WP looks at Obama's 'town hall' questioners

President Obama [stocked] his town hall Thursday with supporters whose soft — though far from planted — questions provided openings to discuss his preferred message of the day. [....]

[The]  five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall_questioners_we.html

[ The WP story goes on to look up those five in their mybarackobama blogs and finds them long-time supporters. ]

"Al Qaeda -- the Database" ?????

This is funny and makes more sense than some other theories. I'd wondered how Bush's top-down international conspiracy of Muslims was getting the money to finance all the 'Al Qaeda' actions all over the world, and why. This says they were really bottom up local actions giving the credit to a fictitious ... database?

I wonder if Bin Laden will turn out to be a hoax?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291

[ Skip the tinfoil about the CIA. ]

“Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. [....]

” Some Islamic economic lobbies are  ... claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. "

Gillibrand has 100% anti-tobacco voting record

An NYT 'hit piece' talks about how, as a young lawyer, Gillibrand worked hard and effectively for her firm’s tobacco client. So, what we have is the portrait of a hard working lawyer who earned the respect of her colleagues and clients. In short, she did her job and seems to have done it well.

The only way this might be an issue would be if there were no voting record to look at to see if there was some conflict between her early client’s private interest and the public good….but in this case, there is a voting record. The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate, and as Bill Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said “What’s important to us is how she votes.” [Albany Times Union, 10/16/08] 

Here’s a more detailed account of that record:

- Gillibrand Co-Sponsored and Voted For a Bill to Regulate Tobacco Through the Food and Drug Administration. In 2008, Gillibrand voted in favor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This bill seeks to remove the exemption that tobacco products have from basic health regulations that apply to other consumer products such as food and medicines. The bill would crack down on tobacco marketing and sales to kids, require larger, more effective health warnings on tobacco products, require tobacco companies to disclose the contents of tobacco products, changes to their products and research about the health effects of the products, ban candy-flavored cigarettes and prohibit terms that mislead consumers into believing that certain cigarettes are safer. [HR 1108, Vote #542, 7/30/08] 

- Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years. The bill passed 265-142. [HR 3963, Vote #1009, 10/25/07] 

- Gillibrand Voted to Override President’s Veto and Raise Taxes on Cigarettes and Tobacco Products. In 2007, Gillibrand voted for an attempt to override President Bush’s veto of the bill that would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. The bill failed 273-156. A two-thirds majority was required to override the veto. [HR 976, Vote #982, 10/18/07] 

- In 2008, Gillibrand Voted to Override Bush SCHIP Veto. In January 2008, Gillibrand voted again to override the Bush veto of legislation to renew and expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill would have overridden Bush’s Dec. 12, 2007, veto, of the bill that would reauthorize the program at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 per pack, and raise taxes on other tobacco products. [Vote #22, 1/23/08]

- In the U.S. Senate, Gillibrand Voted to Raise Taxes on Cigarettes to Expand Children’s Health Care. In 2009, Gillibrand voted for bill that would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products to offset an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. [Vote # 31, HR 2. Public Law 111-3]

Brian Keeler is the author of the above comments in an article entitled; Guillbrand Hit Piece By Times: A Classic Study.

From Wbboei at 

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/03/27/boob-guns-butter-disaster/#comment-243350

Bill Clinton vs drug companies

The following has been attributed to Bill Clinton as from his recent interview by Gupta. 

(I say, Hillary/Palin 2012, and sic Palin on them! She tamed the oil companies.)

Americans Pay More for Less: The McKenzie Study done a couple of years ago said that Americans pay $66 billion a year more for medicine and our older population consumes relatively less per capita than other wealthy countries.

Our Government Is Subsidising Big Pharma: We have made a bargain with our pharmaceutical companies. We’ve said to them for decades now, we love having you in America. We’re proud of you. We know you have to spend a lot of money on research and then you market the drugs and all. So we will support your research and development costs in American prices so that you can sell exactly the same drugs you sell to us for less money in Canada and Europe … Keep in mind, Europe has a lot of very successful drug companies and they don’t do this.

This Subsidization Does Not Help Americans: So how can we reach a different arrangement so that we keep the drug companies healthy enough and we keep them developing new medicines? The system we’ve got is not working very well. They don’t have a lot of new medicines in the pipeline … Meanwhile, we keep subsidising all these costs and countries just as wealthy as we are, are getting the same drugs made by the same people for less money, which is why there was so much opposition to allowing re-importation from Canada. The one good place to start is what President Obama has proposed, letting the federal government bargain (with pharmaceutical companies).

