HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Comments on state-by-state
Date: 10 Oct 1992 03:08:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: dxc4@po.CWRU.Edu (David Condon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, barring@cs.washington.edu (David Barrington) says:
>  Similarly (my World
>Almanac in elsewhere), anyone know where Anderson came closest to
>finishing second in 1980?
>
Massachusetts, I think.

Speaking of Anderson -- I voted for him myself. I was young and very 
politically naive. I was disillusioned with Carter, particularly about
the draft registration thing. I knew I didn't want Reagan, but guess what
-- I got him anyway! And ever since then I've wondered -- how about that
Anderson guy, anyway? Did he disappear like a stone into the dark waters
of politics, or what? I mean, run for president and then do the Judge Crater
thing. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

"They all forgot Jesus was a revolutionary"  -- KRS One
-- 
"In universities, it is forbidden     |  "Personally, my politics are so far
to teach nonsense. But the _history_  |  to the right, I consider Paul Revere
of nonsense -- that's scholarship!"   |  to be a pinko."
               -- Saul Lieberman      |                 -- Tom Grundner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Choice! (was: Re: Vice Shrub won)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:58:53 GMT

In article <7677@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> jjast7+@pitt.edu (James   J Alles) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.203125.13419@u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>>
>>I am FAR from a big booster of the current public school system,
>>but the voucher plans I've seen so far from the Republicans
>>do not impress me at all.  As soon as I am satisfied that
>>no voucher (tax) money goes to religious schools, then
>>I'll pay attention.            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>one forgets that the schools were taken over from the church by the
> government.  And don't tell me that the religions of humanism & 
>homosexuality are not being preached on an increasing basis.  The public 
>school systems are NOT neutral.

Huh?  There are NO schools in my town which the state took over
from the "church".

As far as you quip about the content of public education,
I'll ask my kids next time they get back from college
if they took any courses like "Queer 101" or 
"Advanced Godlessness".

Get real.

>On that basis, I am not happy that Tax money goes to public schools.
>Why don't we do away with them.  Let the free market rule.  better yet, 
>let's extract it from the tax system, and let each person pay their way thru
>cash or vouchers, public or private.  How many would choose the more 
>expensive yeilding poorer results?

If that were the choice, probably no one.
Again, I am NOT a booster of public schools.  I would like
to see more choice/options in schooling.  The current
hidebound system is not as disastrous as many portray it,
but it could definitely be improved, probably saving
money in the process.  The two necessary conditions
for any plan (to me) are:  no tax money to religious 
schools, and opportunity for every child to get
a good education.  From what I have seen of the
Republican voucher plan, it fulfills neither of
these conditions.  

>
>Peace, JA


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: hagar@phoenix.princeton.edu (Paul Hagar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: cartoon candidates
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:02:54 GMT
Organization: PPPL
Originator: news@nimaster
X-Xxdate: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:02:21 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7


_________________________________________
Paul S. Hagar, Big Sky Country Native
hagar@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Lost some respect for CNN (was Re: Vice Shrub won)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 09:02:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.052924.26438@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac) writes:

>Back to p.304 - How many times when the US was involved in a multinational
>collaboration (Desert Storm, NATO, UN, etc.) did the US NOT have to pick up
>a major (> 50%) share of the costs?  Case closed.  Quayle's interpretation
>had it's merit.

At least one -- Desert Storm.  We paid closer to 5% than 50%.  We
extorted billions from S.A., Kuwait, Japan and Germany.

NATO we're still paying for because for some inexplicable reason,
Bush/Quayle think we should.  Not for any other reason.  *Why* 150k
troops in Europe?  As Bush said *directly* in the debate, "Jobs."  I bet
you never knew the U.S. army was a social welfare program, did you?

The U.N.?  We don't pay what we owe, so it doesn't matter.

And Quayle's interpretation has *no* merit.  This interpretation goes
1) Gore called for many countries to spend $100 million
2) In the past, when many countries have done something, the U.S. paid most.
3) Other countries won't pay much this time, either.
4) The U.S. will pay most.

There are 2 major flawed assumptions in this.  First, that other countries 
won't pay.  Second, that Gore will advocate us paying all the money
ourselves when the other countries won't.

