[ Noise ]

[ Inaudible Discussions ]

>> Hello everybody and welcome.

I'm Susan Collins, the Joan and Sanford Weill
Dean here at the Gerald R. Ford School of School

of Public Policy and it's such a great pleasure
to have all of you here with us this afternoon.

I'm welcoming you here on behalf of both the
Ford School and our newly launched Center

for Public Policy in Diverse Societies and
I'll say just a bit about that in a minute.

I'd like to extend an especially warm welcome

to our speaker today Mr Harold
Ford Jr. He's here in part.

Thanks to our special guest Mr.
Sanford Weill who is also here.

Sandy will introduce Harold
more fully in a few moments.

And in just a moment, I'll get things started
by introducing Sandy, but I first wanted

to share a few things with the group
that's here with us this afternoon.

Let me begin by welcoming
our distinguished guest.

We're very pleased that Debbie Dingell
is able to join us here this afternoon.

[ Applause ]

And as you know, Debbie is
a very well-known figure

in Michigan political and charitable circles.

And we're very pleased to have her here with us.

Today's panel is co-sponsored as I
mentioned by the Diversity Center

which is a brand new center
here at the Ford School.

And before I turn things over
to Sandy to start the program,

let me just tell you a little
bit about our new enterprise.

It is a first of its kind center,
which is designed to shed light

on how public policy can most effectively
navigate opportunities as well as the challenges

as our societies become increasingly diverse,
both locally, nationally, and internationally.

With the opening of our new Center for
Public Society in Diverse Societies,

the Ford School has become a host to the
first policy school-based center of its kind

at the university and we're
very proud of that distinction.

For the faculty, the postdocs, the students
who are here in the room, I'd like to mention

that we are currently hosting a call for
proposals to support innovative ideas

for research and events and initiatives that
would enrich our broader community's engagement

on issues of diversity and our understanding
of the ways that they impact public policy.

And I invite you to visit our web, there's the
website on your programs for more information

about both the center and that initiative.

I'd also like to recognize the Jean Fairfax
Fund which is helping to support today's event.

Jean is an alumna of the University of
Michigan who earned degree back in 1941.

She established a wonderful
initiative here at the university

to encourage African-American
alumni and friends to give back

in meaningful ways to the
University of Michigan.

Her gift was matched by the Ford
Foundation's Fulfilling a Dream Fund

and we are extremely grateful for their support.

Now, it is my great pleasure, it is my
great pleasure to introduce Sanford Weill,

the Chairman Emeritus of
City Group Incorporated.

In addition to an incredibly distinguished
career in the financial sector, he has,

for decades, demonstrated
unparalleled commitments

to public service and to philanthropy.

Among many other posts, he has served as
Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York

and is a lifetime member of the
Council on Foreign Relations.

And he continues to serve on the boards of some
of the world's top institutions in a wide range

of sectors including education,
healthcare, and of course, the arts.

He has been a good, good friend to the Ford
School and we are incredibly grateful for all

of his generosity and for his
time that he has spent with us

in a number of visits including here today.

And so, please help me in welcoming back--

him back to the building that
bears his name, Sandy Weill.

[ Applause]

>> Thank you.

Susan, I just thank you very much for that
very kind introduction and I just like to say

that I love working for you, [laughter]
and you really make things interesting

and it's really fun to participate
in what you all are building here.

And I think it's very important to the
future of our country and the world

that people understand how to really make other
people get along better and to create the kinds

of legislation and outreaches to make our
world a better place 'cause that's going

to be good for everybody.

And today, I'm especially happy to be
here with my good friend Harold Ford.

I call him congressman 'cause
he calls me chairman.

Neither of us had the job anymore [laughter].

And I think maybe we both feel
a little bit lucky [laughter].

But I've known Harold I guess
for close to 15 years now.

I think I first met you at Howard University
in Washington, and then shortly after that,

you were at the Kennedy Center when
Alvin Ailey performed down there,

which is an institution of
my life as chairman of.

And we've become really very good friends and
basically, the beginning of the friendship

for me was the developing respect that I
had for Harold in his 10 years in Congress

and I'm watching him grow and watching
him really be his own person and trying

to lead our country to the middle of the
road which is where most Americans are

and most Americans want to be governed
rather than to one extreme or another

which will not end up making us a great country.

And I think what Harold was able to accomplish
in Congress was really fantastic in that period

and I would then, and I would now, and
you all have heard me say it now publicly

so you could hold me to it
in some time in the future.

But if he ever calls on me for my service to
help him manage the affairs of this country

and just about anything, I am at
his service, and I'd be proud to be

at his service 'cause we
need people like Harold.

He's now getting a little bit of
the other side of the coin rather

than doing things to make our country better.

He's in the undistinguished profession now of
being a banker and he's trying to do things

to make things better from that point of view.

But I think most importantly
for today, Harold is a graduate

of law school here at the
University of Michigan.

He loves this institution.

He-- when I talked to him about
coming out here and doing this today,

he jumped at the opportunity and I think-- I
feel sorry that his wife wasn't able make it

because of an illness, but I think we
got to show her around what is really one

of the great institutions of the United States.

And Harold, it's my pleasure to-- and they all
came to hear you not to hear me introduce you

and I think you'll all see, after you
hear him talk for a minute or an hour,

that this is somebody that really
has the ingredients to do a heck

of a lot to make our world better.

>> Thank you Sandy.

[ Applause ]

>> Thank you.

There-- I'm glad to be back, go blue, and I
hope we win more games for ball games next year,

but I am delighted to be around [laughter].

I'm delighted to be with, I call him
Mr. Weill for a number of reasons.

You know in any lifetime have the chance
to be around, learn from and call a friend.

Someone who help create, help build a
business, start a business, create an industry,

create jobs, help grow the
country and strengthen the country.

And someone, at the same time, who wants
to get back and continually gives back

and sets the examples for those who have
achieved as much as he's achieved and those

who have not achieved the kind of
professional and material success that he has.

He may spoke a little bit, but I'm here
today because I love his wife more that him

and she told me I had to be here today.

And I'm delighted always to
say yes to the both of them.

But for him to make-- and he and his wife
to commit themselves into this campus

and to this school in particular and to give
at the rate that they've given and to continue

to give and want to be a part of the
life of this university and this school

in particular is a huge statement
about him, about his wife,

and about his vision of giving and philanthropy.

I cant thank you enough for someone that
loves this school and feels a part of it,

although I didn't attend to Ford School,

I'm happy that my law school has taken the
parking lot from you that it wants to add

to buildings [laughter] to
expand, now remind me here,

I've used to park in that
law school parking lot.

My classmate [inaudible] is here.

And all of us then will go drive to school.

But I wanted to just take a moment
just to thank Sandy Weill again,

he and his wife for all they do for the Ford
School and all that they meant to the life

of the University of Michigan, so I thank you
again sir for the your enormous commitment.

[ Applause ]

Dean Collins is a new friend.

Beth Johnson is a new friend.

I thank the both of them for today.

I'd mention my dear friend John Matlock who
was also one of the reasons that I ended

up at the University of Michigan.

I have known him since I was
probably 10 or 11 years old.

He was my father's Chief of Staff when he was
in Congress and remained friends with him.

He and his wife were my home away from
home when I was here in law school.

I thank you Dean for being here for the
unbelievable support you've shown mw

over the years and I know you feel like
I do, about the foot ball team as well

so thank you again for your friendship.

Debbie Dingell, I love you.

I love your husband.

I thank you for the commitment you've
made that you continue to make to--

I should say the enormous commitment
you've shown to this university

and continue to show, you and the chairman.

And I thank you for your
friendship over the years.

She's known me as bad as long as anyone in the
room has as well, and I still call Miss Dingell.

So Miss Dingell, thank you again for coming.

Whenever I speak before groups, I'm reminded--
I run for Congress when I was 25 years old.

I went out of law School.

I was here in law school.

I was going home every week to
campaign and do the exploratory work.

My friend Moe [phonetic] and others would help
with keeping notes in class because I'd leave

on Wednesday and comeback on Sunday night.

I did it for about 25 weeks, and I got lucky.

If you ever won for office, you don't want to
have your dad as the predecessor in Congress

if you decide to run or your
mom for that matter.

And I had a dad who was my predecessor.

I had tough race.

I faced a lot of local political currents and
winds, but I never forget when I announced.

Shortly after, I came back to school to take
my exams and finish up, which was I announced

at Saturday before Easter in '96.

I flew back to Memphis, I flew back here
rather, spent a week or so getting ready

for exams, took exams and finished.

About 10, 11 days before
graduation, which I flew back home

and kept doing the exploratory
work I was doing to get--

kept doing the campaigning I was doing rather.

I flew back and graduated on May 11th.

I flew back that night to Memphis,
and walked in my head quarters,

and my campaign staff had a nice,
little graduation party for me.

And the next morning, I was
waiting for all of the invitations

to come and speak before various groups.

I was hoping to be invited to speak before
business organizations, labor organizations,

political organizations, neighborhood
organizations, Civil Rights groups,

women's groups, environmental groups, all
of the groups that make up the constellation

of political constituencies within the district.

And I'm running as a democrat hoping that some

of the democratic clubs will
invite in the district to speak.

I got not 1 invitation.

I was able to generate excitement,
Mr. Weill, in the campaign and largely

by just showing up where groups of people work.

So if I read that somebody was coming to speak
at the Ford School and this was in the district,

I'd be outside shaking hands as people
walked because I hadn't been invited.

I might come in and sit, but I'd leave or come
back when the program was over and shake hands.

I did that at grocery stores.

I did it at bowling alleys, I did it
at PTA meetings, I did it at church,

I did it at church banquets, I did
it at Wednesday night Bible service,

I did it anywhere I thought
there would be crowds of people.

