Lynette Long

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?

by Lynette Long

I get it. I’m converted.  I believe in change.  Amen.   Halleluiah! Put me on the change bandwagon. I want Change!  Change I can believe in.  Not small change either.  I want the whole tamale.  We need fresh blood, new meat, and innovative ideas in Washington. We need new leadership.

So let’s get rid of the good old boys who control Washington.  I know they agree with me.

Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Senator. “With Barak Obama, we will close the book on Old Politics,” Senator Ted Kennedy, January 28, 2008. That means you babe.  You’re part of that closed book.  Besides you ignored the voters of Massachusetts who voted for Hillary by a fourteen point margin, and endorsed Barack Obama.  Ignoring your constituents and the will of the people is old politics.

John Kerry, Massachusetts’ other Senator.  “I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past, and that the country needs a president that will change the status quo and change the Washington system and to give voice to all of those who voices are ignored in the corridors of power,”  John Kerry, January 10, 2008. Well John, women are the most disenfranchised people in government.  You didn’t give voice to the women of your state who voted for Hillary in record numbers when you endorsed Obama. Bye-bye John.  Make room for the young and the new.

Nancy Pelosi.  Speaker of the House of Representatives.  “ Frankly his lack of Washington experience, in my view is a giant plus, because he comes here free, free and fresh and new, and not hamstrung  by Washington, DC, which is a city of status quo,”  Nancy Pelosi, June 28, 2008.  Well Nancy, you are part of that status quo and the ultimate insider.   You stood silently by as a woman was sexually harassed by the press and the media.   Resign and make room for change.

Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Howard, you’re tired, tired, tired and worse you’re ineffective. You’ve been a governor of Vermont, a presidential candidate and head of the DNC, it’s time for some new faces.  The head of the DNC has never been a woman, so move over and allow a woman to have your job.   That would be change.

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico.  “It is time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward,” March 21, 2008.  Well guess what?  You’re part of the old generation.  Besides you endorsed Obama after Clinton won your state, and you were adamant in numerous public statements, that super delegates should follow the will of the voters.  When questioned about your endorsement, you replied, Hillary only won New Mexico by a small margin.  Talk about splitting dog hairs. 

Let’s clean house.  Let’s not just get rid of the ultimate Democratic insiders, but also the people that run their campaigns.  How about David Axelrod, Mark Penn, Donna Brazile and Mark Squire?  You’ve all got to go.  You’re all graduates of the school of dirty politics.  The politics of change needs new leaders, women leaders.

And now let’s talk about the Vice-Presidency.   Since we have a white male and a black male running for president, let’s be fair and nominate two women. Last I looked women were over half the population, so why not give us half the slots. A real seat at the table, that would be change, wouldn’t it? I’d be happy to volunteer for VP, I don’t have much experience in politics, but that doesn’t matter. If one-hundred-forty-three days of national experience is enough to run for president, what the hell, my twenty-one day tour of Europe during graduate school and my African safari two years ago should qualify me as an international expert.   Did I mention I lived in Japan for a year? Besides I’d only be attending funerals anyway.  I’m well prepared.  I own a few black suits.  A heartbeat away from the presidency you say. Well I promise, I’m smarter that George Bush, cuter than Richard Nixon, and more honest than Dick Chaney.”   Anyway I’m one of the people and I promise to tell the truth, does that count for anything?

SPIN DOCTORS AND THE PICKING OF A PRESIDENT

by Lynette Long

The outcome of the Democratic primary was determined by the DNC and the mainstream media’s love affair with Obama.   Numerous studies reported a pro-Obama bias in both favorability ratings of stories and minutes of air time. Early in the primary season Diane Sawyer asked, “Are we using boxing gloves on Hillary Clinton and kid gloves on Barack Obama?” Saturday Night Live questioned the “soft” treatment Obama was getting from the press.  Over eighty-percent of voters recognized a pro-Obama media bias, but few could spot the subtle and insidious ways news outlets spun statistics to undermine the candidacy of one candidate or enhance the candidacy of another.  Here are a few of the most common techniques used by the media.

