single subject press conference shooter, that is prepared for handling a certain issue a certain way, and when faced with the reality of 40 major news agencies with prepared questions which are worded to represent vested, monied, interests, that she looked a bit out of her depth.

To win the American people she will have to talk troop withdrawl, to win the rich bankers who want cheaper oil for industry, she will have to be pro-war behind the scenes.

Her ability to play both games and smile convincingly in the TV cameras while doing that, will determine if the poor and the rich will both support her.