Obama and Huckabee are projected to win. Thoughts?

Join the Conversation

  • dayumsam

    lazyfat-fat, please tell me you’re joking. Ron Paul wants to overturn roe v. wade. that’s just the tip of the iceberg, really.

  • Carex

    Personally, I’m very excited. This is the first election for which I’ve both been incredibly enthusiastic about a candidate, and watched that candidate win (even if it is just one state).
    I attended the caucuses, and was most struck by how people’s preferences broke down age-wise. In my precinct, almost all of the 40 or so people under age 30 (of whom I’m one) were in Obama’s corner. Edwards had a handful of younger supporters, and Clinton had almost none.
    Anecdotal, of course, but the exit polls show the same trends.
    Even if Obama isn’t your first choice, you’ve got to be excited by the turnout for the Dems: over 230,000, which is almost double what we produced in 2004 and about double what the Republicans managed tonight. I have a feeling the Repubs are going to get crushed come election time. As for Huckabee, if he doesn’t get crushed in the next few states, he’ll lose mightily during the general election. Could actually end up being a nice repudiation of fundamentalist politics if that happens.

  • thisisendless

    In the states that have caucuses, they do not have primaries. The caucus is in essence their primary. Also it is just regular people “voting.”
    It isn’t a private vote. It is a public group setting like someone else mentioned.

  • gst_scholarship18

    lazyfat, the caucuses are votes from regular folks…I want to clarify on the process…
    On the Dem side, in each precinct a candidate must have 15% of the votes to be considered “viable.” If a candidate is not viable, their head goes over to other camps and basically trades votes. The second tally is taken and the percentages dictate the number of delegates to the state convention. The popular vote is not revealed. Thus, we only know how many delegates a candidate is getting. The delegates are the seats in the convention that determine who gets the nomination. The candidate with the MOST delegates earn the party’s nomination.
    The Republican side of the Iowa caucus works much more like a primary, where-in there is no issue of viability. Both the popular vote and the number of delegates are recorded. I believe that the Republican caucus uses secret ballots (versus the Dems who are counted, yes…like in elementary school).
    It’s pretty confusing how it all works, but I want to emphasize one more point. I am seeing a lot of people write that it’s just one state and who cares, etc. I agree with that point – Iowa is just one state. However, for the millions of American individuals and groups who use information shortcuts in their political decision making, a winner in Iowa dictates who they will vote for. Numbers are numbers and a win is a win…let’s make sure that every vote counts and the people we are voting for are the ones we believe can truly effect change across the U.S., not just in Iowa or D.C.
    Feminist love and goodnight peace to all :)

  • idratherbedrunk

    Well for the Democrats the race is on between Clinton and Obama. Obama has a reasonable chance if he gets most of Edwards support.
    As for Huckabee, lol. They can’t really nominate that guy so they’ll all get behind someone real fast, probably McCain.
    I hope Huckabee is the nominee because that’s just a sign that the Republican party is collapsing.

  • judgesnineteen

    I believe Ron Paul is also against gay people in the military, and he wants us to drop out of the UN because apparently they tax our guns. And he specifically spells out his stance on racism, which is basically “if you pretend to be color-blind, it will go away,” ignoring the fact that minorities are currently at a disadvantage from birth and the free market won’t help that. I was a little excited about him when I first heard of how different he was. But now I’m not.

  • skilled-junkie

    I want Hillary to be the next president. Looking at her life, she has shown me the things she cares about: the people. She has actually demonstrated that she will go and pursue these things. I don’t see it with any other candidate; I hear talk but no walk.
    I am always amazed that feminists in this country are more often against Hillary than for her (at least in my NOW chapter and among my “hippie” friends. I don’t get it. Here is a woman that fought the fights like the rest of us and more and we have the one opportunity to say she is as good as anyone. No, instead, we put her through the double standard grinder and support someone who is more likely than not perpetuate the status quo. Women are 51% of U.S. population and we haven’t seen one woman in the driving seat! When will women wake up? The chances are that if not Clinton, then we might not see another woman for decades again! How many women are willing to go through the hell she is going through? And how many women have the connections to be even remotely viable for that post?
    I am sad that people can’t see past the Senate votes that Hillary cast. If they could, they’d see the biggest change possible for our society to include women as equal and potent.
    My belief (and hope!) is that Iowa caucus doesn’t show at all what the rest of the country wants. I suspect Iowans are more conservative than the rest of the U.S. Looking at Huckabee’s result, I can’t think any other way.

