View Header


                     Office of the Press Secretary
                        (Santa Ana, California)
For Immediate Release                                   October 17, 1996
                             PRESS BRIEFING
                            BY MIKE MCCURRY,
                      DOUG SOSNIK AND JOE LOCKHART
                      Old Orange County Courthouse
                         Santa Ana, California

11:58 A.M. PDT

MR. MCCURRY: And a cheerful good morning, good afternoon -- a little bit of both, it being noon.

Subjects. Okay. Let me just start. I'll do some things here. Some of you have asked for comments on Russia on the record and I'll add the little bit we have beyond that, and then we'll go off camera and Doug and Joe have got some things to talk about on the political side.

Q You want to start on the record?


Q Has the President been briefed? Does he worry about the developments, and has he talked to Secretary Perry?

MR. MCCURRY: The President did get a briefing very early this morning, first thing, about President Yeltsin's appearance on Russian television last night concerning General Lebed. We've been following this closely in recent days. Those of you who know, know that there's been a great deal of bureaucratic infighting underway there reflecting the very complicated dynamic that exists within the Russian Federation.

The important point to make is that there is a Constitution for the Russian Federation. The Constitution, as does our Constitution, gives the President the power of appointment. It appears that President Yeltsin was within his constitutional prerogatives to make personnel changes within his inner cabinet. And, for us, the key is stability, continuity in the discussions we have pursuant to our interests that we advanced in our conversations with the Russians.

We've seen good evidence today that there's no change in that situation. Secretary Perry has had an excellent series of meetings today. He's met with the Duma related to ratification of START II. He has pursued high-level contacts, including meeting with the Defense Minister. And they've been able to work through those issues that are on our agenda.

As to what is on the internal political agenda for President Yeltsin, that's really a matter for Russian authorities and for the Russian people. And as is our custom, we rarely do comment on those types of internal developments in another government.

Q Mike, does the United States see any indication that Lebed commands any kind of loyalty from any branch of the military? And has the U.S. detected any kind of unusual military movements over the past 48 hours?

MR. MCCURRY: We do monitor the situation there. Our embassy in Moscow has reported on that. The report has been related to the President that they see no unusual activity. Moscow is calm, as near as we can tell. The interior and other provinces are calm, as well.

General Lebed does have a following. He is a popular figure in some quarters in Russia, but so are others who are pursuing democratic causes, others within President Yeltsin's circle of advisors. And, as sometimes happens with Presidents, advisors contest with each other for the thrust of policy and programs. That happens in democratic societies and Presidents are often forced to step in and adjudicate and make decisions and make personnel decisions -- difficult decisions.

Q Were you told this was going to happen? Were you informed about it?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, we were not "told," but if you follow the public comments, General Lebed suggested within the last two days that there would have to be a decision made by President Yeltsin related to the Interior Minister and related to him. And he has been very public about that. It was not hard to discern that there was a type of bureaucratic strife within President Yeltsin's circle that would lead to some type of personnel action.

So we have followed that. But, frankly, that is within the boundaries of decisions made by President Yeltsin and the judgments about those decisions are properly made by the Russian people.

Q Anatoly Kulikov, the Interior Minister's, charge that Lebed was engaged in what he called creeping coup plots.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, again, our embassy in Moscow reported nothing out of the ordinary in terms of their understanding of the garrison activity of Russian defense forces. The Defense Minister had meetings directly with our own Secretary of Defense, so there have been opportunities for us to have high level contact with senior levels of the Russian Federation.

There was, in short, nothing that indicated to us that that charge had any merit. On the other hand, that is really a matter now that is being debated within Russian civil society and that debate is, I think, best left to the judgment of the Russian people.

Q Mike, what's your reading on Yeltsin's own authority, according to the way he's handled this thing?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, he's acted now, consistent with the Russian Constitution, apparently to reassert his own authority. He's spoken very publicly about his reasons for taking this action. One would judge that he had stepped in to resolve conflict that existed within his circle of advisors. That certainly reflects some level of authority. But, again, that is beyond our ability to understand fully because not all of that is transparent to us. As if often the case, those are decisions that reflect the dynamic within the President's own ruling cabinet and within his own inner circle of advisors.