Since these are guesses, rather than what Gore said, this has no merit.

Given that Gore *said* we can't afford to do this, that other countries
will have to spend most of the money, a more rational assumption would be:

4) The U.S. will put a lot of pressure on these countries to get them to
	contribute.
or

4) The U.S. will give up on the idea.

The Bush/Quayle lying-about-plans strategy goes like this:
1) Assume that Part 2 out of a 4 Part plan will fall through.
2) Assume that Clinton/Gore will spend more money to go through with the
	plan even though Part 2 doesn't work.
3) Claim that Clinton/Gore have *advocating* spending more money.
4) Ask them why they won't come clean about Moscow.

It's wrong.  It goes to character.  Whom do you trust?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1993 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Roland Hemond: SIGN BARRY BONDS!!!!!!!!
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:18:09 GMT

In article <farenebt.718637455@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>Wasn't Clinton one of the Watergate burglars? Come Bill,
>come clean with the American people like Bush's fellow
>Republican Richard Nixon did.

WRONG!  The correct answer: he was in the get-away car.

>
>============================================================================
>BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will)
>CLARKSON '95			 	   
>A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
>===========================================================================
>CLINTON FOR PREZ, BOB ABRAMS FOR US SENATE, DAVE ROBERTS FOR CONGRESS (NY-22ND)

Where is Clarkson, anyway?


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: [Republicans] On Pornography
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:25:44 GMT
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssf

>>However, the only support I wish to give to an artist is the purchase
>>price of a work or the admission price to a showing.  Any artist's 
>>claim to the tax money taken from me is, in my opinion, tantamount
>>to theft.
>
>   Oh, I agree absolutely.  But if there's going to be a National
>Endowment for the Arts _at all_, then the criteria by which funding is
>distributed should not be dictated by a party, an ideology, or a
>religion.

Let's eliminate tax money funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
I will use my personal contributions to support the charities that I choose.

|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|
From: loeb@ai.mit.edu (Eric Loeb)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Test of auto-posting for Bush
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:13:15 GMT



This is a preliminary test of Auto-posting for
Bush material to Usenet groups.

The groups that they can auto-post to are:

alt.politics.bush
alt.politics.elections
alt.politics.usa.misc
talk.politics.misc

If I have missed any, or if these are inappropriate,
please let me know.


Eric Loeb
1992 Presidential Campaign Information Service
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: After Debate Press Coverage
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:03:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.025745.5673@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@amber.uucp (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1bfrisINN6pp@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> dpike@oavax.csuchico.edu (Dan Pike) writes:
>>Does anyone else get sick of the after debate coverage that the press
>>gives.  As soon as the debate is over, they tell you who won and who
>>lost.  Why don't they let the American people figure it out for
>>themselves instead of giving us their view?  Are we not smart enough to
>>decide for ourselves what was said and who came out ahead because of it?  
>>I'm not against press coverage, but I'd like to see them give the
>>American people a couple hours to work it out for themselves and to be
>>able to discuss the debate with family and friends before we get their
>>viewpoint of it.
>>
>>Just a thought,
>>

  What an irresponsible suggestion ! Just think of all the newspeople
that would put out of work and increase the unemployment roles.

>
>  And a very clever thought it is.   I think it was CNN that did a
>bit on the pre and post debate coverage.  Among other degrading things,
>they showed a newspaper editor from the San Fransisco Chronicle (?memory?)
>saying that people will forget what they really thought and believe what
>the press writes throughout the next day.  I'm sure he and the politicians
>believe that.  Is he right?

   Only if the press says so, apparently.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON DOCTRINE
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:08:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct8.042301.22431@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman) writes:

>I can't think of any two communist nations which warred with each other
>either....

