In early June, after the final primaries, the Democratic National Committee should call together our superdelegates in a public caucus....It sounds like a very sensible idea, which is why my sense is that this won't happen. Think about why not. One candidate or the other stands to benefit from waiting until August, and that candidate and some number of her supporters will resist the caucus. How can it happen without widespread agreement?
This is not a proposal for a mini-convention with all the attendant hoopla and sideshows. It is a call for a tight, two-day business-like gathering, whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem. There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote.
Some might raise reasonable concerns about the cost and logistics of assembling these superdelegates. But those would be manageable; this is a business meeting of a few hundred people almost three months from now, not an extended, cast-of-thousands convention.If it's possible to do this, isn't it possible to line up the superdelegates behind the scenes and force them to make firm, public commitments? That would achieve the same result. Also, if you have this assembly when the nominee is still unknown, you're inviting strong partisans to a huge national stage — it will be far more dramatic than any political convention we've seen in our liftetime — and who knows what bloody chaos will play out?
Bredersen thinks what America will see is "a modern political party focused on results," which, "confronted with an unexpected problem," used "common sense to come together, roll up our sleeves and direct events to a successful conclusion." Yes, it would be great if we got to see such a fine party in action, but since it's a real political party, you don't know what might happen. It could be uglier than a summer-long struggle. If you want to be pragmatic, Governor Bredersen, you can't be idealistic about it. Think of the risks. And if it's necessary to script the caucus and ensure a smooth resolution of the problem, why do you need a meeting at all?
पोस्ट्स
५५ टिप्पण्या:
The Dems have no leadership. Reid, Pelosi, Dean? Nobody's home. Clinton or Kennedy should be the senior party leaders who are able to do something, but they're unable to unite the party. More squabbling will further increase the chance that Dems will muck this one up and leave the White House in the hands of the Repubs next January.
Good PR for Bredesen. He would make a tasty VP candidate for the Democrats...big business background, health care exec, Southern, successful and popular in TN, swing state, older and white and male.
“…whose rules would be devised by the national committee, of the leaders of our party from all over America to resolve a serious problem.”
There were a set of rules in place once. They determined that the Florida and Michigan primaries would not count because those states broke the rules. These were rules that all the candidates agreed to before the campaign started. Now that the rules she agreed to went against her, Hillary wants to change the rules, after the fact, to benefit her. So, how would rules regarding a super-delegate caucus be any different? The loser and his or her supporters would complain and demand the rules be changed after the fact. Rule are rules only if they can be enforced, not changed after the fact.
“…used "common sense to come together…”
Both political parties ceased to use common sense years ago.
The Dems have no leadership. Reid, Pelosi, Dean? Nobody's home. Clinton or Kennedy should be the senior party leaders…
Please get serious. Bill Clinton would just hand the election to Hillary. Kennedy is an old line Liberal, out of touch with the “new” Democratic Party. Though I do not agree with most of what she does or believes, Nancy Pelosi is a leader. She demonstrated party leadership before she won her seat and she continues to do so; her direction may not be right, but she does lead. She is an iron fist in a velvet glove.
Both parties need real leadership. They are broken beyond repair. They are living in the glorious past, a past that has gone by all of us forever. There is a real chance that if they do not change there will be a call for a powerful third party to develop over the next few years.
I want to see blood. I want to see them go at each other like rabid, bi-polar ferrets at the DNC Convention.
Let them at it...
The democrat party is unable to lead. They are just a party of special interest groups.
God Damn America.
Oh, this is nothing more than a smoke-filled backroom, with Chuck Schumer steamrolling anyone between him and a wall-to-wall bank of TV cameras for the oh-so-well-timed inopportune "leak."
I think it is an excellent idea. Too bad Fellini isn't around to film the circus.
"God Damn F*cking Democrats."
/fixed
"Bill Clinton would just hand the election to Hillary."
Exactly my point. He's unable to unite the party, though he should be in the position to do so, being the most recent past President.
"Nancy Pelosi is a leader."
During those dark hours before the cafeteria vote, she truly rose to the occasion.
If Pelosi were a leader, as you claim, she would be seizing this opportunity to demonstrate her leadership skills. Sorry, not convinced. Please, get serious.
