Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Here is a tidbit from CNN:
Edwards
met with Hillary and will meet with Obama tomorrow.
This is the most interesting to me:
Two friends close to Elizabeth Edwards say she has been in support of Barack Obama, whose campaign has been touting a list of endorsements from former Edwards backers.
We all know the history--Michigan and Florida moved their primaries to close to New Hampshire's in violation of DNC rules. All the candidates agreed to this and promised to not campaign in these states--but Hillary conveniently kept her name on these ballots.
The Clintons are certainly showing their true colors since losing Iowa and finding themselves in a tough political battle. Not only will they get down into a political mud pit and mix it up (a place I've certainly found myself in)...but they'll stoop to the lowest levels of human morals and will do or say anything to win.
Hey, some people will defend that level of deceit, but that's not my cup or tea.
My comments are motivated not by the XY Clinton, but rather Hillary's recent attempts to advocate for the sitting of the Michigan and Florida Dems delegates. With this action, Hillary Clinton basically waved her middle finger at the New Hampshire Democratic activists who fight every cycle to keep the first in the nation primary in NH.
Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy endorses Barack Obama for president.
Teddy told Bill to Chill....
The real Democrat's are standing up for OBAMA!
They see the message and the chance to bring about real change.
Caroline Kennedy Endorses Obama
Former first daughter Caroline Kennedy has thrown her support behind Sen. Barack Obama, calling him the presidential candidate most capable of carrying on the legacy of her late father, John F. Kennedy.
Caroline Kennedy's endorsement is a key one for Obama, whose camp has sought to portray him as a worthy heir to the former president's "Camelot" image.
It's not exactly an advertisement for the working-class hero, or a picture her campaign freely displays. Her lengthy support for the Iraq War is Clinton's biggest liability in Democratic primary circles. But her ties to corporate America say as much, if not more, about what she values and cast doubt on her ability and willingness to fight for the progressive policies she claims to champion. She is "running to help and restore the great middle class in our country," Wolfson says. So was Bill in 1992. He was for "putting people first." Then he entered the White House and pushed for NAFTA, signed welfare reform, consolidated the airwaves through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (leading to Clear Channel's takeover) and cleared the mergers of mega-banks. Would the First Lady do any different? Ever since the defeat of healthcare reform, Hillary has been a committed incrementalist, describing herself as a creature of the "moderate, sensible center" whom business admires and rewards. During her six years in the Senate, she's rarely been out front on difficult economic issues. Given her proximity to money and power, it's not hard to figure out why she keeps controversial figures close to her--even if their work becomes a liability for her campaign.
Remember Hillary's comment in 1998 on the vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons?
Hillary Clinton: 'This Is A Battle' http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS...
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Jan. 27) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against President Bill Clinton.
She made the statement during an interview on NBC's "Today" show, where she was asked to comment on accusations and rumors that have caused a political uproar and even triggered speculation about the possibility of impeachment of the president.
"I do believe that this is a battle," the first lady said.
"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said.
The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort "to undo the results of two elections."
Bill Clinton Lunches With Leader Of The "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Newsweek | November 10, 2007 10:22 PM
Bill Clinton is never at a loss for company. When he's not globe-trotting or charming audiences for as much as $400,000 a speech, he's often schmoozing visitors in his suite of offices in Harlem. Last July, the former president sat down with a billionaire impressed with the William J. Clinton Foundation's campaign against AIDS in Africa. The two men chatted amiably over lunch for more than two hours, and the visitor pledged to write Clinton's foundation a generous check. But there was something unusual, if not plain weird, about the meeting. NEWSWEEK has learned that the billionaire so eager to endear himself to the former president was Richard Mellon Scaife--once the Clintons' archenemy and best-known as the man behind a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy them.
Scaife was no run-of-the-mill Clinton hater. In the 1990s, the heir to the Mellon banking fortune contributed millions to efforts to dig up dirt on President Clinton. He backed the Clinton-bashing American Spectator magazine, whose muckrakers produced lurid stories about Clinton's alleged financial improprieties and trysts. Scaife also financed a probe called the Arkansas Project that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners.
May 10, 2006
What's in a Murdoch-Clinton Alliance? Something for Both Sides http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05...