  • thesupershasha

    I’m really excited about this upcoming election because I just turned 18 last summer and so this will be the first time I get to vote. I don’t know too much about the different candidates, but I’m trying to learn as much as I can. If anyone has any good websites or anything please leave a comment and let me know.
    I do, however, know that I’m definitely against Huckabee. I love the idea of the t-shirt and I too got the reference.


    I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss Huckabee as a joke, or easy win. He’s got the easy, smooth talking charm of a televangelist, a “folksy” sense of humor, and worse, seems to genuinely believe what he’s selling. The first time I saw him speak, it sent me into a cold sweat.
    While his politics are frighteningly radical, his personality is not–and this win shows how quickly he’s gained a following. Nationally, I think he could easily woo the complacent, non-researching American public, and in a Huckabee vs. Obama race, I don’t think Obama would win. Even more nauseating, with the amount of presidential power Bush has accumulated in his reign, Huckabee would hardly have to make an effort to knock over the first in a long series of conservative dominoes.
    I very much hope that my instincts about him are wrong.

  • lazyfat-fat
  • 88mph

    “I am sad that people can’t see past the Senate votes that Hillary cast.”
    I’m not.
    Emotional responses should not be what you base your vote on. The politics of the candidate should be.
    I’m deeply pleased that many, many feminists see and understand this.
    I’m sad when people can’t see anything but “It’s a woman, I must vote for her!”. That’s a disastrous route.
    The fact that people can’t “look past her Senate votes”, to me, is a good thing.
    It means people are, for once, AWAKE. They’re actually reading about what their candidates do, say, and think, politically, instead of listening to mudslinging commercials and campaign ads.
    “I am always amazed that feminists in this country are more often against Hillary than for her…”
    Probably because they understand that the candidates politics and beliefs are more important than their gender.
    It’s easy to tell which crowd you’re in, when you say “I wouldn’t vote for Clinton”. You either get “Well, what does she do that you disagree with?” or you get “WOMAN HATE IS THE ONLY REASON!!!”
    Though, this entire election is sort of disappointing to me. No one is running that I’d really feel good voting for. Though, the popular vote doesn’t matter, so it’s all moot.

  • AndromacheLamenting

    I have to admit, I am deeply disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win this primary.
    Now, I may really be missing out here, because I always seem to have the worst luck when listening to what Barack Obama has to say, but he’s yet to come out with any particular stance that impresses me, or persuades me that he, you know, has a platform. I listened to his victory speech tonight, and was baffled at the amount of simple, thoughtless, crowd-pleasing populism – this is supposed to be the voice of change everyone keeps babbling on about?
    I guess what I really want to know is, why do people have such faith in the man? He’s a politician. Let’s face it. He may not “lie” as such any more than any other politician does, but like all politicians he tells people what they want to hear as best he can without contradicting himself. And so he speaks about change and hope (using, by the way, very Clintonian catchphrases), but doesn’t really say much about what change, or what hope, and I’m left feeling confused.
    With Hillary Clinton, it’s the devil you know. EVERYBODY knows Hillary Clinton’s flaws. I grew up with them, we’ve all read about them in the newspapers for a decade and a half. You know what you’re getting: someone who micromanages, someone with more ego than they need, someone who’s reputed to be a bit megalomaniacal.
    But with Hillary Clinton, I DO know that she’s the only Democratic Candidate I’ve seen to explicitly address women’s rights as an important part of her campaign. She’s the only candidate I’ve seen talk about the wage gap, the way poc and poorer women are disproportionately affected by institutionalized sexism. The only candidate I’ve seen address the issues that really matter to me.
    But I still don’t know what I’m getting with Barack Obama.
    I know I gotta be missing SOMETHING, because thousands of people don’t vote for no reason at all. But what am I missing, exactly?