One candidate or the other stands to benefit from waiting until August
Hmm. Perhaps so, perhaps not. It seems to me that the bigger issue, however,for Democrats, is whether waiting will translate into benefiting the Republican candidate over the Democratic one.
Thus this proposal.
Bredesen is indeed a reasonable, results oriented guy. I voted for him twice, and I am a conservative.
But he is a moderate, and the leftist folks will hate him.
Trey
I want to see blood.
A big amen to that, bro'.
Nobody can united the Democrat Party ... for the white candidate. That is the problem.
Since the Democrats decided to be, well, democratic ... and allow mere voters to decide who their nominee would be, they took the chance that the party would nominate a black guy.
Of course, they can't let that happen, which is why you're hearing all these ways Democrats keep coming up with to cheat black people of their victory at the polls, disenfranchising millions, so that the white, less popular woman can be the nominee.
The dilemma, of course, is that if they do that, they're pretty much guaranteed to lose the election to John McCain, as black people would thus riot, and I don't think the media would be that unsympathetic to their plight, having watched the duly elected nominee be superdelegately lynched.
The Democrats need to unite. They can do that by supporting Obama. Supporting Hillary only guarantees a civil war within the Party.
So, which is it: Unity, or War?
On the one hand, I very much agree with the idea of "rules are rules"--if we don't like them, we should work to change them going forward, for the next game, not retroactively for a previous game, or in the middle of a current one. In fact, I'd claim that as a general principle in life.
On the other, however unpopular and tarnished an idea, primaries and caucuses are just methods that parties use to select party nominees for the general election. In that sense, parties do have the latitude to ultimately decide who will be a nominee, since ultimately the nominee is supposed to represent the party, not, again in this sense, the will of the people, per se.
I know that people, in general, have come to view the primaries/caucus system as the same as a run-off, but that's really not their origin.
If we don't like that, we should work to change it and implement a different system.
Meanwhile, the parties do indeed have at least the technical right to look for options to resolve thorny situations. Them's the breaks.
Mark me down for "War." Nothing better than a clash of the oppressed.
I think people have come to confuse Party with The People, much as they have come to confuse a Republic with a Democracy. You can argue for either point of view, and legitimately, but confusing them doesn't solve the problem, or resolve the philosophical differences, it just muddies (and muddles) them.
Well, that's my two cents, anyway.
I agree with Ann's points, but add an additional discomfiture. Ann writes that "Bredesen thinks what America will see is 'a modern political party focused on results,' which, 'confronted with an unexpected problem,' used 'common sense to come together, roll up our sleeves and direct events to a successful conclusion.'" But that focus on results rather than process that worries me. It seems to me that this proposal has the same problem as the wrangling over Florida and Michigan's delegates, the same problem as changing the counting standards after the election in Florida seven years ago. It seems to me that this plan calls for making ad hoc rules after it's already foreseeable who will benefit and who will lose as a result. But for procedural rules to be valid, they have to be settled in advance, and for an outcome to be valid, it has to be the result of a process that all players agreed to in advance. Just as law has to be knowable so that reasonable people can conform their behavior to the law, so too the rules of the game have to be knowable. To switch streams in mid horse is fundamentally bad. All candidates went into this election trusting that the rules would be followed, and pattered their strategies accordingly; the rules that were laid down should be followed. If those rules have proved to be inadequate, they should be changed in advance of the next primary - but not during this one.
"The Democrats need to unite. They can do that by supporting Obama. Supporting Hillary only guarantees a civil war within the Party."
That's a good summary of the attitude (seen from the O side) giving rise to the problem that Bredesen wants to solve. Viewed from the H side, the Dems are flirting with a neophyte of no accomplishments, with a long record of ducking issues by voting "present" whose main claim to fame is a golden tongue, and who McCain will crush in Nov.
To that dilemma, Bredesen offers a solution focused on form: if the Dems can come up with just the right jerry-built institution, magic will happen, sweet reason will reign and the stark divisions that gave rise to the underlying problem in the first place will just disappear. OK.
The reality is that the Dems are divided almost 50-50; neither side is even slightly interested in falling on its sword for the greater good of the Dem party. And so the divisions remain and fester and will just get sharper over time. The Dems can see what once looked like a sure thing starting to slip away, and they're beginning to worry about the impact on down-ticket races. It's driving the professional politicos crazy. Proffered "solutions" like Bredesen's are the result.