Report favorable statistics and ignore unfavorable statistics.  Jamal Simmons, an Obama supporter and regular on CNN, frequently said, “Obama’s won by every metric.  He’s won the most states and he’s won the most delegates.”  That’s spin. If Jamal was a Clinton supporter he’d pick different data points to spin. “Senator Clinton won by almost every metric.  She won four out of the five biggest states, the most electoral votes, the most primaries, almost all the swing states and the majority of the popular vote.”

Compare one statistic against another to make a good result look bad.  When Clinton won Pennsylvania by 10 points pundits hammered home that a month ago she was up 20 points in the polls.  Instead of emphasizing what she won, they emphasized what she lost.  Comparing polls to primaries is comparing apples to oranges, but pundits counted on viewer ignorance.   If the media were pro-Clinton, the tag-line would have been, “Votes Money Can’t Buy - after seven grueling weeks of campaigning and outspending Clinton three to one, Obama gets slammed in Pennsylvania by a double digit Clinton win.”   

When all else fails, look for a statistic within a statistic.  Senator Clinton crushed Senator Obama by 35 points in Kentucky after defeating him by 41points in West Virginia. Somber CNN pundits wanted to spin the story in Obama’s favor, but how do you spin a 35 point Clinton victory so that Clinton looks bad?  Look for a statistic within a statistic. During CNN’s exit polling, eighteen percent of white voters said race was important to them.  Eighty-eight percent of these voters voted for Senator Clinton.  David Gergen, a Democratic strategist for CNN, called this racist voting and labeled Senator Clinton’s constituents rednecks, a pejorative for poor white people, developed by African Americans to refer to the fair skinned laborers working next to them in the fields. Gergen implied Kentucky’s voters were sub-human and didn’t count. He failed to report other statistics within the statistic, namely that sixty-four percent Clinton supporters had gone to college or that sixty-one percent of people who earned over $100,000 a year voted for Senator Clinton.

HOODWINKED

At the end of the Democratic Primary, one-hundred twenty-three pledged delegates separated Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.  Senator Obama’s campaign argued that the super delegates should follow the lead of pledged delegates otherwise they would be stealing the election from Obama.   Originally designed to select the most electable candidate if neither candidate received the majority of delegates on pledged delegates alone, the super delegates could vote for either candidate.  Afraid of disenfranchising the large African-American base, they committed to Obama.  Since Clinton won the majority of the popular vote, and eight of the ten largest states, and almost all the swing states, she was clearly the most electable. So, how did Obama steal the election from Clinton?   

Florida.  After Florida moved its primary up to January 29, 2008, the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, impeded a revote, and delayed resolving the Florida delegate issue.  On May 31, 2008, the DNC Rules Committee, not wanting to alienate Florida in the general election, decided to give the Florida Delegation half a vote each. But if Florida’s delegates were awarded full voting rights, which they most likely will get at the convention, Clinton would get 104 delegates and Obama would get 78 delegates. Obama’s pledged delegate lead would be reduced by 13 delegates to 110. 

Michigan.  Almost six hundred thousand voters went to the polls in Michigan and of these voters, 328,151 voted for Clinton, 237,762 for uncommitted, 21,708 for Kucinich, and 2,363 for Gravel.  The Rules Committee not wanting to disenfranchise Michigan’s voters, seated all of Michigan’s delegates but only gave them a half-vote each.   In addition, even though Obama did not receive a single vote in Michigan, the Rules Committee awarded him the 29 delegates for the uncommitted voters. They also decided to give four of Clinton’s delegates to Obama based on “exit polls” causing Harold Ickes Jr. to yell foul.   Take the29 delegates from Obama, give the four delegates back to Clinton and reinstate a full vote to each of the Michigan delegates, and Obama’s pledged delegate lead is 38.

HOSTAGE

by Lynette Long

By most measures Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic National Primary against Senator Barack Obama.   She won the popular vote. She won the most primaries.  She won the electoral vote.  She won the swing states. She polled better than Obama against McCain.  Yet due to his superior performance in the caucus states, Obama ended the primary with 123 more pledged delegates than Clinton.  But neither candidate had the majority of total delegates leaving the nomination to be decided by the super delegates, party elders, democratic senators, congressman, governors, and state party leaders.  The super delegates did not have to endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates, in fact super delegates were created so party insiders could pick the more electable candidate in a situation just like this.   Nor were elected officials required to cast their vote in the same direction as their constituents.  In fact, both Kennedy and Kerry pledged their delegates to Obama even though Clinton won Massachusetts by 14 points.   In addition, the Democratic insiders knew Clinton was more electable, yet they selected Obama to be the Democratic nominee.  Why?   

