About the voices arguing for a premature end to this contest, before the Democratic voters' voices have been heard, it's JUST SPIN. Hillary Clinton is just getting started. The competitor is starting to show some cracks with barely any media attention (finally). Let's get one of these two fully battle-hardened for the November contest, where a Democrat will prevail!

Oh Really?

Perhaps ABC should direct Mr. Schumer to the forum boards, and he can see exactly how divisive this campaign has been to the party.

I agree WestCoastMessenger. On with the race for the Dem nominee! People like you and I will continue to educate the new voters about the process being a spirited competition designed to select and prepare candidates to be a competitive nominee.

Hey "DCVoter", I've heard that rumor that there are paid bloggers from Hillary's competitor, but if there are they are doing a really poor job out here. On the other hand there are many reps of the RNC out here, but I doubt if many are paid, I suspect they are willing volunteers, and do get quite nasty, so there is no oversight going on. All that being said, the Democratic party will unite on a ticket that will be able to defeat the Republicans (as long as they don't cheat).

I'm an independent. Obama would have my support in a national election. If its Hillary, then for me - its McCain. Hillary cannot win nationally and she can't win the democratic primary without both more kitchen-sink Karl Rove inspired dirty politics plus superdelegate shenanigans. Hillary Clinton has the same potential right now as Ralph Nader. She can satisfy her egfo and help McCain or get out of the way and help everyone else.

In a war of negative campaign tactics, Hillary would lose, big time.

Last week, there was not much in the kitchen sink, but there was no counter-attack either.

C'mom, Barack... let's see some of that Chicago street experience... take it to them... we need to see you can defend our hard-earned turf... there will be plenty of opportunity as President to work on the big stuff. First, you have to show you can handle the ruthlessness of the Clintons.

Steve - yes as an Independent that is expected of you (I am independent also but I will not vote for a republican since that party has ruined our country and our world).

The Obama camp strategy has been to grow the Dem electorate, appeal to Indies and disgruntled Reps, and hope to pull enough of the Dem core voters to gain a majority and appear to be a uniter. He has not made a dent in the core and failed as a uniter. Your post only further confirms that.

As an Independent, my vote and my time devoted to this election relates to what I believe is best for our country and our world. I cant know your motivation but you have the right to cast your vote as you believe.

Clinton's strong suits: experience and national security. How's that going to play out against McCain? And the "red phone" ad? The McCain campaign could have a field day with that one if they so choose.

this still a democrcy and if im not mistaken just because someone does not have a college degree does not mean were stupid,life and raising a family are great colleges.interesting msnbc just had a graph showing that with florida and michigan hillary leads in the popular vote.also if this was a general election the electoral collage count so far would be 263 to 188 big states do count,so grow up,she is the better candidate,also he outspent her 2or 3 to one and couldnt close the deal so i guess he is the better manager.lol

Interesting definition here:

Gorgon - any of three sister monsters commonly represented as having snakes for hair, wings, brazen claws, and eyes that turned anyone looking into them to stone.

Using scare tactics wont change my vote or my posts Gorgon. Maybe the younger voters are still scared of monsters or identify with video games. Maybe jack Nicholson oughtta blog with ya. LOL

Since Wolfson brought up Rezko a hundred times and won by going negative.

Let's remember just a taste of what is about to come from the "right" now because they opened it up... and why the country moved to the republicans with George W. Bush.

Hillary is a fighter and is still standing after all this and people sell it as a good thing ugh.

Impeachment Hearings
Whitewater
Travelgate
Cattle Futures
Paula Jones Gennifer Flowers Monica Lewinsky
Disbarrment
Missing FBI Files
Marc Rich
Hillary's brother Hugh and the pardons
China and campaign Finance
WalMart Board crap
Norman Hsu
Peter Paul

and it goes on.

Obama won't go there as Hillary says the press hasn't been nice to her. As Hillary throws a fit about her opponent, who has never even broached this subjet matter sent out flyers pointing out an policy issues that were legitimate. A candidate who reprimands his staff if they hint at going negative while her campaign chair is hitting every reporter and news show with "NAFTA-gate" and Rezko. This is all anyone can come up with after a year of searching on Obama.

Oh yes, Hillary's been vetted.