Welcome back reader_iam, I have missed your comments. I guess they let you out for good behavior pretty quick in Iowa.
Richard:
"The reality is that the Dems are divided almost 50-50; neither side is even slightly interested in falling on its sword for the greater good of the Dem party."
That's exactly the right answer to Slim's comment. It seems as though Obama supporters want to say "this fighting is hurting the party! The other candidate should quit the race!" Well, why should Hillary quit the race for the good of the party? Why not say that Obama should quit the race for the good of the party? Sometimes "taking one for team" means that your guy has to take one for the team.
By the way, the above is not intended to pass any judgment on Obama as a candidate, just to point out the flaw in some of his followers' reasoning.
the Dems are flirting with a neophyte of no accomplishments, with a long record of ducking issues by voting "present" whose main claim to fame is a golden tongue, and who McCain will crush in Nov.
I agree, there is a lot more downside potential with Obama. We all know Clinton's negatives, but we don't know Obama's. More stuff is certain to come out over the next 6 months. There is a potential landslide victory over Obama, not probably over Clinton.
The narrative between Obama and McCain is becoming more apparent everyday.
Obama stands up and cheers as his preacher yells "God Damn America."
McCain was willing to be tortured rather than betray his country.
"Progressives" recognize only one rule:
If the outcome benefits me, it's a good rule/law/policy; otherwise it can be ignored.
All the current blather is really just about how to ignore the Dim campaign rules without being too blatant and causing too many negative side effects.
The predetermined outcome of all this theater is, simply, Billary for Pres and Obama for Vice-Pres. Dim voters like to believe they are participants, while in reality they are just providing an audience for the political kabuki.
I'm still trying to figure out why Simon isn't happier about the apparent direction of Heller.
Thanks, Trooper, although of course my parole officer could violate me at any time and send me back to the slammer. Who can tell?
Look out, you raised your skirt and your socks are showing.
"I'm still trying to figure out why Simon isn't happier about the apparent direction of Heller."
It's because he only reads John Cheever. And Mickey Spillane.
Mort -
Two reasons. First, don't count your chickens before they hatch. Earlier this term, my recollection is that the commentary on the Washington State Grange case handed down yesterday focussed on whether the court below would be affirmed unanimously or whether there might be a concurrence. It came out 7-2 the other way (I'm writing a post at the moment about the case). Kennedy seemed to tip his hand. But we all remember which dolphin he's named for, right?
Second, although I think there's a lot of mileage in characterizing rights as a different form of restraint on government, I'm really more interested in the structural constitution - the stuff you encounter in FedCourts and what UW and a few other schools call conlaw 1. So the most interesting case so far this term, for me, isn't Heller but Danforth; I didn't write about the case, but only because I had nothing to add to what Ann said, and to my recollection, she didn't write a whole bunch because the opinions in that case seemed to say everything that needed to be said. At least as an initial matter. I look forward to a blizzard of articles in the next cycle of law reviews, to which I hope our hostess will contribute some choice words.
For the "good of the party" the titular leaders of the Democrat party want to choose a nominee who is the more likely to be victorious in November, but they cannot bring themselves to choose between charisma and experience. In their heart of hearts, they probably are drawn to Obama, yet they are unwilling to throw Bill's wife overboard--and she shows no sign of going without a fight. The parallel with the pairing of JFK-LBJ does not appeal to the Clintons, and I can understand that. This is not an easy choice for the party or the candidates.
"...It seems as though Obama supporters want to say "this fighting is hurting the party! The other candidate should quit the race!" Well, why should Hillary quit the race for the good of the party? "
Simon: Let me explain it so that even YOU can understand why.
Hillary should bow out of the race because she's lost the vote. The party is not "fifty-fifty" or the candidates would be tied. They aren't tied.
Hillary has lost more elections than Obama; Hillary has lost more caucuses than Obama; Hillary has fewer pledged delegates than Obama; and Hillary has won fewer votes than Obama.
So, the white person who is behind is now asking the black person who has won elections to step down for the good of the Party.
WTF?
Why is that? Does Hillary not believe that Obama should be President? She certainly hasn't said so.