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- Strengthening a pragmatic rapprochement, Rupert Murdoch has agreed to give a fund-raiser this summer for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the latest sign of cooperation between the conservative media mogul and the Democratic lawmaker who has often been a prime target of his newspaper and television outlets.
Asked about her relationship with Mr. Murdoch, Mrs. Clinton described him as simply "my constituent," and she played down the significance of the fund-raiser. Both sides said that Mr. Murdoch and Mrs. Clinton were joining forces for the good of New York, where Mr. Murdoch's $60 billion News Corporation employs about 5,000 workers.
"I am very gratified that he thinks I am doing a good job," Mrs. Clinton said in the Capitol on Tuesday, according to a transcript made available by her office after word of the fund-raising event was first reported by The Financial Times.
Yet the developing relationship between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Murdoch -- who has built an empire in part on the strength of media outlets like Fox News and The New York Post that delight in skewering the Clintons -- has drawn special attention, perplexing some political analysts and infuriating some liberals already suspicious of Mrs. Clinton's centrist positioning. Although she is ostensibly raising money for her re-election to the Senate this year, she is widely considered to be laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2008.
Note that Rupert's son James and his wife now also work for the Clinton Foundation.
So when Barack Obama simply notes the indisputable fact that Reagan changed the trajectory of American political life, he is mercilessly attacked for something he didnt do-- say he liked anything about the changes Reagan instituted.
But have any of the Democrats expressed admiration for Prince Ronald? Well , accordingly to a diary on dailykos, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/... Clinton for one. On her web site, a endorsement trumpeted by the Clinton campaign says:
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We're confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...
So my question is: will all the posters here who assailed Obama for something he didnt say care to comment on someone who did say it?
I am disappointed that my guy narrowly lost, but what a contest!
Unless Democrats form a circular firing squad over the primary season, we are in excellent shape for the general election. We have substantive, resilient candidates. One sour point is that a key group of voters must have lied to pollsters.
Edwards talks of change. Obama talks of change. Clinton talks of change. What are the changes we desire? We can all agree we want to live better, have more money, etc. What are our priorities? What does it mean to live better? It is true that the middle class is being marginalized but should we not look for the causes and address them in a rational manner? The affordability of advanced education along with retraining programs open to all should be one of our top priorities. Why?... because the lack thereof increases poverty and shrinks the middle class.
Venture capital needs to be focused not on just $30 Million deals and up, but on financing small businesses with seed capital all across the country. This can only happen if you have the right incentives for investors to take the risk. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the candidate that has addressed these issues and has worked on them for years. She established a tangible plan and has executed such in the private sector. Personally, I vote for freedom first, and then my pocketbook. Why?...because without freedom what do you have that is worth having? Without financial security you have no freedom. If you are voting on foreign policy then vote for Dodd as he is the most knowledgeable and capable in that arena. If you are concerned with the financial future of the country and your family, you owe it to dig into Clinton's policy papers and into her personal history of accomplishment. In this day of 30 second sound bites it's all about projecting an image. Packaging is nice but did you marry for beauty or did you marry for love?
After battling the last misleading mailer I have no energy for this one. Discussion regarding this piece and it's use of Republican themes is taking place over at TPM where I snagged this jpg of the piece rather than photographing my own.
Good way to build the Party... calling your Party and Senate colleague the trillion dollar tax, anti-choice candidate.
(One of my favorite features. - promoted by Mike Caulfield)
Even I am burnt out on mail at this point...
A large harvest this week Obama 5, Clinton "4" (1 Campaign, 1 ASFCME, 2 New Hampshire Women Vote), Richardson 2, Edwards "1" (via Alliance for A New America)
Now the American Research Group (ARG) poll, also post-Iowa, may confirm this, showing Obama with a shocking 12% bulge over Clinton at 38% to 26%, with Edwards picking up a fresh 5% and actually threatening Hillary with 20%. That's a 16% swing to Obama since the previous poll.
Most interesting detail deep in the ARG numbers: Hillary actually leads Obama 34% to 32% among confirmed Democrats, while he tops her 49% to 12% among independents, which may make up one-third of the tally. Debate tonight should be interesting....
I just got home from nine days in Cedar Falls, Iowa. It was an exhausting, encouraging, informative trip. Long cold days campaigning, listening, and worrying, but we are a resilient nation and my wife and I returned to Chicago convinced that our best days are still in the future.