Q Mike, didn't President Clinton meet with Lebed when he was last in Moscow? And how would you describe American relations --

MR. MCCURRY: Well, Lebed was among a number of Russian political figures that met with President Clinton as Spasky House. They had a very good free-form discussion that reflected the wide spectrum of political views within Russia, from reformers to Democrats to market capitalists to those who trend more to the nationalist side.

General Lebed was not -- I would not describe him as being a very active participant in that conversation, although he did make a presentation, he did meet the President and the President learned more about his views. He was at that time, of course, a candidate for President.

Q And relations have been good or friendly -- to follow -- relations between American officials and Lebed been good --

MR. MCCURRY: We have had contact from time to time with him, principally through our embassy, through Ambassador Pickering and others that follow political events in Russia. We have, as you know, a working relationship with the Russian Federation that is defined by a variety of contacts, but chief among them, of course, are President's Clinton's own dealings with President Yeltsin, Vice President Gore's dealings with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, and then the other contacts we pursue at different levels -- from the Secretary of State's role, who has been following these events very carefully today as well, to Secretary Perry's involvement, to all the other officials in our government who maintain their own contacts at various levels of the Russian Federation.

Q When was the last time the President actually had a conversation with Boris Yeltsin, himself? And also, how worried, or does the U.S. have some serious concerns about stability?

MR. MCCURRY: He spoke by phone with President Yeltsin maybe about three or four weeks ago, I believe, and it was principally for the President to wish President Yeltsin best wishes for his health situation, which, of course, President Yeltsin continues to deal with.

Q And the other part of the question was, are there serious reasons -- it seems like there would be serious reasons the U.S. would be concerned about continued stability in Russia. It seems like the U.S. might have some serious concerns about that.

MR. MCCURRY: Well, they have a very contentious political environment in Russia, reflecting the changes that Russia goes through as it makes a transformation from a totalitarian form of government to democratic capitalism. And that change has been underway. We've seen from time to time the different kinds of friction that that can create, but at the same time, we have to pursue our interests in a very disciplined way. We do that whether it's related to our arms control concerns -- certainly, the discussions Secretary Perry has had about START II reflects our interests.

And in all of these subjects in which we pursue our own interests and work with the Russian Federation, whether it's Bosnia, the Middle East, issues related to NATO and Europe, we see a great deal of continuity and stability in the way they pursue their foreign policy. That is ultimately the test for us because that is what we are charged with doing, which is protect the vital interests of the United States.

Q New subject. Last night Senator Dole challenged the President on a number of issues -- loosely called ethical issues -- and specifically challenged him to foreswear pardons for anyone who might be able to implicate him in any of these cases. The President did not answer last night. Can you answer for him today?

MR. MCCURRY: Well, the President has addressed that before, Brit, as you know. He said that's not under consideration.

Q That doesn't really answer that question, Mike. The question asked of him was do you foreswear pardons for anyone, not whether it was under consideration.

MR. MCCURRY: I'll refer you to several times when the President has addressed that. I don't have anything new to add. The President has dealt with that very directly.

Q Do you have any answer for any of the other issues that --

MR. MCCURRY: The President answered it very effectively last night. He said the kinds of attacks and insults that came from a struggling Bob Dole don't do anything to advance America's interests in creating jobs, in improving our health care, improving our education, and giving American families tools to deal with the troubles that they do face. It was quite clear last night from the debate, from the questions that came from the audience that the issues on the minds of the American people are the ones that this President has been addressing.

That's one of the reasons why the President was very happy with the outcome last night, one of the reasons why he will continue in the next 19 days to address those issues that he's been placing before the American people as he campaigns.

Q Mike, at any time this morning during the President's jog was this Ms. Parker ever considered a security threat, and was there ever any consideration being given to having her possibly arrested?

MR. MCCURRY: As you know, we leave security related issues to the Secret Service, and you'd be best to ask them that question. The President didn't seem to be troubled by that incident at all.

Q Did he say anything to you about it?

MR. MCCURRY: No, he didn't. In fact, I asked him about it and he said, oh, that was nothing.

Q Is Vice President Gore going to return the money that these monks apparently gave to some fundraising activity for the Democratic Party?

MR. MCCURRY: If I'm not mistaken, the Democratic National Committee has already said some things about that, and you should best check with them. It was their event that the Vice President attended on behalf of the Committee, and they have already been responding to questions on that today. That's my understanding.