LOL David - yes she has been vetted, 40 million dollars of our taxpayer money wasted by the Rep machine and still she is squeeky clean.

Do you really think that Rezko is the only thing that people can find on Obama? Try reading the RNC opposition research press release from June of last year and you will see the RNC is responsible for the negative strategies and that there is much more. Voters are aware of the RNC tactics to divide us.

Even the Dem SDs are saying Obama has been taking too long to address campaign issues and questions of judgement and must answer quickly if he hopes to remain competitive. These primary tactics are nothing and prepare the candidates to be nominees. As I suspected Obama cant hold up "under fire" and Clinton can. We shall see if that trend continues.

DCVoter you call her squeeky clean. U R kidding right.

She's been "tested"? What about McCain and his five and a half years as a prisoner of war?

Self-destructive is right! All OH & TX dems have done is help John McCain. Hillary Clinton will never be president. It going to either be President Obama or President McCain. All OH & TX did is make it more likely to be the latter. Bunch of dummies if you ask me.

Speaking of dummies: simply reiterating Senator Obama's middle name (even in CAPITAL LETTERS), like a broken record, isn't going to defeat him, and isn't even relevant to this debate. Get over it.

The question has been posed about the Democrats, who is winning now? There are two easy answers to this. In number of states won, delegates pledged and campaign strength in decency and honesty - Barack Obama. In ability to smear, twist the truth and generally act as a gutter politician - Hillary Clinton.
When are the Democrats going to wake up to the fact that John McCain will make mincemeat of Clinton in a Presidential election but would have a much more difficult task with someone he can still respect, Barack Obama?
Maybe the question should be, who is losing now? Answer, the Democrats.

Gorgon: Thanks for the vote smart reference, I will review it. It seems odd to me however that you would discount voting Republican because of their recent and profound transgressions. Isn't it possible that McCain is better than that, that he deserves a fresh look? I agree that Bush was a disaster but well, the country got what they paid for with him. Thinking that an inability to articulate a thought was populist and that ignorance was folksy led the country to follow the single issue extremists into a ridiculous choice (twice). Hillary is old style politics; say anything, try out a stump speech and see how it flies... I wouldn't vote for her...

Here is what is destructive to the Democratic Party

Michelle Obama says she is finally proud of this country, like there is nothing else to be proud of, because people vote for her husband.

Barack Obama says a little girl should hold her head high and be able to say I am an American.

What are the thinking? If it so great in the middle east, Asia, and Africa, he should move there and run for President.

People do things in those countries much more different than we do.

And by the way Barack, I have never voted for a Republican, always for Democrats.

Lay off the American thing, becuase I am an American before anything else, including religion, ethnicity, or political party affliation. I swear an oath of allegiance to the American flag, not the Democratic Party Banner. I simply identify with them.

I keep hearing HRC say the "nation" is ready to decide this election now that serious questions have been raised regarding her opponent. I hear her supporters say that the smaller states(where Senator Obama thumped her and the "Maverick") with caucuses/primaries don't matter, "America" has spoken. I guess the "nation" that is ready to decide this election is Penn. and America now only consists of Cali., NY, NJ, Texas, and Ohio as those are the states that matter, because in November Cali, NY, NJ are not going to go to the Democratic nominee (whomever they may be) right? Yeah, one of those smaller states with caucuses/primaries that don't matter would have been so good for Al Gore in 2000, I mean he won Cali, NY, NJ and Penn also in the general. Yeah, that's a solution. Real smart.

Just for the record, I'm an independent hoping for a change from the Bush/Cheney years. I don't think Clinton can win against McCain on experience, national security, and/or who would make the better commander-in-chief. To beat McCain we need someone willing to unite the American people, someone new and fresh, not the old-style politics as ususal.

She's ready to go "toe-to-toe" with McCain? Who would all those blue collar workers rather have go toe-to-toe with Medvedev/Putin, Ahmadinejad, Musharraf, and Chavez?

On the contrary, it is energizing democrats and bringing new members to the party.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this contest is hurting dems, in fact its two on one against McCain.

I think if he can't focus his attacks on one ofthem but they can both go after him, it's better for the democrats.