The USSR and Czechoslovakia.  The USSR and Hungary.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:17424 talk.politics.misc:52575
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clinton has already won the election!
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:31:30 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1bkqkkINN1s9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> In article <1bkmlrINN1s9@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@gershwin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> |> In article <1bisf2INN90e@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
> |> 
> |> > ABC reported that Bill Clinton is has three hundred more electoral
> |> > votes than George Bush.  Namely:
> |> > 
> |> > 	367 for Clinton to a mere 67 for Bush
> |> > 
> |> > This can only mean one thing:  The race is over.
> |> 
> |> If you really think that, I suggest you read today's Chicago Tribune.
> |> 
> |> In their latest Illinois poll, Clinton's support dropped sharply from 
> |> 50% the last time around to 41% after the debate. Perot picked up most of
> |> that vote, and is at 13%, and Bush remained static at 28%. That makes 
> |> the "Undecideds" the second-largest voting group. With a real good
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I meant to say "third-largest...".
> 
> 
> -- 
> Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
> 
> If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ABC news last night had it 44 Clinton 37 Bush ?? Perot. They are closing
as I have predicted before. Bill, don't count your chickens before they
hatch.

Ken
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Mary Matalin and James Carville
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:56:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Real/Time Communications

In article <ISBELL.92Oct15015807@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>|The NYT of a few days ago reported that Mary Matalin (chief spokesperon
>|of the Bush/Quayle campaign and overall incarnation of evil) and James
>|Carville, Clinton's chief campaign strategist, are romantically linked.
>|Man, what a great relationship they must have.  They must have great
>|sex, because they sure as hell must not be able to talk about much...
>|:-)
>
>Actually, I have the suspicion that this whole nasty campaign is some
>sort of sexual mating dance for those two. Whoever wins gets to use
>the whip or be on top for four years or something.
>

Mary Matalin and James Carville must be the most cynical people on the
face of the Earth.

>Of course, I have the suspicion  that Quayle's people are purposefully
>graying his hair.

I noticed that Clinton's hair seems grayer, too.  Hmmmm...
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Ross TV
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:06:47 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

sieferme@u.washington.edu said..
>Just heard on the radio that Ross Perot is changing the
>direction of this TV campaign.  Instead of airing the next
>two installments of his TV show, he is re-running the
>show that was on two nights ago.  This is in response
>to (he says) public demand.
>
>The first show consisted of HRP providing his analysis of
>the problems of debt/budget.  After the show was over,
>he was asked why he provided no solutions.  His explanation
>was that his three one-half hour shows were a series,
>and policy proposals would be appearing in the final
>two episodes.
>
>Now, we are apparently not going to see the final
>two episodes.  Makes you say "hmmm ...".

This is incorrect.  The next segment will run next week.

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
From: foy@aero.org (Richard Foy)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Commander in Chief Clinton ?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 20:09:05 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <3833@eastman.UUCP> pawlicki@kodak.com writes:
>
>
...
>with talk.
>	Before you fire up your flame throwers, take some time and ask
>yourself how you would really feel if Gov. Clinton told you that your
>child (or you) had to go and die for this county? 
>

I would feel a lot better than I would or did when Bush did. I would know
that it was more likely to be necessary than when Bush does it.

Richard Foy  Redondo Beach, CA         Standard Disclaimer






Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:15631 talk.politics.misc:50299 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3451 alt.conspiracy:11072 sci.skeptic:17664
From: doug@ramona.com (Double Agent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:20:55 GMT
Organization: Ramona Engineering

Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
come clean with the American people?"
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:16833 alt.politics.bush:9190 alt.politics.clinton:10475 alt.politics.perot:2160 talk.politics.misc:51823
From: aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com (Allan Schaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc
Subject: WHAT GORE REALLY SAYS in his book
Date: 14 Oct 1992 23:06:45 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: holodeck.csd.sgi.com

Since there's a lot of people asking questions about this, and
so many people confused by Quayle's accusation last night, I 
thought it might be good to return to the world of _facts_ and
compare what Quayle asserted to what Gore _says in his book_.

QUAYLE: "Senator Gore has suggested to have the taxpayers of
	 America spend $100 billion a year on environmental 
	 projects in foreign countries  [...] it's in your book.  
	 On page 304."

On page 304 of the book, Gore is discussing the Marshall Plan and
how difficult it would be to get countries to collaborate like they
did to rebuild Europe after WW2.

	Charles Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for 
	the Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent 
	of our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100 
	billion a year.