Q Is this a source of concern to the White House?

MR. MCCURRY: Oh, of course, it was a source of concern because, as the DNC indicated, it as a mistake.

Q -- the Dole campaign about scheduling a third debate?

MR. MCCURRY: That's not -- they're not serious about that, and neither are we.

Very exciting. Anything else, any other subjects?

Q Can we ask Doug Sosnik about some of the campaign spending that's underway?

MR. MCCURRY: Yes. He's got a good -- I think both of them have got some things they want to say. We're going to do that off camera. Thanks very much.

Over to you.

MR. LOCKHART: Before we come to Doug, just a couple of housekeeping items. I think my office this morning put out announcements of travel for next week, so I'll just read it. And I'm reading it for the first time here.

The President will travel to Miami, Florida on Wednesday of next week, and then on to -- I'm sorry, Tuesday. Okay, I'm sorry. That's right. We've already announced up until Tuesday night in Miami. We'll start in Miami on Wednesday, then travel to Daytona Beach, returning to Washington that night. On Thursday, the 24th, the President will travel to Birmingham, Alabama, and Lake Charles and New Orleans in Louisiana.

Q That's all Wednesday night?

MR. LOCKHART: Comes home Wednesday night.

Q So Thursday night is Nashville --

MR. LOCKHART: Thursday night I believe he overnights in New Orleans.

Q And comes home Friday?

MR. LOCKHART: Yes. This is as far as we've announced. What I can tell you for sure is he will be in New Orleans Thursday and that, at this point, for planning, we think we're staying over -- we're not exactly sure.

Q -- be more than a day trip?

Q Will the trip go beyond Friday?

MR. LOCKHART: Don't know at this point. We'll let you know.

Q Saturday is the First Lady's birthday, so we know he'll be in Washington on Saturday.

MR. LOCKHART: Back Friday, okay. Secondly -- I think it's been passed out -- there is a new advertisement that's been released by the campaign, with a -- best described, I think, as a testimonial from Jim Brady.

Q Where's the ad on, Joe, national buy?

MR. LOCKHART: Not a national buy, but it's on our battleground states around the country, which is the way we've been describing most of the buys through the -- I'll be glad to take any questions on that.

Q Is that all Brady's voice, it's nothing but Brady speaking, all these words?

MR. LOCKHART: Right. Correct.

Q The text seems to indicate, Joe, that perhaps Dole's attacks on the President's character may be resonating. Is that the case?

MR. LOCKHART: No, I don't -- pardon? No, I think Doug said that he vigorously disagrees with that contention. (Laughter.) That is what you said, right?

Q Why do you have to have Jim Brady defending the President on the character issue? You know, why can't the President do it himself?

MR. LOCKHART: I haven't seen any evidence that this --

Q Well, then, what's the purpose of the ad, because he directly addresses the character issue?

MR. LOCKHART: I'll get to that. I don't see any evidence that this is working, but our ad strategy from the beginning is when the Dole campaign comes up with an ad, we respond to it. And that's what we're doing here.

Q Joe, is there footage in the ad of the actual assassination attempt?

MR. LOCKHART: Right at the top.

Q With his voice coming over it?

MR. LOCKHART: Yes, right at the top.

Q Can you just describe what the --

MR. LOCKHART: I've seen it quickly and I remember the scene at the top is the scene that you've all seen over and over again. And after that, I'm not sure. I'll try to get a copy or a visual description I'll try to get.

Q -- mostly I think it's him seated, speaking directly to the camera like in a living room setting.

Q But there seems to be --

MR. LOCKHART: That is correct, at the top.

Finally, several people have asked on tonight's --or today's fundraising. These events today are part of the effort we've been talking about to help congressional candidates. They are evenly split between the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC. I don't have a precise number for the two events today on what they will raise. But as we've said, we hope to raise $10 million, maybe a little bit more, for this effort in three events starting today in Los Angeles, with New York over the weekend and Washington, D.C. next week. There's also a fundraiser for senatorial candidate Dick Swett, from New Hampshire. I don't have the numbers on that, it's his event. We're just going to lend some support.

Q Is the D.C. event next Wednesday -- that would appear to be the only night next week the President's going to be in Washington.