All McCain has to do is wait until after the brokered convention and then use all those negative ads the Dem nominee used on the loser. They're doing his work for him.

Maybe I am standing alone here but...He doesn't have to spend his time attacking them or deciding who to attack. Hillary, Wolfson and Penn have seen to that. Unfortunately Obama puts the people, the party and the country in front of his own legacy.
I can't believe people don't see that he is who he says he is. With all the things he could go after with Hillary and her character he says he doesn't want to do that. If it were me, I would have taken her down on every last issue and I think the RNC is like me.

Steve - McCain is a moderate who leans right which seems ok in itself even if I dont agree. But he has shown in this campaign that he is willing to let the party control him and force him to pretend to be conservative. He is also more old school and set in his ways with nothing but military and congressional experience. He has no experience with real America as a result and admits to being weak on the economy. All things considered, cowering down to the party and trying to pretend he is something he is not just to get elected is what knocks him out of the running because if the party controls him now... they will control him in office like they did Bush Sr which lead to the situation we are in today with his son being worse.

lynn and others - i dont think you are understanding the small state versus large state argument. The popular vote count of all those who have voted goes to Hillary. The states with the most electoral college impact goes to Hillary 2-1. Winning lots of small states of which most will vote Rep in Nov is irrelevant to electability. The DNC and the SDs have always said they have to consider the end goal and that is to ensure the candidate chosen (when the popular vote is close) is the one that has the greatest electability.

Take a moment and take a look at where each candidates delegates have come from. Hillary has been the clear favorite in states with primaries, with the vast majority of Obama's delegate lead being obtained through the caucus process, which greatly magnifies the influence of core supporters.

Unless a change has been made that I'm not aware of, there won't be a caucus to determine the next president of the US in November. Those Dems who are stating that the Superdelegates need to reflect the will of their party need to very careful in interpreting what exactly it is.

As I lifelong Republican, I must admit to enjoying watching the Democrats take an election year that should be a slam dunk for them, due to the demoralized status of the Republican party, and turn it into a close contest through the horrible performance of Congress and the idiotic rules the party has set up to nominate their candidate. Thanks!!!

dl - Obama's campaign premise is his judgement. If he cant hold up under fire with simple facts about him being made public and actively participating in lies perpetrated by his own camp and not firing them immediately proves he is not ready to be a President. His judgement is proven to be flawed on several fronts: Rezko, NAFTA/CTV, and the subcomittee. That is why he is losing momentum.

Bill Clinton is a great speech maker, shrewd politician, connects with the voters, extremely intelligent, had 12 years of experience as a Governor, 14 years running against the RNC, experience with the attorney general's office, and was a young outsider in his first term. Obama cant hold a candle to him no matter how hard he tries to run a similar campaign.

He professes to be the candidate of change yet as time goes by we see he is just another politician. He criticized Dynasties as bad for the country (the Clinton's are not a dynasty but the Bush's are). Yet when he wasnt competitive early in the campaign he reached out to get himself adopted by the largest dynasty in our history - the Kennedys (and only half of them bought that ticket).

His popularity in the Senate is with the liberal Dems like Kennedy and Kerry clans. To think that he can accomplish anything after this campaign against the system is foolish. He is a junior senator easily controlled by his advisors by his own admission - this is Ted Kennedy's chance to control the WH.

Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing... in most cases it is bad. Smart change is incremental and based on a vision combined with experience and proven track record of bipartisanship without sacrificing the needs of the base. With Clinton, she has been vetted, she knows how to beat the Reps, she is not a blank slate. Clinton represents that smart change.

CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON. YOU ARE OUR FUTURE PRESIDENT!

Let me point to a few very important things here:

1) Senator Obama really has no message apart from the word CHANGE. The JUDGEMENT ARGUMENT has now proven to be weak. His judgement is flawed (remember REZKO AND THE MANSION - IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD A MANSION, BUY WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. OR ELSE, WAIT, SAVE, AND THEN BUY LATER. SIMPLE JUDGEMENT BASIC 101 WISDOM.

2) The Canadian-NAFTAGATE has also proven that Senator Obama's slogan to change things in Washington, DC - well, He is just another politician telling people to hear what they want to hear, and then he tells foreign countries something else. This is not how to restore America's honor around the world.