One of the things I've done for a living is to analyze performance data in order to predict the future. By analyzing past performance, I've been able to predict how well will a healthcare provider perform in the coming year? It's a life and death question. If you select healthcare Provider A rather than Provider B to perform your surgery you may be four times more likely to die before you are discharged from the hospital. So how do I decide which surgeon will be ready to perform surgery on day one? Or to rephrase this question in political terms, which Democratic candidate for President will be best able to lead our country on day one in the White House?
One method of answering the first question is to look at credentials. Surgeon A graduated from a prestigious Ivy League medical school while Surgeon B graduated from a little known state-supported medical school. Obviously, Surgeon A is the best man or woman for the job. But in the past year, the death rate for patients treated by Surgeon A was 12 percent and the death rate for patients treated by Surgeon B was 3 percent. Furthermore, the operations performed and patients treated by both surgeons were similar. So which surgeon would you choose to operate on you tomorrow?
By analogy, on January 20, 2010, which Democratic candidate for President would have performed best after a year in office?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to look at some relevant comparative data on past performance. The best comparative data we have may be data for the year ending January 4, 2008. I think it is fair to say there now are three leading contenders for the job. So how ready were these three leading contenders to run for President of the United States on January 4, 2007? On whom would you now put your money to be ready to lead our country on January 20, 2009?
On January 4, 2007:
Candidate A is married to a former President who is widely regarded as the best Democratic political strategist in the country. She was intimately involved in two successful campaigns for the Presidency and can raise prodigious amounts of money, which is the lifeblood of a national campaign. She has ready access to vast organizational resources and political expertise. She was twice elected to the United States Senate by huge majorities in one of the most populous states in the country. She is regarded as a prohibitive favorite by most authorities in American politics.
Candidate B has actually run for President of the United States. He bested all candidates for the Democratic nomination except the eventually nominee and was selected to run for Vice-President. He has spent the last three years preparing to run for President and has created a formidable organization in the state that will begin the nominating process. He is a wealthy former trial lawyer who was once elected to the United States Senate from a southern state. Every Democratic President in the past half-century has been a white male southerner.
Candidate C is a freshman United States Senator from a large Midwestern state who was elected to his first federal office two years ago after being twice elected to the State Senate. He is a black lawyer who has worked as a community organizer and taught constitutional law at a leading university. He has no experience running a national campaign, no proven ability to raise the money required to run a national campaign, no national campaign organization, and no team of national political consultants. He has demonstrated an outstanding intellect, superb oratorical skills and the ability to draw large crowds, but he is a relative unknown on the national political scene. However, he has impressed people who know him so much that they urge him to run for President before most seasoned political observers feel he is ready to compete successfully. He says he will not run unless he believes he can win and govern effectively; then he decides to run. A senior black Congressman says Candidate C made the right decision even though he does not have a chance of winning and endorses Candidate A.
In the first three months after January 4, 2007, all three candidates officially announce their candidacies. Candidates A and C raise similar record amounts of money for their primary campaigns; Candidate B raises far less money.
In the second three months, Candidate A has a substantial and growing lead in every national poll. She dominates debates, erodes Candidate B's lead in polls in the first state scheduled to hold a Democratic primary, and focuses attention on Candidate C's lack of experience in international affairs, calling one of his foreign policy statements "naïve and irresponsible." Candidate C creates a national campaign organization, develops a strategic plan, and articulates a policy of respect, empowerment, and inclusion that is to govern the entire operation. He also claims that he now has the best ground organization in each of the first four early primary states. His wife backs this claim by pointing out that Candidate C is a community organizer who knows how to do this.
In the third three months, Candidate A is declared unstoppable. Candidate B becomes more strident. Candidate C develops impressive policy teams and articulates policies on a large number of pressing national issues. Candidate C is pressed by some desperate supporters to "go negative" in order to give some life to a candidacy that falls more than 20 points behind in national polls. Candidate C makes some tactical adjustments but sticks to his strategy.
In the final three months, Candidate A stumbles during a debate and struggles to regain a position of perceived inevitability. Candidate B sharpens his confrontational populist positions. Candidate C continues refining tactics as he gains momentum and his winning strategy unfolds.