MR. SOSNIK: We'll probably be back -- although it's not set, we could come back Thursday night. It's likely we'll stay overnight Thursday night in New Orleans and we'll probably travel on Friday and come home Friday night.

Q Let's go through the schedule as much as we can.

MR. LOCKHART: Why don't I just -- Doug is going to talk a little bit about some electoral things -- but if you want to do this --

Q Another question about the Brady ad. Was there any debate, any discussion, conversation at all within the campaign of perhaps the taste, propriety of using the assassination attempt on President Reagan in context of a political ad?

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think it's more in telling Jim Brady's story. So, no, the short answer is no.

MR. SOSNIK: I think we're not only comfortable with the ad, but to answer Mick's question, we've got 19 days to go, we're not going to sit on our lead. We're going to continue to try to win every day.

Let me try to -- I'll answer at the end the housekeeping questions on the schedule and try to give you at least a sense of a process of how and when we're going to make decisions for the rest of the campaign on media buys and the travel. I don't think a lot more needs to be said about the debate last night. There were a number of exit polls and overnight polls which made it clear how we did there.

I think it's fair to say that increasingly it looks likely that this was a race that was set in the beginning of March and basically nothing has changed since then. It's probably, up until now, been the least volatile campaign that I can remember in a long time. Probably could have saved all of us a lot of time and money if we didn't have to go on the road for the last six months.

Remember on a presidential campaign you're dealing with a fixed amount of money, so when you spend money somewhere you can't spend it somewhere else. The Dole campaign has now bought for the next four days. I remind you all they were dark for the last two days, which constitutes a little over 10 percent of remaining campaign. When this buy, that I'll describe to you in a moment, goes down next Monday night, you will then be down to 14 days left in the campaign. So I don't think it's an exaggeration to say what you see them buying now and where you don't see them buying now is a pretty good road map of states that they're continuing to play in and states that they have effectively written off.

On this upcoming buy, it's roughly in this four-day period $2 million. They have now dropped, and I think for all intents and purposes, written off the following states: Connecticut -- they've dropped New York City from their buy. That means that functionally they've dropped not only Connecticut, but New Jersey; and they now have dropped all their media markets in Pennsylvania.

If you add up what they have spent in Connecticut, New York City and Pennsylvania, it's almost $5.5 million. If you add on top of that states that they have written off prior to this buy -- Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Washington, and they've re-written off Oregon -- they bought Oregon for a week at about almost $400,000 and then they dropped it -- if you add up those states which are traditionally battleground states, that's 125 electoral votes. In their buy that they have bought, they are buying heavy in the following states, which I think are traditionally I think most people would consider Republican or Republican-leaning states. And this is where a substantial amount of their buy is going: New Hampshire, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, Arizona, South Dakota, Montana.

Now, in California, let's talk about the map for a minute. I'm going to pull out from what I'm getting ready to say, Ohio and Indiana. If you go from Maine to Maryland, completely across the midwest up to Minnesota, and then from Minnesota down all the way at a vertical drop to Louisiana -- in every single state, except for Indiana and Ohio, they're closer in California than they are in any other state I just described in that entire real estate of the northeast, the industrial midwest and the vertical drop from Minnesota down to Louisiana.

The Mason-Dixon poll in California has them at 12. Most other polls we've seen, it's closer to 15. Whatever number you want to use. They're closer in California right now than they are anywhere I just described in the geography of that part of the country without even getting into some of the other parts of the country. So in a sense, I mean, why not California? I mean, based on the alternatives.

They, it looks like they're spending in this four-day period close to half a million dollars in California. They're buying in Los Angeles, they're buying in most of the other media markets in the state, particularly where there are congressional races. We have a policy of announcing their buys and not our buys, but I would say that in the spirit of Mick's question earlier about our ad strategy, we won't let media buys go up unanswered. So you should expect us to respond in kind.

I did a quick electoral count now, and I tried to be reasonably conservative -- in fact, my number is actually higher than what the ABC number is. It looks like right now that there are 52 electoral votes in which Dole is ahead outside the margin of error and would seem to be in good shape to carry. There are 198 electoral votes beside that in which Clinton-Gore is either tied or ahead by less than 15.