Big Pharma’s Profits Have Been 3x Greater Than Wal-Mart’s: For most of the 1990s and the early part of this decade, they earned 18 per cent, which is a huge return. You know, Wal-Mart’s return is 5 or 6 per cent. And it is fascinating to see that at the same time … the number of new drugs in the pipeline seems to be slowing down. So we need to examine both how we can get the benefits of medical advances and how we can lower the cost to the consumers.

Obama put LARRY SUMMMERS on his 'Council on Women'

Critics of Summers might want to criticize Obama's decision to put Summers on the 'Council of Women.'

I'm slowly filling in names and genders of the other 'Council' members at http://florasteele.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-council-on-women-has-mostly-male.html

So far it looks VERY heavily male, consisting mainly of all existing Cabinet members and many department heads.

Obama's 'Council on Women' has mostly male members

Here's a place to add more info on Obama's 'Council on Women,' particularly its membership (60-75% male)? What is a more exact number?

The White House said "the Council will be comprised of the heads (or their senior-level designees) of: the Cabinet agencies, certain other non-Cabinet agencies, and other Executive branch departments, agencies."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/03/obama_to_create_white_house_wo.html

At last report, the Cabinet itself was about 75% male. TNA has a page on this called 'Cabinet Watch' iirc, which includes the Cabinet plus some other high level people.

 

Ah, here's the official press release:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   March 11, 2009

President Obama Announces White House Council on Women and Girls

President Obama today signed an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families. The Council will be chaired by Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor, and will include as members cabinet-level federal agencies. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House.

"The purpose of this Council is to ensure that American women and girls are treated fairly in all matters of public policy," said President Obama. "My Administration has already made important progress toward that goal. I am proud that the first bill I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. But I want to be clear that issues like equal pay, family leave, child care and others are not just women’s issues, they are family issues and economic issues. Our progress in these areas is an important measure of whether we are truly fulfilling the promise of our democracy for all our people. I am confident that Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen will guide the Council wisely as its members address these important issues."

The White House Council on Women and Girls will ensure that agencies across the federal government, not just a few offices, take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. The Council will begin its work by asking each agency to analyze their current status and ensure that they are focused internally and externally on women.

In particular, the Council will work to enhance, support and coordinate the efforts of existing programs for women and girls. The Council will also work as a resource for each agency and the White House so that there is a comprehensive approach to the federal government's policy on women and girls. The priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and relevant agency offices that focus on women and families.

During its first year, the Council will also focus on the following areas:

• Improving women’s economic security by ensuring that each of the agencies is working to directly improve the economic status of women.
• Working with each agency to ensure that the administration evaluates and develops policies that establish a balance between work and family.
• Working hand-in-hand with the Vice President, the Justice Department’s Office of Violence Against Women and other government officials to find new ways to prevent violence against women, at home and abroad.
• Finally, the critical work of the Council will be to help build healthy families and improve women’s health care.

The White House Council on Women and Girls will meet regularly, and will serve as a forum for all involved agencies to focus on women.

Initial members of the Council include:

The Secretary of State; 
The Secretary of the Treasury; 
The Secretary of Defense; 
The Attorney General; 
The Secretary of Interior; 
The Secretary of Agriculture; 
The Secretary of Commerce; 
The Secretary of Labor; 
The Secretary of Health and Human Services; 
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; 
The Secretary of Transportation; 
The Secretary of Energy; 
The Secretary of Education; 
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
The Secretary of Homeland Security; 
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations; 
The United States Trade Representative; 
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
The Administrator of the Small Business Administration; 
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management; 
The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors - Romer, FEMALE, academic bot, no govt experience; 
The Director of the National Economic Council - SUMMERS* -MALE

 and The Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

In addition to the initial list of members, the President may designate additional heads of other Executive Branch departments, agencies, and offices.

* Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council and was appointed by President Barack H. Obama on November 24, 2008. ... www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/chair/

Hillary-McCain crossover polls are consistent with earlier polls

According to Wikipedia, McCain's popular vote was 59,934,814, call it 60 million. 16% of that, the Hillary crossovers, is ... 9.6 million.

In the primaries, 18 million voted for Hillary. 35% of them, ie 6.3 million, said in primary exit polls that they would not support Obama. Phone polls that counted both Hillary-to-McCain voters and stay homes in May, June, and August iirc were pretty close to the primary exit polls. Breakdowns showed about 3 million planning to vote for McCain, 4 million planning to stay home.