But once I announced, I assumed I would
be invited to speak in some place,

I haven't shown some at a level of dignity
to be campaigned that had not existed prior.

But no invitations came.

It wasn't until about a week and half then
that we'd started going to breakfast spots

and popular lunch spots, and anywhere
again, there were big numbers of people.

I was being criticized for
thinking about running.

They said I was too young.

Then my dad was giving me a graduation
gift from law school that this is going

to be my first full-time which it
would be and-- but I didn't have--

did not have the experience and the
where with all and the capacity at 25

or 26 years old to be US a congressman.

But I just kept plugging away and plugging
away and plugging away and finally,

my elementary school principal Heidi Jackson
[phonetic] run into my office one day.

She was one of my campaign managers.

She's the lady to ever paddle me in school,
the one time I got paddled in second grade.

She came running into the
office, she said, "Baby--

babe I've got you 35 graduation speeches."

And I said Miss Jackson, I love-- I looked
at her, I couldn't have been more excited.

It was my first set of invitations.

I assume, like anybody, that
it would smart to get prepared.

Debbie Dingell and I decided to go on
and collect every voter registration form

in the district and I thought
we'd be systematic about it.

I didn't believe that we'd find them all in
the public libraries 'cause we're talking

about 35 graduations, I couldn't politic, but
I can certainly encourage people to register

and vote, these graduation seniors and
encourage them to participate in the election,

hoping that they would vote
for me 'cause I look like them.

I look like I was about 10 years old when I was
running and I figured they might feel a link

to me if I got up before them and
talk a little bit about politics.

I said so let's run to the voter--
we'll go to the election commission,

somebody go to the libraries, let's order
these voter registration forms and be ready.

We got a few days to prepare.

She looked at me and she said, "Baby,
these aren't high school graduation."

So I looked at her and said "It must be
middle school, still get the graduate--

still get the registration forms.

They may have older siblings.

They may have cousins, other family members.

People may need change of address forms.

I want to armed and ready at
these graduation speeches."

She said "Sweetheart, they're
not middle school graduations."

So I looked at her and said, "Miss
Jackson, what have you done sweetheart?

You got me 35 graduation speeches,
can I ask what are they for?"

She said, "Baby, I got you every kindergarten
graduation speech in the city of Memphis."

Now, I wanted to be angry, but
I had no other place to be.

I had not been invited anywhere so this
was in fact an honor to be invited.

Let alone if they were 5 and 6 year olds
that would comprise most of the audience.

Disappointed I was, I quickly did the
math and determined there were 3 others.

So, I said "Ms. Jackson, where are
the remaining 3 graduation speeches?

You said there were 35."

She said, "Sweetheart, I got you 3 elementary
school graduation speeches as well."

Again, I couldn't be more angry,
frustrated, kind of abandoned.

The idea of collecting all of these voter
registration forms and there should be more.

I thought about I said, "They're
going to be young parents."

So at least I might be able
to register the parent.

I start this track of doing the 35.

My dad who was in congress would come home and
ride with me in the car to some of this event.

We didn't have much money to campaign rollouts,
all we have were bunch of stickers and fans

with my name on it 'cause it was so hot and
humid in Memphis during the summer time,

and a bunch of leaflets saying that
what I just did for 4 or 5 planks

or points [inaudible] to run on the campaign.

I don't know if anybody runs with
the planks and I'm against education,

I'm against healthcare, I'm for nuclear war.

And there are things that you are for
that would make sense for the country.

I'm writing for my 16th to
17th graduation [inaudible].

I'd never forget as one of the schools called
Russell Accelerated which is in midtown Memphis

to Valentine Elementary which
is in north Memphis.

And my dad is in the car and there
was this local radio showing everyday,

this political guy would just go on and
on and say negative things about me.

And he went on and on, everyday and I get
so frustrated riding, listening to him,

thinking to myself and saying to
my dad, why don't we have someone

and call in and say something positive.

Remind him that I'm not a criminal, remind them
that I can read, remind them that I've gone

to college, just something positive 'cause
they've said all these negative things.

He said, don't do that, don't do that.

He's saying that in this ride,
and it's easy for him to say

because they're not saying negative
things about him necessarily, on and on.

Finally, as we're pulling into
the driveway of Valentine's,

there's a big hill that you got to go up.

We pulled in, and all of a sudden, this lady
calls in and identifies herself as a grandmother

and says that she listens to the show everyday.

She said favorable things about the announcers
or the DJs on the show, the host of the show

and said, "I want you to know, I've listened to
you all everyday over the last several months.

I've listened to you in particular over the last
few weeks talked about that boy Harold Ford.

And I got to tell you I believed
you until yesterday."

And the fellow said, "What do you
mean you believe this until yesterday?

You said you listen to us all the time.

You believe in us.

You'd support us.

Well, what will makes you change your mind?"

She said, "Well, yesterday, I went to
my grandbaby's kindergarten graduation."

She said "I walked in, and there he was standing
before these kids and I was just amazed"

and the man said, "What do
you mean you're amazed?

He was speaking to kindergartens.

They can't vote."

But newspapers and presses are calling me the
kindergarten congressman, something like that,

not speaking to people that
can't vote and the so forth.

She said, "You know, I thought all
of those things I've read are weird

but I watched him," she said, "He got up.

He started speaking up.

He was introduced and as soon as he started
speaking, every kid fell asleep," she said,

"But that didn't stop him," she said, "He kept
talking and talking and talking and talking

and talking and when it was finished, he gave
everyone, the kids, their kindergarten diploma,

took pictures with the kids, took pictures
with their parents and the teachers

and everybody in the room in the auditorium."

And the fellow said, "What would make you want
to support somebody 'cause they took pictures."

She said, "I watched him take the pictures but
it was what he did after he took the pictures."

So he said, "What did he do?"

She said, "He went back at the back of the
kitchen in the school, shook everybody's hand,

took pictures with the kitchen
staff and all the janitorial staff."

And she goes, "I'll never forget that and
I'm going to vote for him because of that."

My dad looked at me with a kind of
an I told you so look on his face

as we're getting ready to get out the car.

I thought a little better bout it.

And before we know, we're getting
out the car, another call comes in,

a lady she said she's a grandmother and
had the same experience at another school,

one of the other 15 schools I've spoken at.

I told the story because and I'm
reminded of the story, because 2 things.

1, opportunity will present itself
and everybody has a story like this.

We're going to say what's your business may
be your businesses, Mr. Weill has built them

and put them together and
grown them over the years.

Everyone has a story.

They can tell about a moment when the momentum
shifted in their favor or when the least likely

of circumstances presented itself in
a way that looked [inaudible] but turn

into something far more positive.

We found ourselves in a lot
of ways in unique situations

and say the unique situation confronting
us as a nation in so many ways today.

I was blessed about 6 years ago
to have the opportunity to come

and speak before graduation exercises here
at the school and I had a chance then I was,

I don't write speeches but I remember
what I talked about that day as I was--

as Mr. Weill and Mrs. Weill I
had to be here a few months ago.

I remember saying if the one the
challenges for this generation

of public policy school graduate is to not
be confined or not allow the current dogma

and current conversation and current dialogue
among public policy in the current alphabet soup

of agencies and acronyms for various
legislation to limit your thinking about answers

to the public policy problems
confronting the nation.

And in so many ways, the deregulation free
trade, the fact that the growth and innovation

and technology was changed in
the country and for that matter,

the world is such in a rapid pace and it would
take a different kind, a new kind of thinking

on the part of public policy
makers of that matter,

every professional particularly public
policy makers to adjust and address

and anticipate challenges and opportunities
that would present themselves going forward.

So in many ways, nothing much has changed.

We still confront that same kind of
reality as a nation and for that matter,

be it financial regulatory reform, be it
health reform, be it education reform,

be it the president's most recent
announcement about the nation's poster

with regard to our nuclear weapons.

The world has become or should I say, we've
become a more global community and a community

that in large part, depends more on
technology today than we did before

and will even more going forward.

As I watched this president, and watched my
former colleagues and friends in Congress

and have over the last several weeks,
several months, it's fascinating how so many

of my friends and for that matter,

so many in the country had never watched an
inaugural address before or least have got some

of the cable outlet and others, when president
Obama delivered his address over a year ago now.

People acted as if after he spoke that no
other president had ever said anything quite

like this president, and don't get me wrong,
this president inspired a feeling, he rose above

and transcended politics in so many ways in
his campaign, I think it's hard to argue,

credibly that anyone has run
a better primary campaign

than this president run in the last 30 years.

I'd put Jimmy Carter, some of us forget how--

where Jimmy Carter was and the
kind of campaign he had to run

and I would even put a Reagan
in some ways in the category.

But when you think about how Obama run in
this-- I'm talking about primary, not general,

but the primary campaign,
Obama run 1 heck of a campaign.

You think about how he run his general
campaign and the emotions that he evoked

and mainly how we was able to
transcend politics and went on behalf

of a democrat taking independent
and republican votes in the fall.

There's no doubt he was helped
by his predecessor.

The fact that George W. Bush, whether you
like him or not, it created some questions

and in large part, had made America at best,

misunderstood around the
world and at worst, disliked.

So, people wanted to change.

They wanted something different.

Obama got up before the country
and declared that we were going

to bring people together, work together.

He was going to reach out with an open hand
and those from the Muslim world that reach

out with an open hand, not of clenched
fists would see in America to want to work

with him clearly a shot at and in the
indignant of President Bush in the way he went

about doing business, he talked
about healthcare and education

and finding sensible answers
and being in middle.

A year later or I should say later that day,
I went to the White House to started the work.

And America, I find large people who've
never seen these things were amazed.