The super delegates were in an untenable situation.  One candidate won the popular vote, and one candidate won the most pledged delegates.  Neither candidate won enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination so the party higher ups had to pick the between the two most loyal bases of the Democratic Party, African Americans and white women. One group was going to be rewarded. One group was going to feel cheated.  Which group do you reward?  Which group do you alienate?  Which group is more likely to walk away?  Which group do you have a hold over? 

African Americans are the most loyal base of the Democratic Party.  Comprising twelve percent of the population, ninety percent of African American voters vote Democratic in every election.  White women compose almost forty percent of the population and vote in higher percentages than any other racial/gender group, but vote Democratic less frequently. They are the larger group and the more reliable voter, but the less reliable Democrats.  Do you reward the larger base or the most loyal base? How many votes will you lose by choosing either candidate?

The African American Community is the best organized and most vocal of the Democratic constituencies.  They continually called for a boycott of the polls in November if the super delegates over turned the pledged delegate lead and denied Obama the nomination.  Some African Americans even threatened riots if the nomination was “stolen” from Obama, a threat that was all too real since after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, riots exploded in Washington D.C. and over a hundred other US cities.   They Democratic Party elders, threatened by an “African American” walk and fear of violence, decided to back Obama.  The squeaky wheel got the grease. 

CAUCUS FACTOR

by Lynette Long

On March 4, 2008, Texas held its Democratic Primary, affectionately called the Texas-Two Step.  After the polls closed at 7 pm, primary voters could participate in a caucus.  Sixty-five percent of the pledged delegates were awarded based on the primary results and the other 35% based on the caucus results.  According to CNN, 2,867,454 votes were cast in the primary - 51% (1,458,814) for Senator Hillary Clinton and 47% (1,358,785) for Senator Barack Obama, and a smattering of votes (49,855) for John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd combined.  In the Texas caucus 42,538 votes were reported. Obama got 56% (23,918) and Clinton got 44% (18,620) of these votes. Caucus voters were required to have voted in their precinct.  Consequently, caucus voters were a statistical subset of primary voters, but they did not vote the same way.

Comparing the Texas primary to the Texas caucus has some unique challenges.  During the primary other candidates besides Clinton and Obama were on the ballot.  To equalize the percentages, the ballots cast for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd were eliminated and Clinton’s and Obama’s percentages recomputed assuming the eliminated voters would split their votes in the same proportion as the rest of the electorate.  The recomputed percentages are Clinton 52% and Obama 48%.

Clinton’s adjusted percentage of 52% of the primary vote is 8% points higher than her 44% in the caucus vote. Clinton moved from a four point win to a twelve point loss, a sixteen point shift.  Obama gained these eight percentage points moving from 48% in the primary to 56% in the caucuses.  This statistically significant sixteen point difference is “the caucus factor,” a major factor in the Democratic presidential primary. The existence of a caucus factor poses three important questions.  What accounts for the dramatic difference between the two results?  Was the “caucus factor” present in the other caucus states?  What do these results imply regarding the validity of other caucus results? 

No one doubts the accuracy of the almost three million Texas voters who selected Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nominee--- but then why wouldn’t the caucus voters, a sample of the primary voters, make the same selection.  The simplest explanation is that caucus voters are a sample of primary voters but not a random sample of primary voters.  Caucuses are held in the evening and take several hours.  Senator Clintons core voting groups, (senior citizens, shift workers, women, and women with children) are less likely to attend caucuses. Senior citizens are less likely to go out at night, have difficulty driving in the dark, and go to bed earlier.  Mothers with young children are too busy in the evenings to spend several hours at a caucus. And some people don’t go to caucuses because of the public nature of the declaration.  Voting is a private event, only you and God know who you voted for.  At a caucus a voter must publically declare for their candidate and resist influencing by the opponents supporters. 