43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats. [CBS story cited previously]

26% of 9.6 million is 2.5 million. Add a few from the Independents who got polled as Hillary supporters during the summer and there's the same 3 million Hill's voting for McCain. So here's three different kinds of pollings that come up with figures all in the same ball park. That suggests that these three pollings were pretty reliable. The Republicans who preferred Hillary were unexpected gravy. 

This is evidence for Hillary being in fact the more electable candidate than Obama -- and for 9.6 million people, the more credible leader.

Nov 4 exit polls: Hillary would have won bigger

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml?source=search_story 

CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto [....]

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.  

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.  

I don't know which exit polls you consider not reliable and how you would compare their methodology with this. Iirc exit polls from the later primaries showed about 35% of HIllary supporters were planning to not support Obama in November (those did not break down the number who would actually vote for McCain from those who would stay home). Pls note that the Nov 4 story calculated in the factor of Obama supporters who would have stayed home, but could not calculate in the Hillary supporters who DID stay home. Telephone polls in June and near the convention found more HIllary supporters planning to stay home than planning to vote for McCain. 

Pls distinguish between Obama's decision to reject the Clinton/Obama ticket -- and Obama supporters' choice to support him in that decision. That would have been a good time for Obama supporters who also cared about feminism, to speak out and urge him to accept Hillary's win/win offer (a feminine solution).

Obama's friends get the money; Hillary's friend Geithner gets the blame

 I read that IHT article (link below) in Feb (well, I read it at the NYT site) and thought it clearly a set up for Geithner as a bad guy and Axelrod (!) as a good guy.  Very puffy, all anon sources from inside the Obama camp.

Geithner, whatever his faults, is an ally of Hillary. They were planning to work together on the international economy crisis. (Hillary to tell Geithner what the US policy should be.)

In Feb Axelrod sets up Geithner as a bad guy ... now they use him as a scapegoat.

Typical Obama tactic: Obama's fat cat friends get the money, Hillary's friends get the blame.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/america/bailout.2-426869.php

GOP discrediting Palin? She still leads for 2012

Even during the campaign some anonymous McCain 'staffers' were discrediting Palin. She was called a 'diva'; and who leaked the info about the wardrobe the RNC had supplied? If she had refused to wear those clothes, they would have called her a 'diva' for the refusal!

But it's not working. In a poll this month iirc, she was still the choice of all GOP for 2012 (though narrowly, a 3-way split) -- and 10 points ahead with GOP women.

I know some Hillary supporters had a bad reaction to Palin's manner, conservatism, etc and of course they are the ones who got the publcity. But a poll showed that about an equal number of Hillary supporters liked her,  so it balanced out.

I'd like more detail, but I get the impression that Palin is very ... WISE ... about deciding what to focus on, and managing her career by getting real things done for the real voters in Alaska. Obviously she has wonk brilliance with numbers and high-powered negotation (gas companies, pipeline). But sfaik her strategy with building on real accomplishments shows a good balance of judgment. (See USA Today's "Palin governed from the center.")

And when in doubt, she focuses on practical and ethical. Instead of fighting for a bill that would have denied state employees' same-sex partners benefits, she vetoed it, saying that it was unconstitutional and not many partners were applying anyway, so it was cheaper to pay the benefits!

Same with her appointment of Judge Christen. Instead of going with ideology, she chose the candidate clearly most qualified.

For Madeline, continuing: Clinton/Obama 2008

Another factor on the older woman being by-passsed for a younger man.

Background: In fact Hillary was the more electable candidate. Exit polls showed that she would have beaten McCain by 12% -- Obama only won by 7%

The key is that Obama was young enough to run again in 2016 or later, but because of the Clintons' age and Bill's health, 2008 was probably Hillary's last chance. But there was a win-win solution, which Hillary proposed: a Clinton/Obama ticket.

That would have been an easy GE victory, and given Obama 16 years in the White House. He could fly around giving speeches and not having to deal with any of these problems. After 8 years of the Clintons cleaning things up, Obama would be the obvious nominee, have another easy GE, and a really easy transition.

Instead, Obama went to a lot of trouble to destroythe first woman president's only chance. Hillary could have run for president in 2004 or even 2000, but she had chosen to do her homework, learn the job, work her way up. This left her only the one chance, 2008.