Here is the above in context:

	As a result, the responsibility for taking the initiative, 
	for innovating, catalyzing, and leading such an effort, 
	falls disproportionately on the United States.  Yet in the 
	early 1990s our instinct for world leadership often seems 
	not nearly so bold as it was in the late 1940s.  The bitter 
	experience of the Vietnam War is partly responsible, and 
	the sheer weariness of carrying the burden of world leadership 
	has taken a toll.  Furthermore, we are not nearly as dominant 
	in the world economy as we were then, and that necessarily 
	has implications for our willingness to shoulder large burdens.  
	And our budget deficits are now so largeas to stifle our 
	willingness to consider even the most urgent of tasks.  Charles
	Maier points out that the annual U.S. expenditures for the 
	Marshall Plan between 1948 and 1951 were close to 2 percent of
	our GNP.  A similar percentage today would be almost $100 billion
	a year (compared to our total nomilitary foreign aid budget of
	about $15 billion a year)

Here's what Brooks Jackson of CNN said:

	"Nowhere in the book does Gore propose $100 billion of foreign
	aid for environmental projects." "Gore writes that the money the
	United States spent on the Marshall Plan to rescue post-World War II
	Europe would equal $100 billion a year today, but he does not urge
	spending that much now."

Amazingly enough, I've actually seen people asserting in this newsgroup
that Quayle was correct.  

Allan
-- 
Allan Schaffer   x2160                    "Things have been tough, but 
aschaffe@holodeck.csd.sgi.com              they haven't been that tough."
aschaffe@netcom.com                                   - George Bush   10/4/92
For a free copy of Bill Clinton's economic recovery plan, call (501) 372-1992
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov (Richard Mulac)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:45:05 GMT

In article <Bw59wx.BJw@eis.calstate.edu> Kenneth Mitchell, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu writes:
>>lied about his Senate voting record,
 
In article <1992Oct15.154228.12285@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>MISLEADING: The only time he voted for the CBI was when it was part of a
>much larger trade bill whose importance overrode Gore's opposition to the
>CBI.

But Gore said "THE US WAS SPENDING OUR TAX MONEY SHIPPING JOBS OUT
OF THE COUNTRY!!!".  So according to him it was treasonous to support such
a policy under any circumstances, not matter how important the rest of the
bill was.  Besides, he could have attempted to amend the bill, striking out
the CBI part - WHICH HE DIDN'T DO.  How does that saying go - hoist on your
own patard(?).

-- 
Richard Mulac                                     mulac@daystrom.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 5-9, Cleveland, OH  44135
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There's a simple explanation for all           | These pontifications
              of this." - Bill Clinton                  |      are my own!
From: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Bush threatens to put the gloves on (again)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 04:02:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bsc7@po.CWRU.Edu (Bradley S. Corsello)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) says:

>Energized by Quayle's attacks in the VP debate, Bush is said to be preparing
>to fiercely attack Clinton tonight. Yawn. Whatever he does, it is not done
>[...]

Here's my take on the Thursday debate:

Bush knows he's going to lose.  The only options available to him are 
to be either:

   1) A bitter, scum-slinging, frantic, shrill loser, or
   2) A "presidential", statesmanlike loser.

That's why the very laid back, high-toned approach to the debate.  Bush
has thrown in the towel, and is trying to rescue his image.

It's over, folks.
-- 
Brad Corsello (bsc7@po.cwru.edu) 2L Case Western Reserve Law School
"The Fanaticks have always had a way of affecting to run into Per-
secution, and count vast Merit upon every little Hardship they suffer."
^ J. Swift.  "Factum clarum, jus nebulosum."  Rex v. Haddock.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Time poll 1988
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:13:36 GMT

sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>Joe, are you trying to tell us that a presidential candidate
>who maintains a > 10% lead for the last two months of
>a campaign is likely to win the election?
>
>Is that what you are trying to tell us?
>
>Say it's so, Joe! :)

Well, Bush is certainly one miracle short of winning at this point.

Still waiting for the revelation that Klinton has a 401K account in the
KGB payroll savings plan, though.

---
Joe Knapp         jmk@cbvox.att.com
"Do you really believe Bill Clinton will tell the truth? And do you -- do you
trust Bill Clinton to be your President?"

Yes.

Say goodnight, Dan.