And I thought to myself, for
those who've never seen it,

they behave act as if president stood before
the country before and gave inaugural addresses

or something along a lies, but I can't wait.

When I leave the steps of the
[inaudible], I'm going to travel

down in Pennsylvania Avenue
with my wife during this parade.

And when I arrive at the White House, I'm going
to send a draft piece of legislation to Congress

that will divide, antagonize, and make
every American angry with me and democrats

and republicans just like one of presidents
talk about bringing people together.

All president who-- when inaugurated talked
about enlightening and for that matter,

bridging the divide and transcending politics.

The last year and 3 months we've seen
in a large part, the country become

as polarized [inaudible] more than it was when
George Bush was present at its worst moment.

It says a lot about us as a country, says
probably a lot about some of the priorities

and the choices that President Obama and
his administration, decisions they made

about which policies to pursue, and nobody
even argued the way they pursued it.

Some appointed as we talk about
healthcare, Mr. Weill had a chance--

the chairman had a chance to talk to--

and by the way, chairman is a
better title than congressman.

But we had a chance to speak
to a group of students here

at the Public Policy School early in the day.

And so many people point to what happened
in August with democrats on healthcare

and the way republican organized.

They don't call themselves republicans, but the
tea parties or those who oppose the healthcare.

The way they organized in August last summer
and appeared at town hall meetings held

by democrats, protesting what they
thought healthcare was going to look like.

I would argue that some of
the bipartisanship broke

down before the healthcare conversation started.

And there were some hands that
they strained around whether

or not the President would be able to
hold this broad coalition together.

Some of you may recall during
the confirmation process,

the early stages of confirmation process

for [inaudible] you are now
just in front of my view.

There was belief that she would
garner some 80 votes for confirmation.

It's why I believed she would score support from
Southern Republicans, West Coast Republicans,

North-- well, not Northeast Republicans,
but Midwest Republicans and Northwest

and Southwest Republicans, and certainly,
those in the South and the Deep South.

She ended up winning back
comfortable margin, no doubt about it.

But the margin was not what many
people thought or should I say,

we anticipated from the outside, which
in a lot of ways showed this resetting

and this retreating in many ways.

People back to their comfortable approaches
of being a democrat or republican.

Now, as on aside, I don't think anything is
wrong with people being democrat or republican.

I think when we reach the point where people
have definitive views and ideas and perspectives

on policy, and for that matter, policy
proposals, there is nothing wrong with it

as long as it is a willingness to
at least listen to the other side.

I integrate this integration in politics
as not being they are more republicans

or they are more democrats, or democrats and
republicans sometimes don't talk about it.

The real challenge is people don't
listen nearly as much as they have to.

We've talked today a little bit
about answers on how do you address,

on how do you insure the big issues.

There's a young man here who was a part of the
group early who referenced President Johnson

and his approach to passing
Civil Rights legislation.

And those who have asked the question,
we would be able to address it,

ticket items going forward and
how do we move beyond the kind

of paralysis that now seems to exist.

Well, if we're able to come this far from a
year and 3 months ago from this high point

to where we are in terms of the tone and
the substance of the tone and even the lack

of dynamism in terms of addressing issues
in Washington in this period of time,

we can certainly find our way back I believe to
a moment where big issues and for that matter,

the President's real leadership and his
stature will shine again and democrats

and republicans can work together again.

Again, my fear is not that people, some
are republican and some are democrat,

but it's just that people are unwilling to sit,
talk and respect the other side, let alone--

listen to what the other side maybe saying.

I happen to think that one of the answers

and there are probably several
and I know there are so.

But one of the answers to what I
think is an ever growing problem

and one that really trends undermine the
Congress' ability, again, to tackle huge

and pressing issues being entitlement
reform or energy reform or emigration reform

or other pressing issues facing and confronting
the country is that we've got to look

at how we elect people and not just
from a campaign finance standpoint,

but the way our primary system is organized.

I'm a huge believer and some have a spouse
around the country including governors

and mayors, the mayor of my
home city down in New York,

the governor of California whose recommended

and we perhaps should take
what some do in Louisiana.

And I learned earlier today what
some do in the state of Washington

in terms of an open primary system.

And allow candidates to just run for office
and not declare democrat or republican.

It's more likely if you-- in prime areas across
the country that those who are the most active,

the most spirited and the loudest will
determine whom the democrat is and those

who certainly are loudest and
sometime the most obnoxious.

And the Republican Party will determine whom
their republican nominee may be in congressional

and senate races event or the other important
electoral contests across the country.

There's no doubt those people deserve a
voice, but they shouldn't drown out the rest

of the country which I believe find
themselves situated somewhere in the middle.

The middle sometimes takes a punch from bloggers
and from those who again, are the most spirited

and animated who seem to have the most thumb
on their hands to express their opinions.

People in the middle seem to be attacked because
they are accused of not having a position,

I like it and I'm a Michigan fan, football fan.

I never went to a game and painted in my face.

I used to see guys and a woman at
games who were painted upside down.

Now, I wanted Michigan to
win just as much as they did.

I just didn't paint my face and paint my back
and take my shirt off in 10-degree weather

to show my enthusiasm for the team.

I felt very comfortable on parker
[laughter] expressing my support

for Michigan's football team.

The same is true with those on politics.

Just because you're loud and oftentimes
uninformed, that'll make your position superior

to someone who actually who may be
as uninformed, but not as passionate,

but sometimes maybe more informed
and who's less passionate,

much like someone who's very informed and
very passionate shouldn't have anymore say

than someone who maybe slightly less informed
and slightly less passionate about issues.

We've reached this point in so many ways
because of the way information is transferred

and disseminated in the way that political views
are expressed on cable shows and people are--

say all the time, "I can't
stand that liberal talk,

that really conservative
talk, I wish it was balanced."

But the top rated shows are the nuts.

The people who are most-- let me
take that back 'cause we're on tape,

the most animated people [laughter] on
the conservative side, the best shows

and the most animated people in the liberal
side have the highest ratings at their networks.

And I said-- I mentioned them only because I
think it makes it harder for real conversation

and an honest conversation and a reasonable
dialogue to take place between adults.

In short, there's sort of a dearth of adult-like
conversation that occur over and over again.

Now, we get the policy and what I hope to
do is to be able to open up here shortly,

I know we've got a good little
time in our hands.

I'd rather be able to react and respond
some of the many questions or even comments

or criticisms that some of
the audience may have.

But I think about where we are as
a nation from a policy standpoint.

The healthcare built a path without a
doubt, [inaudible] political achievement

for the president to be able to pass.

Anyone that believes this is not a huge fit
when you consider the attempts over the years,

put a side your politics, whether you
like to be able to was any enormous fit

and this enormous accomplishment, particularly
when you consider what happened January

with the election of the Republican Senator
in Massachusetts, what happened at the end

of last year with the election of Governors,
Republican Governors in both New Jersey

and Virginia and what that may have pertinent
for the President's overall legislative agenda.

For them to fight and to be able to
pass this was a remarkable thing.

The flip side of the politics is that
it certainly suggested a different kind

of tone will determine and
influence how things are addressed

in Washington and even the outcome.

The way we went about doing this is
democratic or strictly a democratic approach.

We probably could have done this a
year ago today and had the same outcome

with most the democrats supporting and then
some would argue that a year ago today,

remember Al Franken was in not the senate
yet, they were still contesting that race.

He and Norm Coleman were still going
back and forth and went to that--

the 4th of July last year,
the democrats reached 60.

And so might-- maybe after the 4th of July,
we could have gotten this or 8-9 months ago,

we could have gotten where we
are today when you consider

that this is the numerical
composition that make up the senate.

We passed a bill just on democratic support.

Most people in Congress, [inaudible] most
Americans who are knowledgeable and spend time

at work, who read often, raise their families
couldn't tell you what's on Health Care Bill.

They can tell you what to heard within
the Health Care Bill, but when they think

about how transformed this is, most Americans
can only tell you what either their political

perspective if they like it or
don't like what their saying.

And sometimes, even what they're
saying is simply just not true.

2, it is unclear to me when if and to the extent
taxes will go up for the majority of Americans

who will be asked to pay taxes to cover the cost

of this healthcare transformation
that we've undergone.

And 3, it's unclear to me if it actually
will curb cost, recall from the outset

of the healthcare debate, my President--

our President stated the 3 objectives with
health care reform, 1, to cover everybody.

Probably give them a B plus on that
although 32 out the 46 are without--

is in the Math school so we'll
go up, should be a C plus,

but we'll go up to B plus, it should be nice.

They said they would pay for the entire bill.

It's unclear if the bill is entirely paid for,
but a good chunk if it's paid for with tax--

new taxes on, investment come and new taxes
largely on the high in health care plans.

And finally, I said it would curb cost
and lower cost over the long term.

Now, the way that bill was presented to the
office known as the congressional budget office,

which is the favorite of my friend Mr. Weill,

the congressional budget office
argues that it will lower cost.

And they argued that largely because of
the way the bill was presented to them,

that they'll set it with lower
cost so they accepted the fact

that the bill indeed will lower
cost over a period of time.

That makes it a very rosy assumption that
fixes to paying to doctors and hospitals

and other providers will remain at a
static level as opposed to being increased.

I served in Congress 10 years and
we paid doctors a lot of money,

we paid our voters a lot of money.

Rightly so, not to say they didn't deserve it
but to argue that you're going to curb cost

on that model raises some questions.

My hope is that over the next few
months that we view this moment

as really just another starting point
around health care, that the fixes that have

to come had some of the test runs in this
Health Care Bill which seek to determine if care

in one part of country for X element,

why they are paying Y plus in
another part of the country.