Obama destroyed this, using very nasty tactics and smears, split the Dem voters driving several million to vote for McCain in protest.

Hillary's feminine solution was to promote Obama's future by giving him the VP position. His response was to destroy her future.

*Bill had multiple-bypass heart surgery in 2004 and will be due for it again around 2019

For Madeline (posted at TNA)

If the candidates had been exactly equal in age, experience, ability, issues, character — I would probably have voted for the Black, as there are fewer Blacks in the pipeline.

Otherwise, I’d have voted for the older candidate, especially if the younger were young enough to run several more times, but for the older, this might be the last chance.

There’s a pattern that older feminists notice: an experienced, qualified middle aged woman is passed over for promotion in favor of a younger, less experienced man — and she is often made his secretary and required to teach him the job! (Or perform it herself in secret, letting him get the credit.)

For informed older women like Sebelius, Pelosi, etc to cheat in the primaries to make this pattern play out on the national scale, ignoring HIllary’s better experience and qualifications, was … shall we say … not quite “supporting the woman.”

'Council on Women' will be over 60% men

Re the ‘Council on Women’, here’s more info (as of January) as to its apparent gender ratio.

Men: 15
Women: 7 (including Jarrett and Tchen)

See http://thenewagenda.net/obama-cabinet-watch/ as to Obama’s cabinet members and ‘cabinet level posts.’ His ‘Council on Women’ is defined as automatically including all those office holders. (Sorry I lack the stomach to read the Executive Order to see if it includes anyone else.)

A male dominated placebo wrapped in a fig leaf, I calls it.

Kevin -- evidence for charges against Palin?

Kevin, you said elsewhere:

Many people felt Palin words led audiences to yell, “kill Obama” and bring monkey dolls to campaign rallies. 

First we would need evidence that those alleged actions even happened. Where are photos of monkey dolls in a crowd shot at a rally? Where are recordings of audiences yelling "kill Obama"? Where are reputable media stories of those alleged incidents?

One journalist ran a story claiming he heard one person shout "Kill him" when Ayers was being talked about. The Secret Service investigated and found no one supported the journalist at all. No one else had heard anything like this. Several SS agents were in the crowd and would have heard it if it had really happened. I have a cite for this, will look it up if you like.

Accomplishments of Clinton/Gore administration

From hillaryis44.org, here are a lot of posts giving cites for accomplishments of the Clinton/Gore administration.

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/03/14/glimmers-of-hope-part-ii/#comment-240948

Obama kept his 'Council' project quiet -- to get a quiet 'Council'

Look at the opportunity for milking publicity which Obama has deliberately precluded.

You’d expect a president to announce that he is going to create such a council, invite public input, announce or leak some possible names … have some public meetings with organizations in his pocket (NOW etc) — the whole suspense build-up over perhaps several weeks. To give up all that media coverage of fawning by NOW etc, he must have some good reason. Like needing to keep the configuration and chairing under very tight control, so the resulting ‘Council’ will be under his tight control. Giving up this big publicity series carrot, imo means Obama has a bigger fear of a future big stick, ie accidentally creating a Council he could NOT control.

Jarrett's real task at Obama's 'Council on Women'

I expect Jarrett will be quite effective — at her real task which is keeping the women from embarrassing Obama. The ‘Council’ is like the Human Resources job: the purpose is not to help the employees/women, but to keep them quiet, under control, treat them as troublemakers whom the management/Obama must be protected from.

I’m sure that Obama will instruct Jarrett to do some good things for some key supporters — if it does not in any way inconvenience his money backers, and if he cannot try to win votes from the GOP by using it as a bargaining chip instead, as he omitted the family planning money from the Stimulus

He will also instruct her to do some things that look and sound good but in fact hamper the sort of women who voted against him. And some things that look good but don’t cost him anything, or that function as a panacea, causing some women to slack off because they think some issue is now settled.

Jarrett’s help would likely go to where it would get the most bang for its buck for 2012. That’s not likely to be serious money for people who already give their milk for free. It would be token money aimed to impress white guilt liberals who might otherwise start voting their own economic interests or their common sense. Or money to ACORN and other organizations that directly worked for Obama. Etc.

Any judgment of whether the ‘Council fails’ or is ’successful’ will be filtered through his smoke machine and Big Media. He will make Jarrett look good and she will make him look good. That’s her real job. If he had wanted someone who would really work for women, or even take a balanced position — he would have chosen someone familiar with the field and NOT a trusted crony.

Madeline....