On January 4, 2008, all three candidates hit the ground running in New Hampshire after Candidate C convincing wins the Iowa caucuses and Candidate B narrowly edges out Candidate A for second place.
So, in answer to Candidate A's rhetorical question about who will be ready to assume the job of President of the United States on day one, I believe current data indicates that it will be the candidate who was best able to plan, organize, and execute a campaign for this office. To paraphrase an observation Pat Buchanan made several months ago: Hillary Clinton must keep Barack Obama from winning an early primary because Obama is a political thoroughbred and if he gets out of the barn, there will be no catching him. So, I'll put my money on Secretariat in the Belmont and take Barack Obama at his word. He is ready and able to win. He is ready and able to lead. He is ready and able to govern. On day one and beyond.
There are BIG differences between the candidates on the Immigration issue.
Barack Obama's Plan
Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.
Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
http://www.barackobama.com/iss...
John Edwards
Strengthen Our Borders
The first step in overhauling the immigration system is to secure our borders and stop illegal trafficking. Edwards supports doubling the number of border patrol agents and investing in surveillance technology to police the borders. We also need to crack down on employers that hire undocumented immigrants. Edwards supports more vigorous workplace enforcement and increased fines for businesses that knowingly break the rules.
Provide an Earned Path to Citizenship that Requires English It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million people. Edwards believes people who are already here should have the opportunity to earn American citizenship by avoiding a criminal record, paying a fine in recognition that they came here illegally, and learning English - the surest path to success in this country.
Preserve Family Reunification
Our immigration policies should bring families together, not keep them apart. Edwards believes family reunification is an important value that our immigration laws should continue to respect. We should remove barriers to family reunification.
No New Second-Class of Laborers
America is a land of equals, not a land of first-class citizens and second-class laborers. Edwards opposes new temporary guest worker programs that do not provide adequate workplace protections and a reasonable path to citizenship. If we invite you to work in America, we should invite you to become an American with all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
End the Backlog
The process for background checks on legal immigrants has broken down, delaying proper applications for naturalization and jeopardizing security. The backlog of applications has doubled to nearly 330,000. Edwards will end the background check backlog for people who are already in this country and are applying to become lawful permanent residents and, eventually, citizens.
http://www.johnedwards.com/iow...
Hillary Clinton
Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.
Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country and an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers.
Along with these changes, Hillary believes we need to repair those broken portions of our immigration system that irrevocably damage families and force citizens and lawful immigrants to choose between their newly adopted country and living with their spouse or children. We have a national interest in fostering strong families. This is why she introduced an amendment during consideration of the immigration reform bill that would have taken steps to protect the sanctity of families. Our American values demand no less.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...
I have taken care to put each web site on this blog so that you may check where the information came from. There is a definite difference in all 3 candidates and the way they discuss their solutions. I would like to have a civil debate on those differences and when you read all 3 of these statements, you will see what attracted so many voters to Obama in Iowa and across the nation.
(Part put below the fold by me. Tell us what's happening on the ground today. I heard, e.g., that Concord HS, though on vacation, was mobbed with young people for the big O. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Last night I was with a number of notable hampsters. It was a lot of fun thanks to the Caulfield's for hosting. The side comments were hilarious- get a bunch of over-informed political junkies in a room and watch out. The Obamian's in the room tried to remain respectful but there was a small bit of trash talk.
I've created a "before and after" of the Pollster.com trend. Clinton finished about where the averages had her. Obama and Edwards did significantly better.
The three speeches that were given last night were geared more towards NH and the days ahead then about the results of the Iowa caucus. No duh. I know.
Of the three speeches given, which of them is the most consistent with the pre-Iowa message and which, if any, are reacting to the results instead of building off them.
I fully concur with Edwards main point, Iowa voted for change via Edwards or Obama.