Another factor that contributed to the Texas caucus factor was the less regulated nature of the caucuses.  Participants in the Texas caucus complained about the lack of validation of identity, undo influencing, and individuals signing several names on the caucus sheets.   How much these violations occurred and how much these violations impacted the results and in which direction is impossible to determine.

Finally, Democratic insiders will say that success at a caucus depends on organization.  Did the Obama Campaign just out organize the Clinton campaign which contributed to their success in the Texas Caucus?

On February 9, Washington State caucused to determine the distribution of the pledged delegates.   Obama won 21,629 to 9,992 votes or 68% to 31% and received 53 of the 78 pledged delegates.  Ten days later Washington State had a primary election in which no delegates were awarded yet 669,856 people chose to vote in this beauty contest.  Obama won this contest by 51% (354,112 votes) to 46% (315,744 votes).  How could Obama win by 37 points in a caucus and only 5 points in the primary, a 32-point difference? The caucus factor is at work again.  Which result accurately reflects the will of the voters? Over twenty times the number of people participated in primary, should we trust the masses or the sanctioned election?

Further proof of the caucus factor can be shown by contrasting the difference between the results of the caucuses and the primaries collectively. Fourteen states had caucuses -- Senator Obama won thirteen of these caucuses.  The probability of that occurring in hotly contested race where popular vote is a statistical tie, is a statistical impossibility if the caucuses were a true representation of the voters.  In the states where primary elections were held, Senator Clinton has won 19 primaries and Senator Obama has won 17 primaries, reflecting the close nature of the Democratic Primary race. 

The difference between the margin of victory during caucuses and primaries again illustrates the inaccurate nature of the caucuses. The average point spread in the 13 caucuses Obama won is 32 points.  The average of the point spread in the 17 primaries Obama won, is 21 points.  This eleven point difference is the caucus factor.

The results in Texas, Washington, the number of caucuses won by Obama, and difference between the average margin of victory in the caucuses and primaries, all point to the existence of the caucus factor.  The variability of the results of the caucus returns also points to the unreliability of the caucus results. Senator Clinton won two primaries in demographically similar states, Ohio and Pennsylvania, by the same ten point margin.   Yet when caucus results in similar states are compared, the disparity of the results is profound. Obama won Idaho by 62 points and the demographically similar Wyoming by 23 points.  If the caucus results were reliable, the results of these two similar states would not be so disparate.

Voters who participated in the caucuses had more influence in the election than voters in primaries.   In California, 4,677,788 votes were cast and 363 delegates were awarded. In New York, 232 delegates were pledged in a primary that had 1,748,833 votes cast.  In Alaska a total of 405 persons “caucused” for 13 pledged delegates. A person who participated in the Alaska Caucus had 242 times more influence in the Democratic Primary than a voter in the New York primary and 415 times more influence than a voter in the California primary.  With so few voters accounting for delegate selection in caucus states, results and delegate totals can be easily influenced and manipulated.

The caucus factor is a real statistical event which inflated Obama’s lead over Clinton and misrepresented the will of the people. If all the caucus states had primaries, Obama’s margin of victory in those caucus states would have been smaller and most likely Clinton would have won some of the caucus states. The Democratic Primary was extremely close and questions should be raised regarding the validity and reliability of the caucus results. Unfortunately, a win in a caucus state was given the same weight as a win in a state with a primary election, allowing Obama supporters to claim, “He’s won more states,” even though Clinton won more primaries. Even more disturbing is the fact that of the 14 Caucus States, eight are Dark Red states.  The Democrats have let the Red States like Wyoming, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado and Nevada select their Democratic Nominee.  The will result in certain disaster in the fall.

ALPHABET SOUP

What would convince the Superdelegates to endorse Hillary Clinton?  How about a little Alphabet Soup?

A is for the African American Vote.  Ninety percent of African Americans voters have voted for Senator Obama.  They have propelled him to victory in Southern states with high African American populations such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.  Yet current polls show McCain would handily win all these states. 