  • katiedivina

    I’m thrilled about Obama–and Huckabee for that matter. Huckabee’s win is evidence that the evangelicals are uncomfortable backing a Mormon, even though Romney is the more viable candidate. I predict that whoever wins the republican nomination will have an extremely difficult time gaining widespread conservative support. Huckabee alienates the moderates and business interests and everyone else alienates the evangelicals.
    I’m just really excited for the Democratic party right now–we’re energized, Obama has proved that his message of hope is inspiring more people to participate… :)

  • Mina

    “‘I am always amazed that feminists in this country are more often against Hillary than for her…’
    “Probably because they understand that the candidates politics and beliefs are more important than their gender.”
    Indeed. Remember U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher?

  • ProFeministMale

    I am not in complete shock for the Dems side, I called it a few days ago. But I am surprise Mikey would …Jesus, Christ …literally.
    Although I would say a lot of people are so fucking stupid. I was at a Hookah bar last night constantly checking my phone for results, and some of the people there were saying “If Obama or ‘Hillary’ (goddamn it, she has a last name) win, I am voting Republican.” WTF?
    A friend called from Iowa and said we have cause for concern, because he talked to a few people who said unless Edwards win, they are staying home because they refuse to vote for “a woman or a nigger …” direct quote.
    But I wouldn’t let Iowa be the representation of most of America – I am not calling the primaries until Feb. 5.
    Anyone ready for Super Tuesday …

  • Amber schn0562

    I am horrified by the prospect of Huckabee, and I am still hopeful for Clinton.

  • dee

    Huckabee won’t be the nominee, but if someone like McCain chose him as a running mate….

  • Nikita

    Huckabee frightens me… he has the same politics as bush but he’s more intelligent and knows how to win people over. That is a terrifying combination.
    Thankfully I live in Canada. Fingers crossed that you won’t have to deal with his brand of zealot behaviour.

  • jacque

    I am still in shock over Huckabee. I realize that it was Iowa and they tend to be more conservative and whatnot, but the fact that anyone would vote for him just shocks (and scares) me. I figured a few nuts would, but does this mean there are a lot more nuts than I ever anticipated? He can not win. If we think women’s rights are cut back now, wait until Huckabee gets there. What really scares me is that he is an electable man, he was governor for Christs sake. He could win this and win the presidency to boot. It is a horrifying thought.

  • viceabbess

    Hooray for Obama!!!!
    As for Huckabee, he does not particularly frighten me anymore than the rest of the fucking wack jobs from the Republican party. I oscillate between the optimistic view that that Republican voters are just grossly uninformed, and that they are complete morons. Any thoughts?

  • polinerd

    I have to admit, I’m a little tired of hearing about how Ron Paul only votes for things that he considers to be Constitutional. That sounds really nice, and of course the Constitution should be protected as the most sacred of documents in this country, but there is more than one way it is interpreted. If this were not the case, Supreme Court votes would not be split. And quite frankly, the way Paul interprets the Constitution rather scares me.

  • viceabbess

    Hooray for Obama!!!!
    As for Huckabee, I don’t find him particularly more frightening than the rest of the wack jobs on the Republican side. I oscillate between the optimistic view that Republican voters are just grossly uninformed, and the pessimistic view that they are complete morons. Any thoughts?
    In related news: did anyone hear coverage on NPR or elsewhere of the impromptu prayer circle that was started at Huckabee’s victory celebration? The audio was simultaneously amazing and utterly horrifying.

  • electronBlue

    My knee-jerk reactions: Obama, okay, sure, cool. I am truly undecided as to my favorite dem candidate. (Plus, as the senator from Illinois, he went to bat for Fermilab, which, like many other important research facilities, is getting its funding seriously cut in FY08, which is bad bad bad for American scientific research.) Huckabee? no, no, no, no, no. That guy is scary. The hope, as already thoroughly discussed above, is that he will either lose the nomination or be such an appalling candidate that he’ll be trounced by any Democrat in a national election.
    I agree that Biden is pretty great. There’s prolly no way he’ll get the nomination (insert rant about the media), and veep is a bit too impotent a post to lose him from the senate for. I’d really like to see him in a cabinet position, personally.
    Finally, Ron Paul. More than any candidate I’ve seen, he’s all about ideas (see his candidates@google interview on YouTube). And the thing is, he doesn’t operate according to the rules of the Dems or the GOP, so you can’t make assumptions about him based on the norms for those parties. He may wish to overturn Roe v Wade, although I only understood that he would eliminate federal funding for abortion. The flip side is that he would eliminate federal funding for a LOT of things, and would not federally criminalize abortion, because that would restrict individual rights. His platform is the reduction of the size of the federal government, and protection of individual liberties. It’s a different vision of the country. Because of the extremity of his views, I’m not really sure that I’d really like to see him in the oval office, but he has a unique (and clearly-stated!) vision for the country, and it’s worth serious consideration.