We can find ways to lower cost over a period
of time, not only will I embrace that,

I hope Congress will very quickly
to replicate and amplify that

and ensure that becomes policy long term.

As it relates to the doctor's fixes
and other increases they could come,

I hope that might colleagues will stand firm
with the promises that they made to the country

and if they choose to raise spending
on it that they cut it elsewhere.

When I was in congress, I was a
member of the Blue Dog Coalition,

I think I was the coach chair of the Blue Dog.

We're a group of primarily Southern Midwest
pro-balanced budget, pro-trade and largely,

pro-business democrats that believe in a
very promise, something that Bill Clinton--

I'll never forget telling me after I
got elected and said, "How do you do?"

We're sitting at the White House shortly
after '97and we were talking about--

he had a group of freshmen democrats over
and I said, "Mr. President, how did you,"

he's a great friend of Mr. Weill as well.

I said, "How did you do this?"

He says, "Harold, we brought back one thing to
Washington that had been missing, arithmetic."

He at least wanted to make everything added
up at the end of the day and we thought that,

that was an important way to govern.

"I governed like that when I was in Arkansas,

and I'm trying to govern
like that as President."

I give President Obama huge credit for
actually trying to pay for this thing.

We may not like the way and some of the numbers
may have all add up, but at least he understood

that his predecessor, President Bush, made
two huge areas that's related spending.

One, we went to war and we didn't pay for it,
now if we went to war twice, then pay for it.

And two, we passed an enormous entitlement
program called a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan

which we didn't pay for.

Now, you and I will paying for
that for a very, very long time,

both-- all 3 of those enterprises.

We'll at least able to come back
on them, and we can argue the--

whether investment was the
right thing, but within the day,

we didn't pay for it while doing.

But in fact, we decided to go to war

and do something no generation
of Americans have ever done.

We decided to fight a war, pay for it
as Americans and at the same time pay,

for the other guys that fight us as well by our
enormous diction to sort of energy products.

So we as a nation find ourselves working through
this moment 7 or 8 years and this President gets

in and decides that health care
is the most important thing to do.

Now, I'd differ with the President on that.

I thought about running for the United
States in New York about 3 months ago

and decided a month ago not to run.

There was a lot of thinking to it,
but part of the advice I gave trying

to give them a party shortly
after Scott Brown lose his race

with make health care second
or third that you do.

Things we should be focused on is how do we
grow the economy and how do we create jobs.

Because at the end of the day, if you subscribe
to them all that government can pay its bills

and lower the deficit by raising taxes
and raising taxes only, we can't do it.

The country is not organized
in that kind of way where we--

where we finance all of obligations
by paying taxes.

Don't get me wrong, taxes are
critical, but the country has to grow.

I think the idea of pitting classes of
people against one another is a bad thing.

It's never served the country well.

The great thing about America is you
can come, work hard, and do well.

Are there times when there excesses?

Sure. Are there times when
markets go off the rail?

Sure, that's what government's job is to
do to come and try to curb this and ensure

that people are playing within some boundaries,
but you shouldn't determine in a game

if a guy scores or a woman scores
30 points, you got to stop them.

If he score 50, let him score 50,
allow him to play by the rules.

The challenge we face as a nation is how we
get back to a moment where government is not

as involved in private matters,
where the economy can grow again,

and where government actually
balances its books again.

I'm not as concerned in the short term about
the rise of deficit because I think we've got

to figure out how we get growing again,
how we begin innovating again and in a way

in which will help everybody grow in for
that matter, every part of the country grow.

Long term, I think, we have to be
sensitive to it and very sensitive to it.

As a matter of fact, my whole premise and
mission in the Congress is around honing

for things that were balanced and ensuring
that we didn't settle generations to come,

with that, we could have avoided today.

But we find ourselves in a unique position
where I think we have to make a different kind

of choice, which has had a
different set of choices.

And if that-- those choices require
some spending in a short term,

they get us going again, be it tax
cuts and new spending, we should do it.

This President faces a full plate of
responsibility; it's of then a matter

of full plate of political
complexities over the next several weeks.

It's obvious that probably-- it's obvious
that the next big tackle for this President

and for the Democrats in the congress
is this financial services reform.

I hope they do it, I hope they
understand that banks, regulators,

rating agencies as my friend is reminding
me today politicians and even consumers

of the world that all of us played in.

And then we understand that suddenly,
things have to be traded in the open.

That we understand that banks probably
got to keep a little more capital

that it hopefully lowers
some of these leverage rates?

We understand that at the same time, we
as consumers have to be more responsible

on how we conduct our own personal financial
business and even some of my great friends

in congress, Democrats who voted.

Or some of the things that landed
us on the mess that we are,

but we are going to approach
this conversation debate

with some humility, some
honesty and understanding.

We got to look forward and solve these problems.

It's a moment for President Obama in his style,
in his way, in his substance of leadership

to lead again because if we find answers to
these and move on to helping and finding ways

to create jobs and grow the country again, I
think not only will Democrats be better served

but I think the country will be
better served in huge ways as well.

Will Republicans be on board
and be a part of that?

I hope so.

I think with the smart things politically
and substantly the President did

in the last 10 days was to announce that he was
willing to open certain parts of the country

to sum up to certain drilling activities.

I hope that that translates into some of my
Republican friends who have said they're willing

to support a broad energy
bill or energy reform bill.

I hope that it shows the commitment
on the part of this President to be--

a willingness to talk to Republicans, to
reach out for those whom he may have disagreed

within recall in his campaign for President,

he declared there's no way
he would support drilling.

A matter of fact, he took Hilary Clinton
on for her call for drilling offshore.

I think it shows maturity in politics
when you can assess the situation,

one day and assess it another day and
understand that things have changed

and it requires a different set of answers.

This notion that you ought to be attacked
for changing your position which I was,

I was against gay marriage a
few years ago on fourth today.

The only way things changed in this country.

If it-- not only will we make progress,
if everybody doesn't agree with you,

a majority of the people don't agree with you
today but they all agree with you 6 months

from now, what will you do, attack
the people for changing their opinion,

for agreeing with you and giving you a majority?

Of course not.

You embrace it and so let's
move on and get better.

And I applaud the President for recognizing
that the moment today and the set of facts

and circumstances today probably require a
different mix and a different set of answers

to long-term problem and I can only hope
that my Republican friends who have vowed

and made some awful, awful declarations and
for that matter made some dangerous statements

about this President for that matter, dangerous
statements about the direction of the country,

the kind of willingness to work with him.

I can only hope that there's a willingness, not
that we've moved beyond this health care debate,

to have an open, serious
and adult-like conversation

about the real challenges
confronting this country.

And as my friend Sandy, while reminding me on
the plane, putting in place a set of policies

that can help ensure America's global
leadership in the next 25 to 50 years.

This great school is helping to educate
and prepare and mold minds to do that.

You'd get advice over and over again.

I can only hope that if I can leave you with one
piece of advice before opening up for questions,

I know you will hear it over and over again,

and I said it from the out--
somebody has just to listen.

It'd never hurt, you'd be surprised.

You may find that the guy who you were
against, you really are against him or her,

or that maybe you had them wrong.

And there's something you're saying that's
redeeming or something you're saying

that you might be able to take
from to grow your own position

and to make your own idea that much better.

At the end of the day that's--
that's what makes politics work.

At the end of the day, that's what it makes this
country so great, and at the end of the day,

that's what's going to make the
country great even going forward.

So with that, I'd love to open up and maybe
take some questions and take some comments.

[ Applause ]

Yes sir. Tell me your name and your year,

where you're from if you don't
mind, I'd like having that in the--

[ Inaudible Remark ]

Yes sir. I see the beard, I can
tell you've been [inaudible].

>> The first one is especially just for
you, [inaudible] about what you said

in addressing the American public
has primarily milled the road

and milled the road I think it's
more accurately a [inaudible].

And I think the difference is [inaudible]
is enough to manage for policy but, to you,

I want to ask-- first I want to
say sorry you lost to Corker.

I said-- I said too much.

I said, yeah, I got to--

>> Well, I agreed with you on that one.

>> Yeah. I think, no doubt, you've been a better
senator and I'm sorry it was a dirty campaign

that you lost to, but I want to ask
what you thought about the direction

that the new DNC chair Tim Kaine is taking and
moving away from Howard Dean's 50-state strategy

which on any measure, important measure
I can think it was a big success namely

in getting more public interest,
Democrats elected, and more places

and engaging more people and
voting in the public process.

You know, that's how, I think, that they did
back set up, but Kaine seems to be moving away

from that and he seem, you
know, is more DLC mold.

I wonder if you agree with that and so maybe
you see some virtue in that or, you know,

some of that game that I might not see
or if you have any paying-- that or.

>> Sure.

>> Center before left.

[Laughter]

>> Sure, I will, yeah.

>> Can I ask you to very quickly summarize the
question and make sure that people in the back--

>> Yes, I'm sorry.

The question was the-- twofold.

One, about Tim Kaine and the direction
that he is taking a party contrasting

with Howard Dean's approach which was a 50
stage strategy and the assumption, the belief,

that that strategy resulted was a successful
strategy and whether or not the Kaine strategy,

which, I think is suddenly
maybe having a little deal.

I share the DLC too, but a DLC kind of tone
to it if that's really the right approach.

Is there a second question?

>> No, that's it.

>> And then he said that he didn't
necessarily agree with Chairman Weill's notion

that the majority of the nations,
and I happen to agree with that, too.

I think we're probably a little
center right that we are center left,

but that's for another conversation.

But I think it leads to--
[Inaudible Remark] [Laughter]

>> In the-- with regard to Tim Kaine and
Howard Dean, the 2006 and 2008 elections--

let's put in a little perspective--
remember, '06, when democrats won a majority,

there were a number of things that happened.