3) Senator Obama is not in charge of his own campaign. How can his own Sr. Economic Advisor meet with a foreign country without his knowledge? WHO IS IN CHARGE OF HIS CAMPAIGN? IS HE JUST A FRONT FOR SOME OTHER POWERFUL FIGURES IN THE SHADDOW? This could turn out to be another BUSH-CHENNEY thing!

4) When Senator Clinton stressed experience and policy, Senator Obama talked about how much money they have raised. They outspent Sen. Clinton by 4-1, and yet they lost. That tells me something.

5) Sen. Obama said he will not serve "Special Interests" in Washington, DC. Well, now we are discovering that whe "HIS PERSONAL INTERESTS" are at stakes, he is willing to bend the rules. THIS IS NOT CHANGE. IT IS POLITICS AS USUAL.

6) Last night, we all saw that Sen. Obama is not capable of FIGHTING. He panicked. His supporters did not applause when he congratulated Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain. It speaks volumes: THE AIR IS OUT OF THE BUBBLE.

Hello Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN MUST BE SEATED!

Hillary Clinton squeaky clean???? You are kidding right?
She is as dirty as politicans come and that is quite filthy. However, Senator Obama chose to try and run a campaign that was positive and issue driven. His personal mea culpa. I think that if she wants the kitchen sink approach he should accomodate her in that. He has been very kind and considering what the press has on Mrs. Clinton, the charges of being overly tough on her just don't stick.
As to some on these boards (and if you frequent here you know who they are) they are paid and volunteer members of the Clinton campaign. That is ok. Everybody needs a job and a hobby I guess, but don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending you are just plain John or Jane Q. American.

And, if you think that repeating the line often enough that all the dems and indies will come together in the fall in support of Hillary as a nominee versus McCain will come true, well you can dream on. The "party" might well be over for many. Nothing and I repeat nothing will unite the Republicans like Hillary Clinton.

And to answer that McCain supports the war and the surge and is unelectable because of it, dream on. As proven by the success of these attack ads, racist e-mails and "code" speak used by the Clintons and their campaign, the electorate is just not that bright as proven by yesterday's Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island totals.

No, the republicans aren't totally thrilled with McCain but they will unite (have united) and they will drag out their nice big fat notebook of "stuff" on Hillary and the Clintons and it will be ugly and bloody. But it will work.

For the sake of discussion, let's identify which candidates appeal to which voters:

McCain - (moderate right maverick pretending to be conservative) old guard republicans, maybe some of the conservative base (many are disgruntled), and a good portion of the military voters - puts the party first, wont be more than a 1 termer due to age/health (this is his last hurrah)

Clinton - (moderate left with no pretense) core democrats, moderate democrats, disgruntled moderate republicans, disgruntled moderate indies - puts beating the Rep first in the interest of the party, young/healthy enough to go two terms

Obama - (left wing liberal with some pretense) new young voters, liberal lattes (rich left wing), disgruntled liberal independents, anti-Clinton disgruntled republicans - puts his own political ambitions first (even hinted at this several times saying he is an ambitious politician with an ego), young/healthy enough to survive two terms but could also run again in 8 years and survive two terms after gaining experience and vetting

It is pretty clear that a unity ticket could beat McCain just on deographics alone. The electoral picture shows Clinton 2-1 on electoral votes compared to Obama based on the voting so far. So even if you dont vote the issues or qualifications, all things considered... if you want the Dems to win the WH, vote smart and vote Clinton to ensure for a clear nomination. She will do the right thing and offer Obama the veep slot if he vets clear of the Rezko deal.

Chip - here is some glass cleaner for those rose colored glasses... you cant be seriously believing Obama is above the fray and has not gone negative LOL... the RNC started the negative attack machine last June so last year's attacks are not hers... this year, Clinton's negative campaigning has always been in response to his negative attacks... she is just better at it than he is... he cant take the heat so far!... if that is true, he is not ready to be Prez... the primaries are not just about the will of the voters... it is also a way to prepare candidate to run in the GE... things are looking bad for him based on his own inability to handle things.. on with the race!