Edwards will be bending over backwards to convince NH and the rest of America that he is the better candidate to carry the mantle of change. To be honest, I don't agree, but Edwards is a firm #2 in my book. ____________________________________________________________________________________________
I was completely put off by how Hillary stacked all her "cronies" behind her. Does Bill and Albright need the face time? Then she desperately tried to twist her defeat into a "victory for the party." (wink, wink. She thinks she is the party or wants you to believe that)
This speech is a shotgun appeal that covers every twist and turn her campaign has taken, trying to be everything to everyone. By doing this, she shows that she is desperate to find a handle on "her message." Trying to find what sticks is not leadership. ____________________________________________________________________________________________
Barack's speech is elevated, using broad strokes. He knows that Americans are going "meta" in 2008. Not that policy and points are not of great importance, but here Obama is conveying the "vision" of the movement.
When everyone was listening, Barack went back to HOPE.
As one would expect, the volume of mail picked up this week. Obama 3, Clinton 2 (Via Emily's List and Women Vote), Edwards 1 (via Alliance for A New America) Not sure how to score the controversial AFSCME People piece that mentions Edwards but is really from a Clinton endorsed 527.
(Slightly reformatted before promotion - promoted by Laura Clawson)
Tomorrow's editorial will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire's Democratic primary. Here is an excerpt:
Clinton's ambitious to-do list for her first few weeks in office gives us confidence that her priorities are right and that she would act swiftly to make a positive difference. She is the Monitor's choice in the Jan. 8 Democratic primary.
New Hampshire Democrats and independents are blessed with a strong field of presidential candidates at a time when a change of course is desperately needed. We have been impressed by Joe Biden's pragmatic foreign policy and by John Edwards's insistence that we pay attention to the poorest Americans.
Barack Obama, more than most, has the power to inspire. The positive tone of his campaign is not a gimmick. He is a serious candidate with sober ideas. For reasons symbolic and substantive, he would also be a nominee Democrats could feel proud to vote for.
But Hillary Clinton's unique combination of smarts, experience and toughness makes her the best choice to win the November election and truly get things done.
Update. The full endorsement is here: Clinton Endorsement
America has groaned as we have grown.
The people of these United States have sent money,Medical aid, food and troops to different parts of the world for years. And what have we recieved in return?
Here are the 5 top items I see that cloud our future as a nation.
1.)We (the U.S) are disliked in most nations. because of our Police actions world wide.
2.)Our borders are open and unprotected.and our laws are ignored unlike any foreign country on earth.
3.) American's have lost job's since 1980. Anti Unionization, globalization policy.
4.)America's manufacturing is now non existant.
5.)American's lost lives while standing guard with out bullets in our guns. (Beirut)
We have been a strong nation in the past, but have reached a cross roads.
With the loss of good jobs for our citizens over the years, how long can we continue to pay in money and life lost for the aid in the world.
How long can we continue to write blank checks to those who hate us and our culture?
The next President, be it Obama, Edwards, or any other Democratic candidate will have their hands full at home as well as all over the world.
They may need to revamp government programs that are not, or have not been working like the war on drugs, welfare, department of homeland security and education for example.
They will need to look at what a budget really is and do some reorganization.
We may see another Great Society program, and replace dated ineffective programs.
I would like to hear from everyone on these issues... and read the words to the song "MONSTER"
which I have included below, does it reflect America as it is now?
On this site and elsewhere much attention has been paid to a recent New Republic piece by Sean Wilentz criticizing Barack Obama as a darling of the news media. Wilentz oddly likens current Obama supporters to those drawn to George W. Bush in the year 2000.
As Cass Sunstein notes in the current New Republic, Senator Obama is an extremely substantive person, with the intellect, drive, experience, and political skills to be an excellent president. He, like Bill Clinton, built a remarkable career from scratch based on his unique talents and commitments to important issues. George W Bush was a pampered playboy who conspicuously lacks Senator Obama's most striking qualities.
If anything, the GWB analogy applies elsewhere. If Hillary Clinton were not married to Bill Clinton, she would be a successful and admirable person. I doubt that she would be a leading presidential contender.
Gandhi, the Kennedy's, MLK, Sadat, Rabin, now Bhutto--so many good people have been taken by fanatics, who try with depressing success to stop progress. Around the world, it is much easier to smash things and people than it is to accomplish positive change. Unless we find more creative ways to stop the politics of rage, we will be consumed by it.
Today's atrocity in Pakistan should remind us how blessed we are to have inherited a stable and prosperous nation that is generally spared from political violence. We should never take that for granted. I hope our next president will be more successful than President Bush in bringing our nation together during this difficult period of our national life.