The biggest thing that happened was it was
Republican president who was below 50 percent.

His approval and favorables were below 50
percent in every state that we picked up seats.

I lost in Tennessee.

Mine was the only state where there was a
competitive senate race where Bush stayed

above 50 percent throughout my race.

He ranks from 51-1/2-- not
that I remember his number--

the 51-1/2 to 54.2 throughout my race
when it got joined in the last six months.

At one point it was as high as a little
over 55 percent and at the end it was

about 52 where his favorable was.

I think the most valuable player in Democrats
who wins in 2006 was undoubtedly George W. Bush.

What the people-- whether you like them or
not, whether you agree with them or not,

there was certainly a perception
about him that people wanted

to balance and wanted to check, too.

We put together some pretty
good candidates in '06.

I'd argue that most of the
candidates that ran Democrats

in '06 would have been DLC members
based on if you just look at them,

they might not have personally said
it, but if you look at their profile,

they probably fit more in the DLC
mold than the DNC-- than the--

if we can be, just play with the words and play
with some-- roughly play with the models here,

probably a little more moderate to conservative
and they would be considered moderate

to liberal, largely because
we wanted some southern states

where a lot of these men and women ran.

They were more conservative on social issues
and they ran the notion on the fiscal issues

that George Bush had spent too much
and they were going to curb spending

and contain some of his spending.

And it helped him win in
a lot of Republican areas.

'08, don't think it's a doubt, it was a
year that would advantage Democrats greatly.

Again, I give Obama's campaign the primary.

I thought it was just mass
[inaudible] campaign, the fall was too,

but he had a great [inaudible], you
know, a candidate in John McCain,

who they successfully tied to the last eight
years of people who were ready for a change.

It's another side to the story,
'cause President Obama's win was--

it was really pedestrian in some
ways in presidential politics.

People vote for president to a react-- as a
reaction to the previous president in many ways

and there is no doubt the moment and the mood
and dynamic in the country was, we want change.

And when you confront-- when you put George--
I mean, John McCaine next to Barack Obama

and then we consider some of the other factors,

the selection of the vice presidential
candidates, some of the statements made

about the economy, it certainly
advantaged Barack Obama.

Now, I give Dean credit from the
standpoint that they went out

and they organized in various states.

And they put together operations
and apparatus in various states.

But I'm not convinced that-- but for
that happening that we would not have won

in North Carolina, in Florida, in Indiana,
in Virginia, without that strategy.

So, if you ask me about Tim Kaine, I think
the real challenge when your party is

in the White House and you're party
chairman, is not how you react.

Remember, Howard Dean was acting outside of the
president 'cause we didn't have the presidency,

so the chairman of the party
has a different kind approach.

When you are the chairman, when your
president controls the White House,

you really are a political
director for the White House.

So you are reacting and responding in a lot

of ways carrying their water
and carrying their message.

So, Tim Kaine, in large part, if
you look at his stance and posture,

he's come from being somebody we're going to
reach out to, we're going to go get Democrats,

'cause in a lot of ways he reflects in
mirrors what the White House wants him to do

because the president chose the party
chairman, as opposed to Howard Dean having

to be elected 'cause the
party was not in office.

I'll argue vehemently that I think, if
you look at the history of the country,

presidential politics, the
most successful presidents--

don't misunderstand me when I say
the most successful president,

generally, govern from the middle.

That doesn't mean they don't
do transformative things,

but they're able to bring people together from
both sides because they are viewed as someone

who wants to listen and wants to
work together, so forth and so on.

This is why I said this several times a day.

Remember, when Johnson signed the Civil
Rights Act, he signed it in [inaudible]

in Everett Dirksen's office who happened
to be the Republican leader of the senate.

Now, I can't imagine my good buddy going over
to Mitch McConnell's office to sign anything,

other than maybe a picture of
himself to give to some constituent

and McConnell may wanted him to give one, too.

So, it's a-- the moment, obviously
was very, very different in this day.

There are a number of factors
that have contributed to that.

But I think it's unfair to make that--

that's not a fair comparison
between Dean and between Kaine.

Kaine's success will depend, I
believe, solely on Obama's success.

Dean's success depended on how many
seats Democrats picked up and, frankly,

depending on individual candidates, depending
on the Democrat's message in the congress.

I'd give, I say grudgingly, 'cause he's
my buddy, I like giving him the credit,

but while I deserve some credit
for the '06 wins, because--

not because of how you ran a campaign
but because he convinced the leadership,

you got to let us recruit candidates

who don't necessarily fit the liberal
democratic model in the congress.

If you let us recruit candidates
who say they are Democrats

and they make me the promise they're
going to vote for you and ask [inaudible]

to be the speaker, let's let them run, because
the most important vote a Democrat cast when he

or she gets there is the speaker, and that's
the one we should be most concerned about.

Now, we many have a philosophical
argument about Democrats got to say there

for this and got to say there for that.

We are a big tent party.

We criticized Republicans when I was there

for always voting lockstep whatever
the Republican leaders tell them to do.

If Tom [inaudible] said vote
one, well, they voted one way.

They lead votes open for hours including
the Medicare Prescription Drug vote

where they went around, they
cut deals on the floor.

The vote set them for 3-1/2 hours while they
cut deal or two 2-1/2 where they cut deals

on the floor to try to win support for it.

I didn't like that kind of leadership and,
frankly, I think it's hypocritical of me then

to be-- to say that Democrats who have wide
ranging views on issues ought to be whipped

in the line also, which leads me back
to my first point about open primaries.

I think the closer we get
to having district support,

those people that represent
the entirety of a district,

the better it is because oftentimes we
nominate people from either south of the party

and the districts are drawn in a way

where it's either Democratic
district or Republican district.

And if it's a Democratic district, as much
as Democrats may not like that Democrat,

they certainly did not like that Republican.

In all those Republican districts someone
may be nominated they really don't like,

as much as they may have some
differences with that Republican,

they certainly don't want that Democrat.

So you end up electing people in large part
who are able to appeal to the most animated,

spirited, loudest, sometimes obnoxious members
of their party and I think that has to change.

Yes, sir. I'll come to you in a minute.

Yes, sir.

>> My name is Gordon Chazen [phonetics].

>> Take care, Carl.

I'll talk to you later.

Yes, sir.

>> I'm a senior here in [inaudible] in Michigan.

>> What part?

>> I wanted to say, you talked about--

>> What part of Michigan?

>> Southeast Michigan tenth district.

[Laughter] [Inaudible Remark] -- you mentioned
that you wanted to have an honest conversation,

I just wanted to say that on Morning Joe,
both when you're on and when you're not on,

I think that that's one of the closest things
we get to an honest conversation on politics.

And I hope the next time you're on,

you're getting Joe back 'cause
they really did a good job.

[Inaudible Remark] Alright tell David that then.

I think that one of the biggest challenges
maybe not in terms of giving good innovation

from our generation, maybe this civil service
part of our side and I tell people that I want

to run for congress one day or I want to run
for senate, and they look at me with sort

of why would you do that kind of look.

And I wanted to ask you in your
years serving the congress,

what is the greatest single message-- a piece of
advice you could give me or give my generation,

at least those of us who would
like to run for office one day.

[ Inaudible Remark ]

>> I think your attitude is the right one.

You know, it's unfortunate that
politics has developed such a bad name.

My mother-in-law, who was very supportive
of me thinking about making this run,

right before it all happened she said, you
know, people have grown so sour on politics,

so just be thoughtful about
it and mindful of it.

In a lot of ways that inspired me even more
'cause it's tragic when you can't find people

who want to, not only serve, but who
want to work in and around this group

of peers is a wonderful and, hopefully,
growing exception to this idea of working

in public policy and trying to shape policy
and change it for the better is a good thing.

I asked you where you were from largely because
my first day of law school here in Michigan,

we were sitting in a room and a
buddy was sitting around in a desk.

It was orientation and I was sitting-- about
ten of us around a table and the buddy--

say where we're from, where
they went to college and all.

I'm with the Penn, I say I
was from Memphis and that.

And this kid next to me said he had gone--

gone to UVA from Birmingham and
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

So I'm thinking somebody else
on the south in the room.

So l leaned over and I hit him.

I say, man, you're from Alabama, I'm
from Tennessee a [inaudible], but,

you know, you're all right with me.

He looked at me like I had three noses.

He looked at me, said, what
are you talking about?

I said you're from Birmingham.

See, I'm from Birmingham,
Michigan, not Birmingham, Alabama.

Stay on the path that you're on.

Don't-- those who have issues about politicians,
ask them why and maybe able to answer them

at the moment, but just begin the
process and then think about it.

Get involved where you live and the things that
you care deeply about and don't be dissuaded

or for that matter dispirited by those who may
early on discount or dismiss your candidacy.

The history of people in this country
who ran who had stories very similar

to mine are far more prevalent than
those who ran who were the frontrunners

who are definitely supposed to win.

There are a bunch of frontrunners who are
sitting at home today who never got elected

to what they want to get elected to,

so I'll be happy to leave my
car, too, and good luck to you.

Yes, sir, right here in the front.

>> I'm Eric.

I'm from [inaudible] Michigan,
southern district.

What do you the key distinctions were

between President Clinton's healthcare
reform attempt and President Obama's?

Do you think it was in terms of transparency,
messaging, or even just numbers of the congress?

>> Question was what are the differences
between Obama and Clinton's healthcare bills?

There were more than a few.

The press has highlighted how President
Clinton kept the writing or drafting

of the healthcare bill in the White
House or kept it close to his vest

and didn't involve congress,
and that President Obama learned

that lesson that's why he outsourced most
of the work to the house and the senate.