I think there's a problem with the argument that winning "democratic" states in primaries is more important to electability in a general election. It really breaks down to the make-up of the electorate. It would seem that winning independents in those hotly contested states would be the best barometer rather than being the choice of party faithfuls and clearly, Obama has been dominant among this group. The majority of non-democratic support for Hillary is malicious in intent and would not likely translate to general election support.

Winning Independents is certainly a factor for all the camps - after all we represent 44% of the electorate. However, where the Indies are located within the electorate is just as relevant because of the electoral college makeup. Even considering that, the latest estimate gave Clinton 263 electors whereas my more conservative analysis gives Clinton 252 electors because I try to consider the Indies and the cross over Reps trying to "fix" the primaries.

The RNC knew going in that their only chance is to divide the dem voters (which include most of the Independents) and hope for disgruntled dem voters and indies to vote for McCain in anger come Nov.

The DNC knew going in that they needed to present a variety of candidates to the voters and let the process play itself out with a goal of unity to the broadest base. Their key factor is unity but the core is the stronghold. There are enough in the core and the disgruntled indies and reps who support Clinton to beat the Reps in the battleground states. The primary last night proved she can lose part of the core and still win. Every expert is saying this is "re-start" time.

If there is no unity at all behind Clinton, statistically, the new voters who are disgruntled will likely not vote. The Indies will likely split the vote since they have no allegiance. Could it be enough to tip it for McCain? - possibly but not likely. Clinton is too smart for that now. If she gets the nom, she and her surrogates and the SDs will ensure the running mate and the convention will bring the party voters together with enough unity that they can win.

Remember Steve, 80% of the dem voters are satisfied with either Clinton or Obama. What you see here as divisive is hogwash and fabricated by the Obama and RNC camps.

Here is the ongoing analysis I am keeping track of: For states that have held primaries/caucuses for both parties so far -

Red States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 78 electors. 52 Clinton, 26 Obama
Blue States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 142 electors. 102 Clinton, 40 Obama
Blue Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 74 electors. 36 Clinton, 38 Obama
Red Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 102 electors. 62 Clinton, 40 Obama

Electoral totals so far: 252 Clinton, 144 Obama

As you can see, I did not include Rep strongholds. I did include Dem strongholds to give fair consideration to Clinton and Obama both. In 2004 the clear Red states accounted for 150 electors and the clear Blue states accounted for 140 electors. This time, 3 of the Red states I predict will be battleground states. The primary voter turnouts are proving to be bad news for the RNC because those states may swing even if they didnt meet swing criteria. Bottom line? McCain will have a hard time no matter who he is up against unless the RNC succeeds in splitting the Dem votes. That is his only chance.

I/m not sure I get the logic of counting electors based on primary results as if that had relevance to a general election result. Is that what you're doing or am I missing something...

I will try to explain... for the GE, it is all secret ballot (like primaries) and the electoral college determines the winner not the popular vote. In the dem primaries, delegates are apportioned based on popular vote. In the dem caucuses, delegates are apportioned also but as we are seeing they do not represent the popular vote.

The SDs are in the mix to offset that discrepancy. Their goal is to use their best judgement as to what is good for the party and vote for the candidate who is most electable (providing party unity). A strong consideration is therefore based on which candidate can win states with enough electoral impact to get the 270 electors in Nov to win.

So to compare, we look back at 2004 and states that had greater than 5% difference in the vote between Rep and Dem nominees in the GE, are strongholds. States with less than 5% difference are swing (battleground) states. The only way to compare is to look at voter turnout comparisons between the parties and percentage each dem candidate took. Rep primary wins in blue states with high dem turnout are irrelevant. Dem primary wins in reed states with high rep turnout are irrelevant. Only the states in the breakdown I gave are relevant wins for Obama and Clinton.

The battleground states in most cases are the big states with diverse populations and lots of electors. Clinton proved she can win enough to win. She has 252 of the 270 needed and there are 10 states left in the primaries. Obama only has 144 and there are not enough electors left for him to compete on that point. Does that help?

But I don't *want* Democrats and Republicans fighting each other for the next four years. I want them to sit down and solve the issues this country is facing.

If Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, I will vote against the party and go towards McCain. This probably will be his only term, and therefore would not be beholden to anyone in either party. I'm going to go with the choice that has the best chance of getting things done. Clinton will not do this. Even now she speaks of "fighting the republican machine". Our problems are far beyond party ideology right now.