Madeline,

I copied some of our old Palin discussion to this blog a few entries below at 

http://florasteele.blogspot.com/2009/03/for-madeline-re-palins-intelligence.html

but I'd rather continue our current conversation from TNA.

'Council' established by Alinsky 'organized event' method

I've posted this elsewhere as

 ‘Council on Women’ a male-dominated sock puppet with a rubber stamp.

For more evidence that Obama fears women's power, look at how he rammed this package-deal ‘Council’ through, and how it is configured.

There’s an article (I’ll look for the cite) quoting Alinsky’s son as complimenting Obama on setting up the Democratic Convention in August as an ‘organized’ event — meaning that there was no opportunity, ever, for other views to be heard. The establishment of this ‘Council’ has a similar pattern (though spread out longer).

This ‘Council’ was set up with o chance ever for public input on its configuration or its leadership. Membership and leaders names were all in the Executive Order that established the ‘Council.’ The first that most of us heard of it was as a fait accompli with a big media event. (It was also set up such that those leaders did not have to go through Senate Confirmation Hearings.)

Now look at who are already, package deal, defined as members. Obama’s own Cabinet Secretaries ( c. 75% males) plus some department heads (dunno that parity). I’m waiting for some good number cruncher (where are Anglachel and Riverdaughter when we need them?) to research this and compute a head count.

Look at the firewalls Obama has built in here, against this ‘Council’ ever coming out with any recommendation or statement that could embarrass or incovenience him, or hamper his re-election.

Supervised by two trusted cronies who helped him defeat Hillary and Palin. If by any chance they let something come up for a vote, the voters will be his own Cabinet appointees who owe their high paying day jobs to him.

Even if Jarrett and Tchen were to suddenly reveal feminist T-shirts, the 75% male members are there to vote it down.

Imo our best strategy would be to come out now, while the issue is current, strong and loud against this travesty. Use the current pro-Council publicity to get ourselves establishsed as the ‘go to’ opposition voice. Then we might have a little pressure as time goes on, to push the ‘Council’ to actually throw us a few crumbs instead of rubber stamping whatever Obama wants.

Who can draw a cartoon of a sock puppet with a rubber stamp?

For Madeline re Palin's intelligence

I'm moving some of our old discussion here so we can get more deeply into it if you like. I'm really interested in these different views of, perhaps, different kinds of intelligence.

So as not to monopolize the front page, the long stuff is in a Comment to this post.

Bah humbug "Council" summary Sat noon

Here's the official original:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Executive-Order-Creating-the-White-House-Council-on-Women-and-Girls/

Must go soon, but I just wanted to add this fact about the actual make-up of the 'Council.' So if the 'Council' ever has a meeting and anything that matters comes up for a vote, look who will have the most votes. "While the new council does not have Cabinet rank, the whole Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense to the US Ambassador to the United Nations, is required to serve on it." "The members are all Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of numerous federal agencies." http://www.fem2pt0.com/?p=855 So is it now about 75% men in Obama's cabinet? They will be automatically on the Council and able to outvote anything the women might come up wtth. (Is the gender parity any better among the "heads of numerous federal agencies"? -- Of course as he needs in future, Obama could make a new executive order defining just which of those heads are on the Council from one meeting to the next. Headed by two cronies, peopled by a large percentage of male appointees.... Very safe design....

Bah, probably humbug: - Jarrett and Obama's 'Council on Women and Girls'

Reasons for scepticism, in no particular order:

• Created all of a piece with Jarrett and Tchen (both Chicago cronies of Obama) already installed, no chance for public input. 
• Jarrett has no known prior feminist credits; Tchen's none mentioned since college.
• 'Council' has no staff, no meetings; both Jarrett and Tchen already have full time jobs with the Administration, and Jarrett already has other impressive titles.
• 'Councll makeup:  "While the new council does not have Cabinet rank, the whole Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense to the US Ambassador to the United Nations, is required to serve on it."  "The members are all Cabinet Secretaries and the heads of numerous federal agencies." http://www.fem2pt0.com/?p=855
  
  
  
• "It will be headed by Valerie Jarrett, assistant to the president and one of his closest friends and advisors, and will include every Cabinet secretary and the head of every Cabinet-level agency. The Executive Director of the Council will be Tina Tchen, deputy assistant to the president and a long-time advocate of women's rights. We asked for a Cabinet-level office to work on women's issues, and we got the entire Cabinet." Kim Gandy, NOW

more later....