Probably would have-- probably
was a little better way to--

another couple lessons that
could have been taken

from the Clinton plan versus the Obama plan.

One of the interesting things
is talking about how a president

to grow up from the rhetoric they ran.

I remember President Obama was
against an individual mandate,

which is a part of his plan now which,
as you know, people will be required

to buy health insurance after
a certain period of time.

If they don't, they will face some penalties.

During the campaign he was not for that.

He was for a mandate for children.

Hillary Clinton was for it and
they had a back and forth about it

at a critical point during the primary.

Even though when you pay for the
bill during the general President--

then Senator Obama criticized Senator McCaine
for suggesting that high end healthcare plans,

or [inaudible] we call it now [inaudible] plan
should be taxed to pay for the health plan.

He said that was the wrong thing to do.

He changed his mind when he became
president, and I can't fault him for it.

I think it shows a president willing
to listen and be nimble in mind.

And so-- and so things that help
achieve his long term policy--

short term and long term policy goals.

At the end of the day, when you go
through it line by line and look

at some of the differences between the--

>>-- barely necessarily but the way
they sold it, the way it got through.

>> Well, I don't think there's any doubt.

When you have 60 democrats, it helps.

When you have a speaker of the
house, when you have a large majority

in the house, it certainly helps.

And when you ran on a notion of a
broad healthcare reform, it helps.

President Clinton didn't run on those things.

Remember, he ran as a real centrist.

I mean, he had disarmed a lot of Americans
who felt that Democrats were tax-and-spenders,

but for the presidents who have lost [inaudible]
in a race, it's likely he would have lost.

So that was a different kind of thing.

I mean, we haven't had a president get--

Democrat get a majority of the
electorate since Jimmy Carter got 50.1.

So, you know, that's-- and you look at
other-- you look at democrats prior to that,

we haven't many Democrats score that high of a
number in a presidential race in the country.

And that's what I base these
numbers on being center-right.

I know Mr. Wallace said center,
but whatever you want to call.

It means, I think, we're a little
to the right of the center.

If you just look at numbers as a
nation and how Obama suggest your thing

about center left is more accurate than center
right because the numbers that he scored,

the 52, right at 53 percent that
he got in the national election.

So all of these helped tremendously.

And I give the president, this
is tenacity, his unwillingness--

his lack of willingness to give up on this thing

because there were three bad political
outcomes that he fall through.

I, again, think that the one
thing they compromised on early

to public option was the one thing
they should not have compromised on.

'Cause I think that was our best chance of
tempering and controlling cost long term.

It could've been structured the right way.

But in the day they just decided not to do that.

And yet they ask the question, "If they decided
not to do that then when republican votes,

did they really get what they wanted?"

Yes sir, in the middle.

>> Yes, I'm-- I will describe myself--
my name is John Well [phonetic].

I describe myself as an alienated republican.

I think the most present problem for
the country is to political reforms

so our political systems serve us much better.

My own personal belief is the key to
that is opening up our political process

to third parties which I don't believe
could be done without building reform.

I've been trying to work on this for a decade--

>> You said building reform, what do you mean?

>> Instituting-- I would like to institute
the voting system that my employer uses

at federal elections that's
called approval voting,

it will open up our political
process to third parties.

And if you had-- if it were Florida
in 2000, those people that voted

for Nader would also have the option
voting for either Bush or Gore.

I would submit that if that type of
system had been in place in 2000,

Gore would've won the presidency and would've
better reflected what people want in that state

in terms of the outcome, in terms
of who the voter's counting.

We cannot get better governance, in my judgment,
without opening up our political process

with third parties and that's not
possible without building reform.

I don't know how to bring it about.

I think it's very important for any to comment.

>> I don't think that you'd find much
disagreement from people who want more choices

and who-- I should say, who
are not satisfied with the--

with some of the outcomes
in the choices they have.

Matter of fact, some of the data shows that
just about an even number of Americans,

a few more Americans identify themselves with
one of the political parties, the major parties,

but right-- point or 2 or 3 points beneath
them is people identifying themselves

with the Tea Party Movement.

The Tea Party Movement which is a
nice name for a phenomenon today

that I think is a manifestation
of what-- I mean, with a lot--

that name has a lot of residents, a lot
of history, obviously, but the movement

and I promise you, most of
the people who were part

of the Tea Party Movement don't
know the Whole Tea party history.

But I mean, they-- it's a great moniker
and they wrap themselves around.

But my own point is that those
movements spring up in America.

I think we're moving closer to
realizing what you've articulated.

I think a plurality of Americans
take the Tea Party thing out.

Plurality of Americans consider themselves--
they don't identify with either the parties,

so there are more independents than
there are democrats or republicans.

I think those numbers will continue to grow and
I think we'll find ourselves, at some point,

what is the voting system that
mirrors yours at your workplace.

I don't know if that will be the case,

but it'll be something closer
to that than what we have today.

>> How do we do it though?

>> Well, I think people do it.

I mean I-- and I think people are making
clear that they are not completely satisfied

with choices and they're
willing to upset it up and,

basic assumptions for that matter, conventions.

Scott Brown, 4 months ago, was not supposed
to be elected as the United States Senate

in Massachusetts, but voters went out.

A lot of democrats had to
go out and vote that way.

And one of the misnomers about
Massachusetts that the majority of voters

in Massachusetts actually are
registered as independents.

I think that with this perception nationally,
that Massachusetts is just liberal bashing,

but the majority of voters
actually identify as independents.

And I think the realization of what you're
saying, whether if something happens

in Washington or in state capitals that
change the way we get revoting reform

that way you envision it, I'm not sure.

But what I do know is voters are gonna go in
those voting booths and they're gonna vote

for the candidate that they
think best represents them.

And that sometimes might be a republican,
sometimes it may be a democrat.

Again, I think open primaries, I think
dealing with the way districts are drawn,

I even think dealing with some of the way these
campaigns are financed will have a big impact.

Now, third parties and state,
you have to go state by state

to do the kind of things you're talking about.

Well, tell me how you think
you'd do with it then.

>> Congress-- simple statutory act by congress.

>> What would that simple statutory be?

[Inaudible Discussion]

>> Very, very clear.

Richard Weiner [phonetic] is the one who
basically pointed this to me [inaudible].

A simple statutory act on congress could
mandate in federal elections for the congress

and for the presidency a
system like approval voting

and actually make an amends
with the [inaudible].

>> Maybe we'll get there.

Maybe we'll get there.

Yes sir, in the back.

[Inaudible Remark] My man.

[Laughter] Where did you go high school?

>> I went to [inaudible]

>> My roommate who [inaudible]
some place called Cranbrook.

>> Well that's pretty [inaudible] So as
a fellow centrist, I'm wondering, like,

what's the tone in Washington as partisan
and now you're a congressman, 10 years,

and what causes this this sort of partisan
have led that like it is right now?

>> What's the tone in Washington when
I was there as partisan as it is now?

Look, I don't mind partisanship.

And be clear, I don't think there's
anything wrong with a good back

and forth, a good spirited back and forth.

As long as again, people will and it's alright.

Now let's listen and try to
this, we had to be as committed

to arguing as we are of resolving things.

And I think the commitment to resolution
or resolving things is just waned.

People look to the next election cycle.

We're gonna-- I mean this year, it'll be
hard for Obama to get a whole lot he want

to the congress, 'cause a lot of republicans
who argue to republicans, "Don't vote for that

because we're gonna pick up seats and
we'll get a better", in their estimation,

"better policy outcome if we wait."

So, you know, you're gonna--
that reality is there.

What is worst today than I think--
or at least equally bad as the time--

any time I've been there is that these guys
aren't talking to one another in minimum moment.

If I say I got minimum moment,
they're not talking to one another.

There don't seem to be a willingness to admit
wrong and to move beyond it, on both sides.

And when that-- when you lose that
capacity, whether your in business--

politics or business, you cannot refuse.

Business you probably go out of business.

Politics, you really use time and the
opportunity for real progress to be made.

And it is-- it's unfortunate.

It's unfortunate.

Well, I think it could get better.

I mean, I think that it takes--
it will take some leadership

from the president 'cause he's gotta
be, "It ain't matter who the pre--

he's got to step up and hopefully,
one day we say, she,

she's gotta step up so here's what we do
and here's the way we're gonna do this.

I'm going to come and work with
everybody to try to get this done."

President Obama probably got to do it smaller
steps now 'cause I think it will be hard

for republicans who probably stay in lock
step unless he just promotes their own agenda

on everything which is unlikely.

So he'll probably have to do it
in smaller steps going forward.

And I think it'd be smart if I were president,
I'll look to George Voinovich in Ohio,

I'll look at Kit Bond in Missouri, I'll look
at some of those members that are leaving

and I look at a Scott Brown
who's going to run again.

And at the end of the day, Massachusetts still
center-- way center left that it is in a right.

And voters there are gonna want a sensible
senator and someone willing to work

with to stand up to Obama when
he's wrong and the democrats,

but to do work with them when they're right.

That's fine, if I were them, I'll look for those
instances where you can find three or four,

five republicans to be supportive
of some of those ideas.

They did it with the jobs build up, that
small payroll tax thing that hatch in--

show more supportive than end up getting
five or six republicans to support it.

There was a hand in the back.

Yes sir. And I'll come around.

Yes sir.

>> Thank you.

I'm Daniel Lopez [phonetic].

I am in junior high school.

I go to [inaudible].

>> Yes sir.

>> And I had a question for you.

What do you say the main differences between
the 1994 election and the 2010 election because,

you know, the healthcare bill was passed-- was
built in 1994 and there was major backlash?

And now, even though the
healthcare passed in 2010,

there are so major backlash with [inaudible].