But the rest of the states -- I'm not including California in that, we'll take that separately. So it's 52 they've got outside the margin of error. I can give you the states if you want -- most of you, I would presume, would fall asleep listening to it. There are 198 -- not including California -- where we're either tied or not ahead by -- we're ahead by less than 10. And then for the rest of the states, it's around 15, maybe it's 12. But most of then are 15 or above -- we're ahead.

So when you look at the electoral college map, they've got 52 in their column. They got California at 54 they want to compete in. And they got 198 in which they're not ahead in any of them. So that's how we head into the last 14 days.

On the President's schedule and media buys from here on out, to answer Ron's question, we are now locked in on our schedule through Thursday of next week. I think you all know our schedule. It's -- starting on Sunday, it's New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana.

We'll make decisions over the weekend. The next round of media buys for both campaigns will commence next Tuesday. Since the Dole people were dark for the last two days -- that's why they just bought for four days -- to get them back into a normal rotation of a Tuesday to Tuesday to Tuesday. And so we'll make decisions in the last -- over the weekend for the last two weeks of the campaign. And we'll start announcing those for you.

As you see with our announced trip into Alabama next week, I think we basically view the campaign to be on a steady course from where we were before this debate and before the V.P. debate and before our first debate. And we're going to continue to execute our plan. And that's it.

Q Joe, I know you can't give us the states yet, but can you tell us what days you think we'd be on the road? We've got a fundraiser Sunday --

MR. SOSNIK: You want to know beyond Thursday? Is that your question?

Q Have you got it mapped out?

MR. SOSNIK: Well, we don't have it mapped out. But I think it's fair to say that we will periodically, in the last 14 days return back to Washington. We won't be on the road for 14 days, but we're not going to be hanging out in Washington for 14 days.

Q So from Sunday, the 27th, to November 5th, you'll be on the road more than you'll be in Washington?

MR. SOSNIK: That's fair to say.

Q Can you give us an idea on the -- how many states does Clinton-Gore campaign consider they have locked?

MR. SOSNIK: Well, I will talk about -- the question was what is the number of states that the Clinton-Gore campaign thinks we have locked up. I won't give you that number because you won't believe a word I say. But I will say that ABC has got us at about 330. I think Hot Line has us at around 320-something. That's where they have us far enough ahead that the states -- by those two non-partisan organizations say that we're ahead by anything beyond resembling a margin of error and that right now, they don't seem to be in play.

And if you look at the list I gave you a minute ago, you've got a 125 electoral votes. Of any close election that you've ever seen in this century, you don't at the end write off a Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa -- I mean, those are states that decides who wins and loses close elections. They're all off the table now. We're not talking about Maryland, Hawaii, West Virginia-types of states here in terms of on the count. That's just the 125 in the dead center of the count.

Q Doug, in the states where they're playing -- are they other strategies you see at work there -- congressional strategies in those states; other reasons why they might have chosen those ones to play in?

MR. SOSNIK: Yes. The question was why are they doing what they're doing, and I guess the answer is, I don't know. When you look at where they have traveled this campaign, it has seldom correlated to where they bought media and didn't particularly correlate to states that they're competing. I do think, though, when you look at travel into places like Virginia, where there's a Richmond Times paper poll out this week that has us now up 11 points, and you look at him going to Wichita, Kansas, and you look at some of the media buys in California, it does look like there is at least a wandering eye there towards congressional races.

Q And is there some notion where they just -- shear pride of place, they don't want to lose states that are thought of as Republican states?

MR. SOSNIK: No, I think right now, that this is not about pride. I think this is about survival.

Q And what about your strategy, Doug? When you travel into some of these states, are you going to be cherry picking certain Congressional districts -- those districts that you think you have a chance to retake seats away from Republicans?

MR. SOSNIK: Well, I think that you see us traveling and we're going to continue to hammer away on our 270. The election's not over and we want to make sure that we keep the states we got. But clearly, when we move around and you've been traveling with us and you see that when we move into states, we don't just show up generally in congressional districts that are irrelevant. We are going to continue to try to hit two-fers and three-fers on our travel -- not only hit places we need to hit, not only hit places where hopefully there's a statewide race we help but also where there's a congressional activity as well.

Q Now, do you get a sense that they're buying $2 million over the next four days -- the Dole Campaign is feeling a financial squeeze at this point coming up toward the end of its spending?