She has not claimed that Obama lacks the leadership to be President. Only that she claims more experience than he does, but that either of them should be President if the other alternative is the Republican candidate.
The Democrat Party in reality doesn't believe a black man should be president, but of course, they can't say that out loud. Overt racism would be their death knell, as was proven when Geraldine Ferraro let slip her real thinking. She's finished now, revealed as the hidden racist she always was.
Certain members of the Democrat Party - which, let's remember is the proud home to the only card-carrying KKK Senator, Robert Byrd -just aren't going to accept a black candidate.
They're instead going to come up with a rigged process that guarantees a black man can't win the nomination, by holding a supersecret backroom cigar-smoking Superdelegate caucus or some other faux process they can blame for stealing the nomination from the black candidate.
And they're OK with the riots if that's what it takes.
Hillary is for Hillary. Obama is for the Democrat nominee. Obama has won the vote thus far, and it appears very unlikely that Hillary can win enough delegates in the remaining contests to change that fact.
So, Hillary should drop out. For the good of the Democrat Party.
Unless she thinks that black guy who defeated her should be President.
So, Hillary should drop out. For the good of the Democrat Party.
Hillary does not and never cared for the party. There is only one thing Hillary cares about and that is Hillary being the President. If she has to lie, cheat, and steal to get there she will. If she has to break the rules she agreed to, she will. If she has to demand the rules be changed after they were broken, she will. If the Democratic Party has to be destroyed to clear her path to the White House, she will destroy the Party.
Hillary is on a mission, a crusade, a holy war to end all holy wars. She will prevail or go down fighting and take everyone with her.
There IS a public superdelegate caucus going on right now! We know who has come out for one candidate or the other.
If enough committed to one or the other candidate, we'd be done. But over half of them have not. Why? Because they don't want to! So why would they go along with this?
This is what I tell people who think that the superdelegates will never overturn the pledged delegate numbers: it's almost impossible for Clinton to win the pledged delegates, yet the superdelegates have not publicly endorsed him in great numbers. So, that means that a clear majority are at least open to the idea of overturning the pledged delegates. Otherwise, they'd have said something by now.
The idea would have been a good one, had it been proposed ahead of time. But it seems to me that the major effect of the conference would be to make it easier for superdelegates to vote against the frontrunner -- the caucus gives them cover. I don't see why Obama would agree to it.
Slim, I can't find a way to write a reply to that without violating the limits of my recusal on the Obama issue, so I note my disagreement and leave it at that.
Hillary does not and never cared for the party.
A lot of people have forgotten this, but back in '96 there was a LOT of bitterness from the other Democrats that the Clintons were running around sucking up campaign money like crazy despite having a comfortable margin over Dole. The Republicans ended up picking up two seats in the Senate and losing only eight in the House -- a very unusual occurrence for the party that lost the popular vote.
Hillary Clinton? Sacrifice for the good of the party? Come on. Never mind backing out *now*, if she really wanted to see the party win she'd have backed out months ago. The polls have shown for a long time now that Obama's got the best shot at winning.
Not really, Trooper. Every once in a while this other gmail (not blogger) account pops in, I don't know why, but it's not intentional and I never use it for blog stuff in any way shape or form. (Nor do I post under other pseudonyms, at least not yet!) Usually I catch it sooner, though. Thank goodness I had this thread e-mailed and noticed you'd written something weird. Thanks!
Slim999's rant is a fine example of the rhetorical escalation that Bredesen (and many others) fear.
According to Slim, "[t]he Democrat Party in reality doesn't believe a black man should be president ...;" by her comments, Ferraro has been "revealed as the hidden racist she always was;" and those racist Dem superdelegates want to "come up with a rigged process that guarantees a black man can't win the nomination," etc. Supporters of Mme H are not likely to take kindly to being dismissed as racists; they are quite likely to respond (it's already starting) that O is anti-democratic, just trying to game the system to so he can claim a phony "lead," in that he's trying to deny voters in Michigan and Florida from having their votes count, too.
And so the charges fly back and forth and the rhetoric escalates. As it does, it seems obvious (at least to me) that supporters of the O team, if they share Slim's view of things, are unlikely to support H's candidacy if, perchance, she ends up as the nominee. Same with H's equally ardent followers.