  • GottaBeMe

    We need to continue to remain active and informed adn encourage others to do so as well. If we don’t, we risk letting Huckabee, or someone who shares his beliefs, be elected and losing many of our rights.

  • Vervain

    So it could be either the overt homophobe or the closet homophobe?
    Well, whoopee.

  • Sibylle

    my thoughts exactly!
    If he gets elected, I’m moving to a country that doesn’t hate women..

  • kamikazebirds

    electronBlue, federal funding was already eliminated by the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Ron Paul, indeed, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and give power to the states, which would be a serious blow to women’s reproductive rights in the US.
    For more information, head to Google or here:

  • Rufus

    I totally understand why people are afraid of Huckabee. But, as has already been noted, the really good news here is that the Democrats got twice as many ballots as the Republicans. I know a lot of conservatives who aren’t happy at all with any of their candidates, and it’s entirely likely that they’ll either stay home or jump sides.

  • KittenFluff

    GottaBeMe, that is really the key. I think the people who support Huckabee simply haven’t done enough research to know what kind of person/ leader he is. I realize not everyone is pro-choice, but beyond his pro-life stance, he released a rapist who then raped and/or killed several more people; then there are the allegations of misappropriated funds, his general phoniness, etc., etc. I keep hearing that the Dems are all polling well against him and that any Democratic candidate would beat him, but didn’t we also kind of think no one could possibly vote for GWB a second time? Huckabee scares me far more than Bush — at least with Bush, I do believe (somehow) that there’s a decent guy under there; with Huckabee I just don’t see it.

  • Hype

    I can’t count the number of democrats (men mostly) who say that Huckabee seems like a good guy. Huckabee is a preacher. His occupation depends on people “liking” him. Hucky would be a disaster for everyone with his tax policies. And also, he knows next to nothing about foriegn policy. The other train wreck is Ron Paul. People who support him are having to overlook a lot of nut jobbery on his part. Not to mention the fact that he thinks it would be ok to leave the abortion issue up to the states… RP is like your crazy uncle who wears fatigues to thanksgiving dinner, drinks a lot and then ends up pissing himself and running around in the backyard with a pellet gun.

  • lyra27

    Vervain — re: the closet homophobe comment. I feel unsettled about this when it comes to Obama as well. But wasn’t he openly opposed to gay marriage during his Senate run? I’ve heard him talk about his religious beliefs on Larry King, and read a few pages of his latest book (albeit not the whole thing), and he kind of dances around his true feelings about homosexuals….that’s the impression I get anyway, that he personally thinks it’s a sin but won’t admit it straight out….in general he seems to believe he can separate his religion from his politics, which implies there is a difference there….which I have to say kind of makes me nervous….Is there anyone out there who has a better understanding of Obama in this regard?

  • tamiticu

    Happy about Obama and Edwards. Though honestly though I think I am going to end up voting for Obama I am thrilled that I have a nagging feeling of indecision, and for once it is not because I’m trying to choose the lesser of two evils.
    As for Huckabee, I groaned when I heard he won. But then I thought about it and really I think I would have groaned for ANY of the Republican candidates. They really are all terrifying prospects for me. Even those who may have once upon a time had somewhat moderate positions on certain social issues have given up those convictions in order to compete for the prize of the most anti-woman, anti-immigrant of the bunch.

  • lazyfat-fat

    “I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception … but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level.”
    -Ron Paul
    And how exactly is he “like your crazy uncle who wears fatigues to thanksgiving dinner, drinks a lot and then ends up pissing himself and running around in the backyard with a pellet gun”? I think I missed that part.