I'm not a disgruntled liberal independent DCVoter, I'm *terrified*. We're in deep doodoo. No amount of party backwash from either side will sway me.

Luckily Obama has painted himself into a corner by saying he didn't want to get into dirty politics. Basically he has run on that notion from the beginning. For him to go negative against Clinton makes him a liar. If he goes negative then all he has been spouting has been words. There is no change there.

He get a little negative press now he's whining like a baby.

Hillary has been erratic since Iowa. Her message was erratic, her ground game was non-existant. They had no long term plan or vision beyond Super Tuesday when the "inevitable" was suppose to happen.

How many tears, loans and negativity will she need to put out to stay in this race?

Now it looks like Michigan and Florida are coming into play, because the high-up in the DP dont want to make the tough decision toward or the other.

Someone get me some Airbourne.
I think I'm going to be sick.

It is obvious the Democratic primary process is not over. Senator Clinton has done well in the large states. Senator Obama has only been in the lead for ~ a month. He has only been vetted by something now approaching an unbiased press for a week. This rush to candidacy, without sufficient, unbiased vetting, could cost the Dem’s the election come November. I have heard admissions over and over again from the press this past week about the biased (against Senator Clinton) reporting that has been ongoing. The polls have been turning around (again), and one of the latest polls I heard indicated she was more likely to beat McCain than Obama. Perhaps THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTREUNNERS COULD AVOID DAMAGING THE PARTY BY DOING MORE CAMPAIGNING AGAINST McCAIN. Who does a better job at that would be voteworthy. Moreover, the press needs to get done to the job of unbiased investigation and reporting. [PS ABC has been the least offensive in the bias regard IMO, and one of the quickest to respond to the lack of balance.]

People, we get what we deserve. In 2000 and 2004, we elected (or appointed, or did not elect but it was made so) President Bush into office. Think back to the arguments you had with friends and think of where they are now? Bush was a huge mistake and made the for the worst president over the last century. But people were mislead or too lazy to learn the truths and voted through ignorance. We got what we deserved because people were too lazy to get involved and learn on their own. However, this country has learned over the past 8 years. Despite the whining by Limbaugh and others, the country does not want a NeoCon in office. This is why McCain has easily won the republican nomination. No one wants a neo-con. On the democratic side, there are two excellent candidates to select from. The democratic process is one that the US should be proud of, its the one we are fighting wars for remember? Anointing a candidate before its clear who won is right out of the Neo-con playbook of "removing basic rights from the people". These candidates are not going to destroy each other, they are smarter than that. It will get dirty but its part of the plan. You see, if Hilary smears Obama now, and he answers her in an effective way, what can John McCain do in the general election? It will be old news by then and will have been resolved. The NY Times article on McCain and the reported improper relations with the lobbyist is an excellent example. He refuted it strongly, he took an early lump and now its a non-story, its not newsworthy. The same benefit is afforded to Obama and Clinton. This process will make either candidate more viable and the only destruction to the party comes from people who whine on emotionally about their beloved candidate. If you believe that this is destroying rather than uniting the party, you're dream will come true. You'll find a way for it to destroy the party. Keep you eye on the prize. No matter what, the US will not be run by a neo-con for the next 4 years. That is the real prize.

I am amazed at how clean a campaign the GOP has run compared to the endless mud slinging in the dems side. I do understand it is a close race, so it is probably more likely to be nasty. Also, Why do the parties get to tell the people of any state when they can hold and not hold their primaries. Why is it not up to the states? that smells of rigging to me. Now dean wants floridians to pay for a new primary? let the people of every state decide, and you wont be asked questions about your archaic methods.

it obvious who the Clinton supporters are, the ones who know she can't surpass Obama in the delegate count but are willing to destroy the party no matter what the cost including the likes of Schumer. The superdelegates need to step cast their support for Obama so Hillary will rein herself in and stop blooding the democrat nominee. Why will we continue to let the republicans control our election by giving them opportunity to vote for Hillary in Ohio and Texas (which they did) to keep her paying for the attacks against Obama. Democrats enough is enough!!! Bring this to a halt now!!!