B is for Bigger.  Senator Clinton has won four out of the five biggest states, California, Texas, New York, and Florida.  Senator Obama’s only top-five win was his home state of Illinois. The combined population of all of the states Clinton won, is 1 1/2 times the combined population of all of the states Obama won.

C is for Caucus.  Obama’s delegate lead comes from winning 13 out of 14 caucuses giving him an advantage of 149 delegates.  Most of these victories came in Red states (Kansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota) which Obama will never win in the general election.  For example, recent polls show Obama 21 points behind McCain in Kansas. 

D is for Defection. If Obama is the nominee there will be an unprecedented defection of white Democrats.  In West Virginia, over half of Senator Clinton’s supporters said they would not vote for Obama in the general election.  For each Democratic voter that stays home, Obama loses one vote.  For each Democratic voter that votes for McCain, there is a two vote loss for Obama.

E is for Electoral Votes.  If electoral votes were awarded in the primary contest, Clinton would be ahead 343 to 192.  If as expected, Obama wins South Dakota and Montana, final electoral vote totals would be 343 to 198, a blowout for Clinton.

F is for Florida.  Always a key state in the general election, Florida has twenty-seven electoral votes. Obama definitely cannot win Florida, but Clinton is predicted to beat McCain in Florida.  A victory in Florida is equal to victories in the swing states of Iowa, Colorado, and Missouri combined.

G is for Greenbacks.  Obama has out spent Clinton two or three to one in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia, yet Clinton won all these contests.

H is for the Hispanic vote.  Approximately equal in size to the African American vote, the Hispanic vote is decidedly Anti-Obama and will cancel out much of his gain from African American voters.

I is for Impetus.  Currently Clinton has the momentum in the campaign.  There has been a shift in the electorate after voters learned about Rev. Wright and his racist Anti-American teachings.

J is for the Jewish Vote.  The more the Jewish community learns about Obama and his attitudes toward Israel, Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East, the less they are apt to vote for him.

K is for King.  The media has had a love affair with Obama and crowned Obama king, yet he can’t close the deal.

L is for Latte Liberals.  This group of affluent, educated voters controls the media and ardently supports Obama since he is “like them.”  But the number of latte liberals is much smaller than the number of working class whites since only one in four Americans graduates from college.

M is for Michigan.  Obama must win this state to win the general election.  Since he failed to campaign here and lobbied against a re-vote, Michigan will be a tough sell.   Michigan is currently experiencing racial polarization because of the problems with Detroit’s hip-hop mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick. These sentiments will likely spill-over onto Obama.

O is for Ohio.  Obama has little chance of winning Ohio. Clinton won Ohio by ten points and southern Ohio is very similar to West Virginia.   Current polls in Ohio have Obama losing to McCain, but Clinton beating McCain. Ohio with its 20 electoral votes is a must win state for Democrats.

P is for Primary.  Senator Clinton has won more primaries than Barack Obama.

Q is for Quirky.  The Democratic Nominating process includes primaries, caucuses, proportional allocation of pledged delegates, and superdelegates.  If pledged delegates were allocated by a winner take all system like the one used by the Republican Party, Clinton would be leading 1489 to 1356 without Michigan and Florida.

R is for Remorse.  Some of the voters in states with early primaries or caucuses before Obama was vetted have expressed buyer’s remorse.   Obama’s popularity among white voters has declined dramatically after Rev. Wright’s interview at the National Press Club where Rev. Wright was heard in context and did not distance himself from his most controversial remarks.

S is for Swing States.  Senator Clinton has won the majority of the swing states needed to win the general election including Florida, New Jersey, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arkansas and Ohio.

T is for Texas.  Texas illustrates the inaccuracy of the caucus process. Clinton won Texas Primary by four points and lost the same day caucus by twelve points.  That’s a sixteen point swing which is statistically impossible and outside the margin of error.   

U is for Undecided voters.  The majority of undecided voters have fallen for Hillary Clinton.   

V is for Voters.  More people have voted for Senator Clinton than Senator Obama.

W is for Women.  Women are the largest voter group (over 50% of the voting public) and the core of the Democratic Party. If Hillary Clinton is unfairly denied the nomination there will be a tsunami of protest and defection.  