  • electronBlue

    kamikazebirds (and all), sorry for the uninformed comment about Ron Paul and abortion rights. I read the text in the link you provided, and his stance on these things is pretty disappointing. I’m particularly disappointed that he would support a FEDERAL resolution stating that life begins at conception. While I still maintain that he has a lot of interesting ideas, and should be taken seriously, this (and a few other things I already know about) would keep me from voting for him unless you held a gun to my head and made me pick a republican. I’d still take him over any of those other jokers.
    As a side comment, the possibility of overturning Roe v Wade really makes my mental gears mash. I like the principle of moving more power to the states. But we all know what will actually happen if the decision is reversed: abortion will be instantly illegal in maybe half of the states, resulting in a level of suffering for women that I probably can only begin to guess at.
    To go really OT, what makes me really mad is that people who want to get rid of abortion do not support the following two obvious steps that would significantly reduce the number of women who have to make that choice: 1) subsidize birth control and make it as easy as possible to acquire it safely, and 2) subsidize/support expanding child care options for working women, so that women are not faced with a false choice between having a child and having a career.
    Sorry, I’ve been wanting to get that rant off my chest for a while.

  • electronBlue

    … unless you held a gun to my head and made me pick a republican. I’d still take him over any of those other jokers. okay, John McCain is also not so so bad. I don’t really want to lump him in with Huckabee (I’d buy that tshirt, btw).
    … that people who want to get rid of abortion do not support… A broad generalization. I’m sure there are exceptions.
    Since I appear to be typing faster than I can think, I’m out. Sorry if I offended anyone. I just think Ron Paul is interesting because he is a conservative whose positions don’t appear to be primarily motivated by hate, fear, and greed.

  • derrp

    I’m a big fan of Dodd, myself. I don’t understand why he isn’t more popular, especially considering his stance on “Women’s Issues”.
    PSA: There’s a good VoteMatch online quiz for matching your own politics with those of the candidates.

  • derrp

    I’m a big fan of Dodd, myself. I don’t understand why he isn’t more popular, especially considering his stance on “Women’s Issues”.
    PSA: There’s a good VoteMatch online quiz for matching your own politics with those of the candidates.

  • frumpiefox

    I agree with the reservations of many of you re. Obama. His message of hope seems to be pretty poorly backed by actual strategy. But I strongly support gay rights, and he just doesn’t have much to say there.
    I was also very disturbed by his comments re. his religious beliefs. They seemed to echo too much the current president.
    I think Clinton would be OK (I’m not 100% with her on all issues, but close enough), except for the fact that she has so much opposition. She’d be completely useless just because so many people seem to dislike her personality and her husband. Sad, really.
    I guess I’ll throw in behind Edwards. Unfortunately, in this decision, it looks like I’ll have to choose between one of two firsts or someone who actually shares my views.

  • Liza

    I’d prefer Hillary.
    At least it’s not that bastard Romney. He tied his dog to the roof of his car and drove for 10 hours. When the dog crapped itself out of fear, he hosed it off with cold water and kept driving.

  • roro80

    derrp — Cool quiz, thanks for the link.
    It looks like I match up with Senators Clinton and Dodd, both of whom I already like a lot. I guess that makes sense.

  • Faerylore

    Derrp, thanks for the quiz! I matched up with Kucinich, Dodd, and then Clinton.
    Not surprising at all.
    Amusingly, I even matched with Huckafuck at like 5%.
    But, honestly I’m still in the “I don’t know who to vote for” independant camp. They all have major issues as far as I’m concerned. But that’s politics.

  • beigelights

    I am seriously amazed that about 80% of the commenters at a feminist site do not seem at all excited about the possibility of the first female president! Really if you compare Clinton and Obama, they are not significantly different on the issues except that Obama has a sketchy track record on gay rights (see Pandagon posts on the subject). I could see preferring Kucinich or Edwards, who are more progressive, maybe.
    Anyway, I like Obama, okay, and I do hate to have to choose, but it is striking how little support Clinton gets, here.
    I think it is interesting that black men got the vote before women of any color, and I wonder if institutionalized sexism is more ingrained than institutionalized racism. Not that either is preferable, but just think how much less socially acceptable it is to make racist comments than to make comments that degrade women. Am I wrong?