MR. SOSNIK: Well, I can't really figure out quite what they're strategy's been on their spending. When they -- look at the states that they've bought media that they're not contesting in and the states that are close that they haven't bought media in and then you look at going dark for two days when you're 20-some odd days out. There's something going on there that I'm not sure I quite understand.

Q Well, you must have some sense of whether -- how deeply he has spent into his allocation.

MR. SOSNIK: I think they've spent pretty deeply into their allocation. They, remember, have spent a lot of money on national media, on national cable, the types of money we have not gone dollar for dollar; in fact, in many places we've gone zero for whatever they've spent. And so they have spent significantly more money than we have on media, because we felt maybe they had a different agenda or a different strategy. But it was not a very efficient way to do business and it's something we didn't choose to do. So they have been spending at a much faster clip in media than we have, a higher rate.

Q Doug, two questions. Last night and again today the President talked about people getting out to vote. Is that a concern of yours? And also, why are you coming to Orange County?

MR. SOSNIK: Why are we coming to Orange County and what about turnout? Why are we coming to Orange County? Because right now we're tied here according to newspaper polls. The President did extremely well in '92 compared to what a Democrat normally does here, and we want to come in here and win not only the state, but we want to carry this area, and that's why we're here.

In terms of the turnout, I mean, the presidential coattail business is a complicated issue, and if you look at it over history it's perhaps overstated. But clearly, one aspect of the presidential year campaign is the impact at the top of the ticket on turnout. And we do want to make sure that our folks, our challenge is to do for the next 19 days what we have done for the last year, which is to keep our people motivated, focused, engaged and make sure that they continue to participate and that they don't drop their guard and think that they no longer need to participate because they think we have a large enough lead and it won't make a difference.

The Republican Party is clearly, I think, demoralized. If you look at the op-ed in The Washington Post on Sunday from the head of the Christian Action League who urged the followers to stay home and affirmatively not vote and not vote for Dole, and if you look at the high number of moderate Republicans, a lot of them are called "soccer moms," when you look at the high number of moderate Republicans who are supporting the President and Vice President Gore right now, you're looking at a Republican Party that is not motivated and is likely, at least at this point if we can continue to keep the pressure up for the 19 days, to hopefully have a lower turnout.

If you look at the '94 election, which was not such a hot election for us, the turnout part was our biggest problem. And if you look at the fallout from '92 and who voted in '94, there was clearly a case of the reverse in play in which their people were more motivated, our people stayed home and we got our butt beat.

Q Doug, what about this ad that the DNC apparently took down that was running on Christian stations where the President apparently bragged about -- he bragged about the President's vote against gay and lesbian marriages? You're not sure about whether you want to brag about what the President did on that?

MR. LOCKHART: Well, I think the ad was up for several days and factually stated the President's opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Q Is that turning into a problem?

MR. LOCKHART: It's his position and it has been his position for a long time. We think that the ad we have up now is a much more effective response and more directly responds to some of the charges in the Dole radio ad, and we're happy with the ad we have now.

Q Did you take it down because of complaints from gay rights supporters?

MR. LOCKHART: No. We came up with a more effective ad to deal with the Dole ad that's running on Christian radio.

Q But, Joe, the President also said he hated the bill, it was an attempt to put him in a difficult political position, it was making a wedge issue. Isn't he trying to have it both ways?

MR. LOCKHART: No, I think that ad accurately reflected his position on the issue.

Q Wouldn't it have been cheaper to sign the bill in the daytime and you wouldn't have had to run an ad?

MR. LOCKHART: Got to go? Okay. (Laughter.)

MR. SOSNIK: -- we'll do one more. The question was, what about Texas. Well, Dole, as I gather, decided now, despite what his campaign manager had said earlier in the week that Texas was -- and they weren't going to go in there, Dole is now making his first trip there since June. The Governor is on record in the press as saying that they should not take the state for granted, it is a toss-up right now, and we have not made any final decisions, as I said earlier, about our schedule. That's the kind of decisions we'll be looking at and making over the weekend.

Q Is that also the kind of state that you think about?


Okay, we'll be hanging around all day, and it's a riveting day, but there are a few moments we can answer any questions you've got.

THE PRESS: Thank you.

END 12:29 P.M. PDT