>> Who coaches young fellow, high
school senior here in Bloomfield Hills.

Well spoken, too.

What district you live in?

I got to tell a guy to watch
out the way you [laughter]--

the way you're talking, you
got a woman to watch out.

He asked the question the differences
between the '94 cycle and the '10 cycle.

He highlighted healthcare and
some of the other similarities.

Is that a fair characterization
of the questions?

>> Yes.

>> So, '94 you had a democratic president and
a democratic congress, a democratic president

who had grown unpopular by election time,
so much so that most democrats running

for reelection did not invite him
to their districts to campaign.

You had a group of republicans
who in the last month

of the campaign developed a national
agenda, really, the last few weeks.

They called that the contract with America
and they identified those seven, eight, nine,

ten things that they were gonna do
and they were all able to choose,

some of them or all of them to campaign on.

And they rose up in certain districts and
surprised democrats who, a week I thought,

that they had a comfortable lead
heading into the election nationally.

Ten is different.

First of all, it didn't happen.

But two, healthcare passed.

It didn't pass in '94.

So, it's good and bad.

Arguably be that at people for like their taxes
are gonna go up and that the bill won't work.

Two, it could be that it pass and some
of the things the president talked about,

keeping kids on health insurance under 26,
not allowing health insurance companies

to drop you if you face a health hardship.

There's some immediate things that will
happen that might be able to translate into--

will help people see that this is a
good thing and we had to reelect them.

Three, the president is still popular now.

If he loses his popularity and drops,
remember, Clinton's numbers are pretty low

in the '94 election, and he-- and
whatever you want to say, the president,

if it's your party, is the face of that party.

I would argue-- which is why I argued
to the first question with my friend

from Massachusetts, is that in '06 and '08,
people were going to the poll and voting

against George Bush as a republican
as much as they were doing.

If they liked George Bush, they voted with him.

They didn't, they voted-- they largely
voted against him because of the policies.

So we'll have to see over the next few months.

I would argue the biggest teller--
the biggest telltale will be jobs.

If there's not a sense that we're creating jobs,
that steps are being taken to create a climate

for more jobs to be created, for innovation to
flourish and for America to begin growing again,

my party will face some real challenges
heading into the fall elections.

If people sense there's some turnaround with
it, meaning healthcare hadn't hurt as much

as some weren't, that we passed the jobs bill
that's actually helping small business people.

Think about this one.

The last three years, more than half the jobs
created in this country have been created

by business with 50 or few employees.

And of that group, 2/3 of those
jobs have been created by companies

that were born in the last three years.

So we got to figure out how we encourage
that engine or rub that engine back up.

The president is able to do that
and democrats are able to do that

and get some credit, they'll be fine.

If not, it's could be a tough year.

And there was a woman in the back.

I thought I saw a hand.

'Cause I hadn't call on one woman yet.

I wanna make sure-- yes ma'am.

I'm sorry.

I was looking in the far back.

I know you are.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

[Inaudible Remark] You're from Los Angeles?

>> Yes.

>> Were you-- you're a student here?

>> I'm a student.

>> What year are you?

>> First year.

>> Very good.

>> But I've actually spent
quite a bit of time in Memphis

over the last few years and
Kentucky and Mississippi.

>> Can I ask you what?

>> Doing political matter.

>> Dong political matter?

>> Yeah. And I guess I feel like I believe

that if a fairly good polls
on Canada, the politics there.

And I'm wondering how you kind of can see that
the Democratic Party moving forward in the South

and the deep South-- yeah, and if you would
ever consider trying your hand there again.

>> So the question is in the South she spent
time working on political matters in Tennessee,

Memphis, Mississippi, Kentucky, and
the future of democratic politics there

and whether or not I would go back.

I'm a New Yorker and proud of New
York and we'll live in New York

and whatever future I have in
politics will be in New York.

Answer that now 'cause we're on tape and I
wanna be clear 'cause I've been criticized

on that [laughter].

Two, I think in the South I love my-- where I'm
from and people of Memphis in the 9th district

in Tennessee gave this 10 year
old looking pimpled faced guy,

just got his braces off a year before they
elected him, the chance of a lifetime.

But I mean to live out the beginning of a dream.

And-- but for that election, I want to
have the opportunities or chances to do--

this helped create it, my college
at Penn and my parents and all that,

but I'm being elected without
voters taking at risk.

I wouldn't have had the opportunity 'cause
I love and love my city, love my home,

and I'm grateful to my constituents.

Having said that, I think the party
has some challenges in the short term.

It's important to remember that we
go through these phases in the south.

People right at the South offer democrats
and you get democratic governors elected

and say we're back and then
2 years later they lose.

Some other group I'm losing, 2 years
later, some will say, "We're back."

I think congressionally and from a senate
standpoint, I think it's gonna be tougher

than we think, because a lot of democrats
are running for election there now

and I have some friends who are stepping down
from congress in Tennessee, again John Tanner,

again Bart Gordon, and those races are very,

very tough for the democrats
running in those seats to win.

A matter of fact, democrats have conceded one
of the seats almost, from what I hear at home.

And the held by Tanner, my friend Roy
Herron is running, he's got a good shot.

The challenge democrats will have is they
will likely have to run against Obama.

Meaning run against some of his policies
and argue, make the case they won't vote

for further government expansions or
encroachments on in a private sector

or expansions of government that
will run up the nation's debt.

But people have unbelievably
short memories in this business.

It's hard to imagine that a year and a half ago
how excited we were about change you can believe

in and we are the change we've been waiting for.

Just a year and a half ago we were
all preaching that or a lot of people

in the country were preaching that.

You know, a lot of independents and even some
republicans were out preaching it as well.

So these political cycles can change, but I
do think that the notion of taking a chance

and a risk on a democrat to lead the
country nationally would brought majorities

in the house, in the senate
and a chance a lot moderates--

or should say independents and republicans, too.

I think they're gonna think much, much
harder the next time if given that option

because I think people are worried about
giving too much power to one party.

And it's gonna be interesting
to see in that Kentucky race,

the senate race there, what happens.

I got a friend running and-- well, I like
both of the democrats that are running.

I've got a friend that's running in
that race on the democratic side.

It'd be interesting if Ron Paul's son who
is running in that race on Republican side

if he can mix it up a little
bit and weaken the republican.

I'm not sure if he-- if that happens or not.

And the Mississippi race is on.

I'm not-- I don't -- I didn't
follow it quite as closely,

but Tennessee will have those two critical
house races and, naturally, I'm concerned.

Both of them-- one of the guys running remains
a good friend and the two guys that stepped

down were great friends in congress.

Yes, sir, you put your hand up
quick, 'cause you look ready.

>> You mentioned--

>> Tell me your name and where you're from.

>> Sorry. I'm Alex Lane [phonetic].

I'm from Carol City up north,
fourth congressional.

You mentioned open like primaries and your
support for reform there and I agree with you

in so far as the lack of partisan
identification of the ballot.

I think we're toning down a lot of the rhetoric

and get some more interesting
candidates in the field.

But I'm also hesitant about the idea because
it seems to me that a lot of the reason

that the party infrastructure is in place is to
ensure that there are good candidates running

and sensible candidates running and not
increasing that jobs, you know, on either side.

And part of what concerns me about that
is, without that kind of infrastructure

and with an open primary system, you can have so
many candidates, either democrats or republicans

that they're just kind of, you know,
rooting each other out and what you wind

up with is not the sensible candidates
but, as you also mentioned, the loudest

and most animated characters who
seem to get all the attention

and those could be a major not needs.

I mean, you could have two
republicans running against each other,

with your democrats are running
against each other that, I think,

especially in the statewide level, wouldn't
be very good choices for either one.

I mean, at-- like as an example, I think
in '91, David Duke came dangerously close

to winning a U.S. senate race in Louisiana
because of their jungle primary system.

So what I'm wondering is do the benefits--

in your opinion, do the benefits outweigh those
kind of risks in opening up the election system?

>> The question is about open primaries.

Do they really work?

Do they actually create the same said openness--
in fact, the same set of questions you have on--

in the traditional setting where you attract
loud candidates, obnoxious candidates,

racist candidates, bigoted candidates, whatever.

Let's presume you're right about the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party

from both providing us-- you only
mentioned a democrat for the republicans

like that they get parties
given people structures.

Well, there's nothing that would prevent
the republican or democratic parties

from endorsing candidates in open primary races.

The only thing that they cannot do
then would be in some states democrat

and republican organizations, and I live in a
state now where they exert enormous influence

about who can even get on the ballot.

So you have some states where that zeal to
ensure that you a good candidates results

in making-- creating onerous
obstacles or insurmountable obstacles

or very difficult obstacles for
people to even get on the ballot.

So the open primary system would actually
mitigate against that pretty heavily,

that wouldn't stop either party
from endorsing whom they want.

I would also, as you to look at participation
rates in a democratic or republican primary,

how many people actually vote versus the jungle
or open primary system you have in [inaudible]--

in your language, Louisiana
or Washington, wherever.

How many people participate there?

I'm want-- I think the wider the
participation, the broader participation,

the more this gentleman's
point can be addressed.

It won't fulfill his vision but
it will certainly get closer.

We'll be closer to him than where we are today.

My only interest in this is ensuring that the
best candidates have an opportunity at the end

of the day to be heard and to have as many
voters as possible, take a look at them

and have a chance to vote for them.

If you are a moderate democrat and you live
in a liberal area, you're a liberal democrat

and you live on moderate-- in a moderate area,

should the Democratic Party be
the party determines whether

or not the overall group--
I can make the opposite.

Should they be the-- should
that party apparatus--

what gives them the right to say that they're
the only ones that can determine whether

or not you can be viewed or, for that
matter, your issues and your positions

and your perspective should be weighed
fairly by the overall electorate.