  • adaerid

    If it was between Obama and Huckabee, then it would definitely be Obama. (He was my second choice, Clinton being the first). I was discussing this with my friend and she said that the people who want Huckabee in Executive Office are the people who want him to be there, but not do anything, so they can control him. (A puppet president) I’m betting that if it wasn’t for this reason, no one would take him seriously.
    Huckabee=Mascot who wants to do something.

  • realityfighter

    This is one time I’m not too happy about the Colbert bump. :(

  • SlackerInc

    “I can’t count the number of democrats (men mostly) who say that Huckabee seems like a good guy.”
    I really liked him until recently. Not just because he “seems like a good guy”, but because he has good policies on health care, is humane about immigration, has a somewhat “liberal” record on a number of issues (which is why so many Republicans are attacking him). But he lost me when I found out he signed that statement supporting Baptist women having to “submit” to their husbands.

  • MiloJ

    I really like Obama – he is my pick for a viable candidate, and wanted to respond about his views on gay rights…Unfortunately, he doesn’t support Gay Marriage, but he does support Civil Unions, which is the same stance as all other candidates except for Kucinich and Gravel which are the only two who have stated they support Marriage . So in terms of that issue , he lines up with Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, etc…
    In terms of other issues important to the gay community, Obama has been a co-sponsor of many bills that have been important to the community, and I know that he does not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
    So, while I wish he would make the leap from Civil Unions to just using the words Same-Sex Marriage, I feel confident that if he becomes president that he will actively support gay rights.

  • Ben

    I can help out here since I’m both a Republican and an Iowan. The Huckabee thing is really, really disappointing. But part of what occurred is a function of the Republican vs. Democrat format for the Iowa Caucuses. If you don’t know, at the Iowa Caucuses, if a Democrat candidate does not have at least 15% support, then that candidate’s supporters have to choose one that does. Hence, you saw the larger numbers for the three frontrunners, primarily because the Dodd, Biden, Richardson, et al., people had to throw their support behind someone else.
    I caucused for Mitt Romney, and in hindsight, it is crystal clear to me that if the Republicans used the same system, and assume that Fred Thompson’s people split between Romney and Huckabee, Romney would have taken Huckabee down by a large margin because none of the John McCain or Rudy or Ron Paul people would have gone to Huckabee. But since that wasn’t the format, the more “establishment� (Romney) and “urban� (Rudy) and “moderate� (McCain) and “liberarian� (Paul) Republicans splintered, while the vast majority of evangelical Christian conservatives (i.e., the “right wing�), which makes up roughly 1/3 of the Iowa Republican electorate, stuck with Huck.
    What’s really a shame is that my friends on the far right in Iowa failed to grasp that Huckabee winning Iowa functions to do nothing more than damage Romney and aid Rudy and McCain. Now, unless Romney can pull off New Hampshire (which is possible, but improbable) and Michigan (perhaps likely), the Republicans continue splintering the party amongst the early states, which is precisely Rudy’s strategy to win because he’s laying in the weeds and will pounce when the time is right – and win the nomination. In other words, Huckabee winning Iowa accomplishes little more than turn this thing into a two-horse race between Rudy and McCain.
    In sum, don’t be too scared of Huckabee. He’ll flame out shortly.
    As for Obama, at my precinct site, his support was staggering. In fact, I learned last night that Hillary Clinton’s people had to beg for over an hour just to reach viability (i.e., 15%). That is amazing. This Obama tsunami is real, and I know more than just a few Republicans who are willing to join his cause for no other reason that he is young and fresh and exciting and the only authentic “change agent� of the Democrat heavyweights. I can see an Obama-Edwards ticket down the road easily.
    By the way, Republicans don’t fear Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. We fear Obama.

  • Ben

    Sorry, after re-reading my post I should have made the following more clear: the Republicans don’t do the 15% viability thing in Iowa like the Democrats do. So the weak candidate supporters don’t have to fold into a viable candidate. At the Republican caucus, people show up, cast their vote, and leave – just like in a regular election.

  • SarahMC

    SlackerInc, Huckabee is also a Dominionist.
    Crooks & Liars
    Beigelights, I definitely agree that sexism is more acceptable than racism in society today.
    Just think about the Don Imus debacle a few months ago. He called the women “nappy headed hos,” but the entire focus of the backlash was on his racism, while the sexism in his remark was barely noticed. Sexism is so ingrained in our culture that it’s practically invisible to the naked eye.