X is for eXperience. Voters are concerned about Obama’s lack of experience.  Clinton has more political experience and will be ready on day one to manage the crises that will certainly befall our country.

Y is for the Youth Vote.   Voters between the ages of 18 and 29, who turned out in record numbers for Senator Obama, are fewer in number than voters older than 65. Young voters are historically the most unreliable voting block.

Z is for Zebra.  No matter how you paint the stripes on the map, Obama cannot come up with the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  Clinton can easily win over 300 electoral votes and win the White House back for the Democratic Primary.

AN OPEN LETTER TO BILL CLINTON

People say you have a temper, but from where I stand you have been incredibly patient.  You have said little compared to the indignities you, as a former President, a citizen, a husband and a father have suffered over the course of this momentous campaign. 

You have watched your legacy tarnished.  You watched an America you left at peace, be at war.  You have watched an America you left with a budget surplus, become the greatest debtor in history.  You have watched an economy that was strong, plunge into a recession.  You have had the blame for all these ills and others placed at your feet.  But you stayed silent. 

You have watched your political allies, desert you.   Bill Richardson, your Secretary of Energy, the current Governor of New Mexico, came out in support of Obama. When questioned how he could defy his own edit, that super delegates should vote with their constituency Richardson responded, “She only won by a small margin.”  Janet Napolitano, the Governor of Arizona, whose career you propelled forward by helping her become Attorney General of Arizona, is another Obama supporter.  David Wilhelm, your campaign chair in 1992, and who became head of the DNC with your support also showed no loyality.  There are the countless others, who you have advised, campaigned for, promoted, and raised money for, who have turned their back on you.  But you stayed silent.

You have been deserted by the African American Community you stood loyally beside.  You were called the first black president by Toni Morrison, and have arguably done more for the African American community than any President since Abraham Lincoln.  You’ve been publically labeled a racist even though your most staunch critics say there is not a more racially blind person in America.  And you have watched the African American community, vote as a bloc for Obama even though you and your wife have spent your entire lives fighting for racial justice.  But you stayed silent.

You have watched your wife called a bitch, Hitlery, Billary, and treated as the devil incarnate.  You watched people wear t-shirts that read, “Iron My Shirt” or “Bro’s before Ho’s.” You’ve watched pundits and self-proscribed journalists, spin data to intentionally undermine your wife’s campaign.  You have watched your wife vilified, mocked, dissected and eviscerated on national television. And although you are not without your sins, no man wants to stand silently by as others abuse his wife and the mother of his children.  But until now, you’ve stayed silent.

You have been accused of pimping out your daughter, because you allowed her to campaign on her mother’s behalf, a mother she is justifiably proud of.  In addition, you have watched your daughter, your only progeny, asked questions about your indiscretions, questions no young woman should be asked about her father, under any circumstance let alone on national television.  And you’ve heard pundits say, since she’s a surrogate, she’s fair game.

I, for one, would have told them all to go to hell. I would have told them look at their own cynicism rather than my mistakes. I would have told them to stay away from my daughter, or step outside and go toe-to-toe with me.  I would have told them only cowards throw stones from afar.  Not one was man or woman enough to call your wife names to her face or challenge her to a debate.  I would have told the white men of the Democratic Party, that were so quick to push her out of the race, to meet me out back behind the woodshed, where one cowardly pundit wanted to take your wife.  But you have more patience than I.  I lack the patience of a saint.

I hope through all of this you have learned these painful lessons- that sexism is real and something every woman in America confronts daily, that loyalty is hard to find except in a dog, that power corrupts the incorruptible, that gratitude has no memory, and that envy will tempt a student  to defeat his/her mentor.  Also remember that the woman you married is brilliant, gracious and strong. She can take a punch and shed a tear.  She is “woman” at her best.  Hillary is the best candidate for President this nation has ever known.  Her supporters will stand behind her in whatever journey she chooses to take.  She has launched a new wave of feminism and given all women new hope for equality.  And finally, whatever your shortcomings, feel proud that you have raised a beautiful daughter who has conducted herself even in the most difficult of circumstances with poise and grace. And she and her children, and her children’s children, will carry you and your wife’s legacy, into the future.  What more could any president want?  What more could any parent want?