I doubt that many O supporters have reached the level of vehemence reflected in Slim's comments. But you can already see how the O team's talking points -- "the white person who is behind is now asking the black person who has won elections to step down for the good of the Party" is only a slight paraphrase of Obama's statement prior to the Mississippi primary -- has started to take hold and (from the perspective of Bredesen and others) bear poisonous fruit.
It's only going to get worse for the Dems. As McCain has often said, he's the luckiest man alive.
Should the Democratic Party hold a caucus of the superdelegates?
Wasn't that the original idea behind a convention? I know these things have morphed into just a show. Wouldn't it be great if a convention was where all the principals meet and decide who they want?
It doesn't have to be a blood-bath, it could be a chance to show that they are able to come together and hammer-out a deal most of the party likes.
in that he's trying to deny voters in Michigan and Florida from having their votes count, too.
Obama doesn't have to "try" anything. The people of Michigan and Florida were told well before the election that their votes wouldn't count unless they moved the primary date to later in the year. They chose not to.
Hillary knew that when she violated her pledge and stayed on the ballots in those states. I don't really see where she has grounds for complaint.
If you're a political junkie, the more chaos the better. Much better than American Idol.
"Southern"
Bredesen is "Southern" in the sense that he is governor of a Southern state. I know plenty of fellow Tennesseans who consider him to be a Yankee (and since I'm from Kentucky, they also consider me to be a Yankee). It's not necessarily held against him (he is fairly popular here), but it's analogous to considering HRC a New Yorker. I would take issue with the assertion that this was an "unexpected problem." That absolute genius Dean should have anticipated at least the possibility and had a contingency plan. Woe to the Repubs when the Dems come to their senses and send him back to the obscurity he so richly deserves.
Viewed from the H side, the Dems are flirting with a neophyte of no accomplishments...
With Hillary the Dems are flirting with a neophyte with no accomplishments.
The only thing Hillary and the other candidates pledged wrt Michigan and Florida was to not campaign in those states. They did not pledge to take their names off the ballots or to agree to the DNCs decision to not seat the delegates. If those aren't the facts, please correct me.
O is anti-democratic, just trying to game the system to so he can claim a phony "lead," in that he's trying to deny voters in Michigan and Florida from having their votes count, too.
The voters in Michigan and Florida knew up front that their votes wouldn't count -- and they were pretty pissed off at their Democratic Party leadership, too for stripping them of a meaningful choice. Funny how the Democrats decided to ignore the will of the voters in Florida -- seems kinda incongruous or something.
In that sense, parties do have the latitude to ultimately decide who will be a nominee, since ultimately the nominee is supposed to represent the party, not, again in this sense, the will of the people, per se.
Strange that reader_iam would want to start rolling back the gains of the Progressive movement, because I would have picked women's suffrage as the first to go. Then, I could do without direct election of Senators. I'd like to hang on to primaries and the secret ballot, though.
Lawgiver: I was pointing to the what I think is part of the root of the problem: the weird hybrid, and a confusion. And a certain reality of ill-defined tension due to unresolved arguments--which point, by the way, you sort of just demonstrated.
I was not engaging in advocacy.
Given where we find ourselves are now, and having been finding ourselves for quite some time, I personally am inclined to go for national runoffs, either on a date certain or split between 2-3 dates certain in limited window of time.
Not that you asked me (or expressed any interest). And even though I have not made up mind quite yet.
former law student said...
"I could do without direct election of Senators."
Great minds...
In that sense, parties do have the latitude to ultimately decide who will be a nominee, since ultimately the nominee is supposed to represent the party, not, again in this sense, the will of the people, per se.
Ah, I see. You confuse the word "do" with "ought." Also, you confuse my observation--that, as the system was set up (I repeat, as the system was set up and not by me, please note), the nominee is supposed to represent the party--as my personal advocacy for a particular path or agenda, or whether I think it's right, or not, or best, or not.
WTF? As I said, nice little demonstration.
Also, cute comeback (to what wasn't being said), your comment about rolling back women's suffrage is. Perhaps you might consider spending some time reading into your own pointed little comments, before over-analyzing and projecting into others'.
***
P.S. I take after both of my grandmothers, both of whom I knew very well, as child and adult, over many years. Both were born before women got the vote. One was an adult by then.