I'm-- argue it either way.

I just think that the open primary
system doesn't-- that they--

it doesn't discriminate any more if we use the
democratic primary systems as the examples.

I think it is far less discriminatory
than those two set ups.

And I think it guarantees
that more voices are heard

which is what I'm most interested
in giving voters more choices.

Let me take a basket of three then I'll stop.

Yes, sir.

>> Hi. My name is Joseph Day
[phonetic], I'm from Detroit, Michigan.

[Inaudible], 13th issue is that as one
of the questions I'd like to ask you.

Under that partisanship, two questions.

First, do you think the congressional turn
limits would help-- cause enough turnover to--

maybe possibly the best some of these and turns
interest and power to incumbency from people.

This people sets their ways for
10, 20, 30 years and always voting

with the same groups consistently?

Second part about partisanship
questions, was would some of the issue--

the cognizant issues that are coming up-- come
up recently like Senator Gregg's Commission

on China Reform Budget, I believe with Senator
Conrad as well didn't get the votes they needed

to get up of the United States senate.

Senator McCain is caught in a primary situation
saying he doesn't need further cooperation.

And we also have some more contentious
issues like energy and things

like that, that's coming down the pipe.

Is there a point where we should just
say I don't really see a partisanship

in the cards right now?

>> That's two questions.

I'll comment that one moment.

There with the hand.

The fellow in the red back there.

Yes, you. You shouldn't wear red at Michigan,
but go right ahead and ask your question.

>> I'm Robert Palmer [phonetic],
first year Law School in California.

Given your interest in balancing budget, I
was wondering what programs you think we--

what specific programs you
think we should cut or packages.

>> And the last question in the
back, the gentleman in the far back.

You, sir, you with the Michigan law.

I'm partial little Michigan law.

>> [inaudible] Michigan law.

I was thinking about [inaudible],
these things with the other informing--

>> My man.

[Laughter]

>> You talked about financial firm and--
as a competition moves in that direction,

I was wondering what do you think
the conversation should start?

It won't be the biggest lesson though.

>> First of all, let me thank everybody
for having me and I may run out right

when I finish 'cause I got a plane to catch.

But let me try to answer in the
order that we went through backwards.

One, I think transparency, a willingness to
take on every aspect of the system from bankers

to consumers and everybody in between
including regulators and, for that matter,

the rating agencies and even members
of congress who voted a certain way.

I have to be willing to measure--

live up to responsibility that they
have create some of these challenges.

I think we had the zeal on bonuses

and a consumer protection
agency, all that is relevant.

But at the end of the day it's not gonna
address-- its looking too far back,

it done the dress, challenges going forward.

Again, I'm a capitalist.

I think people ought to be able to earn
what they want if they work hard and do,

not or not if things don't go well and
we got to help restore that system.

This focus again on trying to dictate what--
how banks ought to be shaped and whether too big

or this-- remember, we live in a global
economic community and we got to ensure

that we don't handicap competitiveness
here and push opportunity and,

for that matter, job creation offshore.

One of the two of the three greatest end
issues in this country that we export,

Hollywood is one of them, financial services is
another, and we should try our hardest to hold

on to two of the things that
we do very, very well.

As Sandy Weill said many times today,
if you look at nations around the globe

that are growing or that have growth
engines in place, they largely have much

of the financial architecture-- the financial
services architecture, that we help--

that we exported, they're using and
which would go to their countries.

Their accesses, they need to be fixed and
I can only hope that people won't go--

they don't' know-- looking at a-- looking
backwards as opposed to looking forward.

To my man there about the deficits
and what would I do, first of all,

to answer your question, sir, although
the senate didn't vote for that,

Obama created by Executive Order as you
know, something similar; but was identical

but with something similar and it's gonna
take-- come to you and once it come--

takes a look at some of the entitlements
to go within how you reduce some of the--

hopefully, reduce some of
the spending in a long term.

But at the end of the day, its entitlements are
gonna have to be tamed if we're gonna figure

out ways to slow some of these and we
got to figure out how we grow again.

One of the things that Clinton did was that he
raised taxes slightly on some of the wealthiest

of Americans but the country grew, he put
us on a more stable financial footing,

had a pretty good treasure secretary
and economic team to help him do that.

And what are people want to say
about Bob Ruben and be critical.

I think he did on heck of a
job as treasure secretary.

So I hope we can do that.

One of my ideas is that-- I don't know
if I said it here, I've said it three

or four times a day, so forgive me.

But I think we ought to be willing to mean
test so security people on the 45 ought

to not are be able to sound on America's first
pledge saying we won't take it to 70 and if--

we won't become eligible until we're 70.

If we reach a certain economic
level, won't take it at all.

If we face economic hardship,
we'll take it at 66.

But we got to begin the grow the country
again 'cause I do believe there's great truth

and validity to this nation-- this notion of
us growing out of the challenges that we face.

Your point about the-- about some of these
entrenched members of congress and other things,

I ran to be leader of the democrats in
'02 against the now speaker Nancy Pelosi.

I'd been in congress three terms.

I was completely frustrated sitting as they
call this back ventures, a young congressman,

young in the minority, I was
watching the leadership do things over

and over again that obviously weren't working.

They've been in the real world, he to fire them.

If they worked for him after at US-- I got this
great idea, this great plan, he invested money

and it came out with the same result.

Just look you're a nice guy
but you shouldn't be a banker.

You got to find someone else to do.

And some of these guys were doing
the same things over and over again.

So I decided to run.

[Inaudible] part was a leader.

He decided not to run.

I had a feeling I was-- may
have a hard time winning

because the campaign was
such a long one before then.

But I decided to take them on and tell them what
I really thought about them and the institution

and how we've allowed republicans
who were screwing

up things to continue screwing up things.

And we have an obligation to do it differently.

End up losing, losing a race for leader
but at the same time help remind people

in the democratic caucus that you can't
keep talking about winning back the majority

because the majority of us never had it.

I mean, by the time-- in 2002,
the majority of democrats

in the congress were not there before '94.

So we'd start talking about things a little
differently and you had a group that came in

and you had a president that messed things
up so much that people wanted democrats,

they wanted some balance in
the house and the senate.

I think the way you address
the entrenched members locally,

you gotta have an open primary system.

In large part, people are-- to
your point, you are able to organ--

the parties organized in such
a way that it come to be able

to block other ideas that other people had.

If you had an open system, it would
be easy for everybody to be heard.

There's still campaign finances just
have to be addressed and so forth,

but that's why I'm a believer that it's
not a perfect answer, open primary,

but I certainly think it answers some of the
questions and I'm open to a different solution

as long as, you know, achieve
the goals of allowing more voices

and for that matter rational voices
to be heard and to be voted on.

Go blue. I'll come back in the fall.

Thank you again.

Thank you again for having me.

Thank you.

[Applause]

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you so--

>> Is that okay 'cause I have got-- [Laughter]

>> We have already thanked our speaker.

He does have to run.

But there is a reception that out in the
great hall and I hope you'll stay and join us.

And I also again like to thank
Sandy Weill for bringing him

and for all he's done for our school.

[Applause]

>> I didn't know you're here buddy.

>> Oh, yeah.

>> I would've called you up men,
and see you, you know right?

>> Well, I was in the middle.

>> I could-- I didn't see you.

I ought called you-- I would've called you men.

You should.

How you doing sir?

Oh nice to see men, you are a good man here.

You are a good man.

>> In New York, I was sad to
hear you're not running anymore.

>> I know when I was-- [inaudible] at the game.

But it'll come another time.

>> Yeah.

>> Your dad was a lot of big thing afterwards.

I think everybody by-- seems his very--

>> Real deal of partnership.

>> This is [inaudible] Schwartz.

>> Hi.

>> This is Sandy Weill.

>> Nice to meet you.

>> So Sandy, Prolman's [phonetic]
partner Barry Schawart [phonetic]--

that's his day, this-- yeah, this is Diane.

Matter of fact Prolman called Mrs Weill a day
while we were-- since we've been here as--

and we were talking about him
on the plane here this morning.

He's a senior here, he already
graduated in the undergrad.

>> You go Augustine?

>> Yeah, I got to run.

I got to run [laughs].

That's what I was-- I'd email you [inaudible].

Tell you're dad I said what's up.

>> I will.

>> Alright.

Nice meeting.

>> Nice meeting you too.

Oh, by the way, my family's in China.

He's going to see--

>> What's your family's name?

>> [inaudible] George Williams, she was
friends with the Roy Keith [phonetic].

>> Absolutely, the great Roy Keith.

Absolutely, told him I said hello.

They still live there?

>> Yeah-- no.

My grandmother passed away and
my great grandmother [inaudible].

>> Alright, God bless.

What year are you here?

>> I'm a senior.

>> Good luck to you.

>> Thank you, appreciate it.

>> Alright.

>> It's nice to meet you.

>> I'm Andrew, I'm from New York.

>> You're a good man.

How are you sir?

>> Not too bad.

From your study which like a half and hour--

>> I know it is.

>> Graduates cool to come.

Actually a class, that was I was late but
it's nice to actually see you speaking.

>> Thank you.

>> I'm working on Senator Schimmer
[phonetic] that next year, invite him also--

>> Congratulations.

You going to be in Washington,
you're going to be in New York?

>> In New York but hopefully.

My question is what do you see happening
in regards to the senate in terms

of you think and how [inaudible] the seat?

What's going to happen in terms of-- you think--

>> Schimmer's in the running.

>> Do you think Durbin will be--

>> Durbin will be formidable.

People like Durbin a lot.

Chuck has proven himself as a--
he's delivered for the democrat

so it'll be an interesting--
I hope Harry don't lose but--