Both were outspoken and active. Didn't take sneaky, dishonest, projecting crap from anyone, and without second-guessing themselves about it, either.
I wish I took more after them in those respects. I'm working on it.
***
Shorter: Can't you do just a little bit better than this, if not by me, than for yourself?
I've been pushing for the repeal of the 17th Amendment for over 20 years.
Lawgiver: I was pointing to...
That should, of course be: Former Law Student: I was pointing ...
Stupid mistake, and I apologize to both posters.
Dave TN said...
The only thing Hillary and the other candidates pledged wrt Michigan and Florida was to not campaign in those states. They did not pledge to take their names off the ballots or to agree to the DNCs decision to not seat the delegates. If those aren't the facts, please correct me.
They did agree that the votes would not count and that the DNC would not seat the delegates. this was done when the rules were enacted. The probelm is that both campaigns are trying to spin the rules they agreed to to their benefit.
The delegates should not be seated. If they are, it sends a very bad message. The rules are the rules, until they are broken. Then there are new rules. It is hypocrisy at its best.
All,
Mine is not a rant, it's merely an observation about the current state of the Democrat Party.
Rather than look at what Democrats say, I learned a long time ago to look at what Democrats do.
I made reference to Ms. Ferraro to point out a recent example of what happens to at anyone in the Democrat Party who actually reveals what Democrats think. Hillary fired Ferraro, remember.
Ms. Ferraro, who blazed the trail that has led us to Hillary, was fired for saying that if Obama was not a black man, he wouldn't be where he is today. She revealed her true thinking, and Hillary fired her from the campaign for it.
This sort of overt racism isn't stood for in the Party. But the hidden racism is on prominent display in the Party's angst over Obama's success at the polls. That's the real rub.
The guy is winning the elections. And they can't have that. I truly believe that he will never be the Party's nominee, no matter how many votes he gets, because I just look at the history of the Party, and I look at the type of people who are Democrats, and I look at what they do rather than what they say, and I come to the conclusion that there's no way Obama will ever be the nominee.
That's my prediction, and has been all along (search Althouse posts.)
How can I make such a bold prediction in the face of Obama's electoral success? Easy.
There's not a single black leader in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. There's not a single black leader in the Democrat-controlled Senate. there's not a single black leader in the Democrat National Committee.
They're all white. How could that be? How can it be that millions of blacks are underrepresented in the leadership of their party.
Robert Byrd is not just a member of the Senate ... he is a venerated Democrat, an elder statesman of the Party. He is also the only Senator who was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. For those who don't know, the KKK was a "secret" organization. They wore white hoods so nobody knows who is a member, and who isn't a member.
Now, you can sit back and think I must be some sort of raving lunatic to suggest that there are still secret members of the KKK, and that's certainly not what I'm trying to suggest. What I'm noting is the historical underpinnings of how racists think and work, and applying that knowledge to how things are being played out in society today.
The Ferrero syle of overt racism is immediately cast out from the Party, but if you look at the membership of the party, you don't find any black people in positions of leadership and power.
Not. A. Single. One.
So, if I'm wrong, Obama will eventually be the party's nominee. if I'm right (and I think I am) Hillary will manage to end up somehow as the nominee, even though she couldn't carry her own Party.
There will be a lot of explaining later about how it happened. There will be some technical loophole which she alone was capable of exploiting. Obama will be offered the Vice Presidency (and he'll take it, because it will be put to him in such a way that it will not be an offer he can refuse, if you know what I mean.)
But make no mistake about it.
Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democrat Party.
Not that black guy.
reader_iam -- our century-old primary system was designed to let the party members decide who their candidate would be, rather than the party bosses. And except for the assassination year of 1968, the party members (and other voters, in open primaries) have selected all of the presidential candidates since 1952.
If the party bosses still had the right to pick candidates in smoke-filled rooms, they have let it lapse over the past half-century.
Final arguments/comments???
Like 20+ debates and a million speeches are not enough. All the data is there make a decision and deal with the consequences. Man Up superdelegates. WoMan Up!
One consequences is Black voters (including me) returning to the Republican party. We were Republicans in the late 1800's
I, all my family and most of my acquaintances have already decided if party put up Hillary out we go. We will not stay home we will vote for McCain.
I am sure they have already considered this and are willing to live with it. Let the games begin.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा