MIAMI — Bill Clinton isn’t holding back. 
 
 And that’s mostly a good thing for Barack Obama. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 The former president was all fired up for his first real road test of the 2012 campaign, delivering a feisty recap of his much-praised keynote address at last week’s Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C. — yet one that hinted at the inconsistency and lack of discipline that proved such a mixed blessing for his wife in 2008. 
 
 Clinton, speaking at Florida International University for 41 minutes with lots of gusto — and no real script in sight — delivered the goods, and a few not-so-goods, offering a detailed defense of Obama’s policies linked to his own successes in the Oval Office. 
 
 This is what Obama’s team in Chicago expected, Clinton being Clinton, a walking, talking, finger-wagging risk-vs.-reward calculation in bifocals and out of Chicago’s grasp. 
 
 “People ask me from time to time … what are you most proud of,” a hoarse, ruddy Clinton told an audience of 2,300. “And I said, when I served, I’m glad we have more jobs, but the most stunning statistic is that we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty into the middle class than in the previous years. That means the American dream is alive and well.” 
 
 He continued: “I believe with all my heart that a society that basically says, ‘You’re on your own,’ is never going to be as successful in a highly competitive and interdependent world as a society that says … we’re all in this together.” 
 
 Obama dubbed Clinton his new “Secretary of Explaining Stuff” after Clinton made a methodical case for Obama’s economic policies in prime time last Wednesday night, but the argument lost a bit of punch and coherence on the road. 
 
 “No one, not me, not anybody else, no one could have completely healed that and built a whole new economy and brought us back to full employment in just four years. It has never been done in the history of the world,” Clinton said. 
 
 “The test is not whether you think everything is hunky-dory. If that were the test, the president would vote against himself,” he added, in a line that seemed ripe for an RNC email blast. 
 
 While the speech contrasted Republican ideas negatively with Obama’s vision, Clinton didn’t blast Mitt Romney explicitly and mentioned the former Massachusetts governor by name once. That was, in part, a nod to the solemnity of the Sept. 11 anniversary, but it is also part of Clinton’s commitment to transcending what he views as a coarsening of the process that he, like Obama, had once vowed to elevate. 
 
 Flawed surrogate that he is, Clinton remains the only game-changer in the 2012 race, outside the candidates themselves. ||||| Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had make-up sex last night. At a fundraiser on Broadway, the former president -- playing the Good Clinton -- said that a Mitt Romney presidency would be "calamitous" for the country. 
 
 Finally, on-message. Problem is the Good Clinton never quite erases the Bad Clinton (just think back to the dark days of Monica). The Bad gets wall-to-wall coverage; the Good, not so much. Clinton's performance last night followed one from last week in which he gave a shout-out to Romney, praising him as a man who could be president and "has been governor and had a sterling business career." 
 
 "Sterling" is not the adjective the Obama campaign has been using in reference to Romney's tenure at Bain. In fact the campaign has been arguing that Romney's job-destroying habits at Bain disqualified Romney from the presidency, and here was Clinton saying they qualified him. Ouch. 
 
 Like other Democrats who've embraced Bain, Clinton has had a long love affair with Wall Street. When he raised taxes on the 1 percent in 1993, launching a period of sustained prosperity, he apologized for it. They remember that, and compare it unfavorably with Obama calling them fat cats for taking taxpayer money on the one hand and granting themselves bonuses with the other. The apology has continued to pay off for Clinton, who has raised massive amounts from this group for his Clinton Global Initiative. 
 
 Clinton may never reconcile himself to Obama, his wife's one-time nemesis. He took defeat harder than she did. Maybe we should cut the former president some slack. June is the cruelest month for him. He had to watch his wife concede the nomination to Obama in June 2008 -- and after all his hard work! 
 
 Life is always up and down with Bill Clinton. When he was president, some days he was the mesmerizing politician who could get whatever he wanted; other days he was the irresponsible playboy who could throw it all away. He may now be a silver-haired philanthropist and statesman, but he still loves a roller coaster. Obama should fasten his seat belt. 
 
 (Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist. Follow her on Twitter.) ||||| McCain’s over-the-top response to the financial crisis was the opposite of George W. Bush’s too-little, too-late reaction to Hurricane Katrina, which, though it did not strike in the midst of an election, did more damage to Bush’s image than any other domestic issue during his presidency. At times since then, Republicans have shown extra sensitivity to natural disasters, abbreviating both their 2008 and 2012 national conventions because of hurricanes. 
 
 Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a top surrogate for Romney, said Romney’s unlikely to misstep on this because he has experience dealing with disasters as governor of Massachusetts. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 “There will be an aftermath, and a candidate needs to show compassion and empathy as he would if he were commander in chief,” Chaffetz said. “To the extent you’re a current officeholder, you better be doing your job.” 
 
 And it’s not a clear-cut victory for Obama just to be sitting in the Oval Office, according to one Democratic strategist who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity to speak more freely about a pitfall for the president. 
 
 The argument: If the government doesn’t respond adequately, Obama will be hurt politically; and he won’t get a boost for just doing his job. 
 
 Dee Dee Myers, Bill Clinton’s press secretary during the 1992 campaign, remembers when Clinton and the elder Bush grappled over how to respond to Hurricane Andrew after it slammed into Florida. 
 
 “For the president, if things go badly, that’s a potential liability,” Myers said. “It’s very, very hard to know. He’s clearly going to have an opportunity to be visible in the next few days. That’s potentially helpful, as long as things don’t get really out of control. It’s a crapshoot on both sides.” 
 
 Back then, Myers said, Clinton was in Romney’s spot — a challenger with no official responsibilities nipping at the heels of a sitting president. Clinton, the master of I-feel-your-pain politics, was able to show empathy on the campaign trail. 
 
 “Bill Clinton was able to go in and survey the damage and see how people were in a way that hadn’t really happened with the president. That’s where there was some advantage,” she said. “That was a theme that was already building in the campaign.” 
 
 Romney’s campaign has been gathering relief supplies at campaign offices in Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and other states, Ryan said at a rally in Fernandina Beach, Fla., on Monday. 
 
 “Since we all love this country, let’s put our neighbors to the north in our prayers,” Ryan said. 
 
 “This is going to be a big storm. The great thing about America is when we go through tough times like this, we all pull together,” Obama told reporters on Monday. “The good news is we can clean up and we will get through this.” 
 
 — Reid J. Epstein, Maggie Haberman, James Hohmann and Juana Summers contributed to this report. ||||| Shortly after Election Day in 2012, a Mitt Romney supporter moaned to POLITICO about the failed GOP nominee’s performance: “We had no message, and we gave it to the worst communicator in the world.” 
 
 Two years later, Romney is mulling over another campaign for the White House, and this time, he says, things will be different. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 In meetings with and individual calls to donors, supporters and former staffers, Romney is making it clear that he is likely to run, putting his time frame for a decision at “weeks, not months.” 
 
 Romney, who made a fortune in the financial sector and was cast by Democrats in 2012 as a heartless businessman, wants to make tackling poverty — a key issue for his 2012 vice presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan — one of the three pillars of his campaign. The former Massachusetts governor also says he’ll have a different communications staff and hopes to show voters a version of himself they didn’t get to see last time. (There’s even a Netflix documentary he can point to.) 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: 2016 hopefuls hit Obama's Paris absence) 
 
 Yet interviews with more than a dozen staffers and supporters who have recently spoken with Romney reveal conversations in which he promises a “different” path forward without providing specifics about what that means as far as mechanics and his own sometimes gaffe-ridden performance. And, aside from most of his communications team, Romney would still be expected to bring back the majority of his old staff, sources said. 
 
 “He really has to show people that he’d do it differently, rather than just say he’d do it differently,” said a former top adviser to Romney, one of half a dozen alumni to speak Monday with POLITICO. “He needs to assure folks he’d take a much more direct approach to laying out the vision for his campaign versus having those decisions driven by a bunch of warring consultants.” 
 
 Romney announced Friday that he is considering running in 2016, in what would be his third attempt at the presidency. The first time, in 2008, he ran as a conservative. His decision came after Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, said he was actively exploring a White House run. On Monday, Ryan announced that he will not run for president, possibly an indicator that he believes Romney is serious. 
 
 “A lot of people don’t think Jeb has the fire in the belly,” said one uncommitted Republican donor, who expressed “shock” that Romney is considering another race. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Cruz on Romney: No need for 'mushy middle') 
 
 Romney didn’t leave much in the ashes of 2012 that was worth replicating. He was a skilled debater, but his campaign was criticized for its threadbare messaging, staff insularity, a lack of data savvy and a fatalistic approach to the press. Yet even that failed effort was meticulously prepared for by Romney, with years of tending to donors’ neuroses and staffers’ concerns. 
 
 And amid growing speculation that Romney would jump in the 2016 fray, doubts have persisted about his ability to improve his own performance. His own party’s chairman, Reince Priebus, responded to calls for Romney to run again at a recent donor luncheon in Manhattan by pointing out the candidate’s many self-inflicted wounds. 
 
 Romney and his top aides have often attributed the loss to events out of their control. Within two weeks of the loss, Romney bluntly told a large number of donors on a conference call that Obama unfairly put his thumb on the scale with policy “gifts” to key constituencies, “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.” 
 
 “In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” he said at the time. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Ryan says he won't run for president) 
 
 Romney allies have also insisted to the former Massachusetts governor, and he has echoed in conversations he’s had, that the main reason he lost in 2012 was that he was running against an incumbent president, and that he would have an easier path in 2016. In 2012, Romney veered well to the right to win over primary voters, moves many believe cost him in the general — but he has scoffed in private conversations at Bush’s insistence that he won’t do the same in order to win the nomination. 
 
 Regardless, “I think he’d be the first person to tell you, absolutely,” he needs to run a better race, said Robert O’Brien, a California-based Republican donor who was recently courted by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz but who decided to wait to see where Romney stands. O’Brien, who said he’d received a call from Romney in recent days, added: “If he decides to run, I think you’ll see a different campaign and I think you’ll see a campaign in which the American people get to really know Mitt Romney as a person.” 
 
 Bush and Romney already are calling many of the same donors and operatives, in some cases within hours of each other, to make their pitch, round up support and lay claim to staff. Romney has also called at least two key officials in the early primary state of New Hampshire, former Sen. Judd Gregg and his successor, current Sen. Kelly Ayotte, sources said. Romney and Bush are among prominent figures invited to the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego this week, RNC spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed to POLITICO. Bush is not planning to attend the meeting, an aide to the former Florida governor said. 
 
 Romney, who just a year ago categorically ruled out a third White House run, is to some extent playing catch-up. Some of his former supporters are lining up behind Bush for 2016, and some staffers are reluctant to join him again. Romney has been burning up the phones to top members of his old finance team, and he hopes to bring back a majority of his old staff, sources said. 
 
 “There’ll be a lot of old faces and some new faces,” said one source who’s spoken with him. 
 
 Romney has been in frequent touch with his longtime adviser Stuart Stevens, although it isn’t clear whether he would be brought back in the chief strategist role he held last time. But Russ Schriefer, Stevens’ partner and ad-maker, is aligned with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. People like former RNC official Ray Washburne have committed to playing key roles in a Christie campaign. And a number of donors say some Romney alumni would sooner back Christie than Bush, who’s had past friction with Romney. 
 
 Polls show Romney as the leader on the GOP side and faring better in a general election than Bush. But the reality is likely to be harsher than the numbers suggest. For one thing, the emerging GOP field is large and includes several potentially strong contenders from gubernatorial and senatorial ranks. 
 
 “It would be difficult, hand-to-hand trench warfare,” said Dave Carney, a New Hampshire-based strategist who was Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s top adviser in 2012. “The class of competitors this time around are a class or two above the 2012 group of contenders. Misreading of polling data is a common affliction that unsuccessful, and too many successful politicians suffer. His first hurdle would be to explain how this campaign would be different then his last two failures.” 
 
 A senior Romney adviser in 2012 said the former Massachusetts governor would approach the primaries very differently “by virtue of experience,” determined not to utter the kind of self-destructive statements he did last time in order to outflank his challengers on the right. For instance, in 2012, he suggested pursuing policies that lead undocumented immigrants to “self-deport” — a remark that cost him badly among Hispanic voters in the general election. 
 
 Besides a focus on helping the poor, the other two pillars he’s told people he would build a new campaign around are supporting the middle class and a muscular foreign policy, an area where he believes he was strongly vindicated from his 2012 campaign against President Barack Obama. Romney, for instance, warned about the strategic threat posed by Russia, which many at the time thought was an overstatement. The multimillionaire also is cognizant of the damage done last time by his derisive remarks about “47 percent” of the population, whom he cast as moochers. 
 
 “If he does go forward, there will be heavier doses of foreign policy,” a senior adviser told POLITICO. “That was a strength of his last campaign. A lot of what he said has been borne out … All that feeds into a narrative.” 
 
 “The economic focus has to be different as well,” he added. “There will be more focus on mobility and softer economic issues. There will also probably be more on upward mobility and opportunity.” 
 
 Another senior official on the 2012 Romney effort said the campaign then struggled to scale up after it secured the GOP nomination. He believes a 2016 campaign would be organized from the start with a general election victory in mind. 
 
 “The value for the Obama campaign in ’12 was the muscle memory,” the adviser said. “They’d gone through the battles together and had trust. That doesn’t mean you have to have the exact same team. You need the structure, but you don’t need the exact same people. In ’12, the Obama people could tap into the talent they had in 2008. In many ways, we have that type of apparatus in place for Mitt.” 
 
 Advisers mulling over a 2016 Romney redux also hope the campaign will be smarter about spending. “Institutionally, they could raise the same amount as last time,” a senior Romney alum said. “But, by having a team that knows where the pitfalls are, we could be 30 percent more efficient.” 
 
 Another senior adviser who just spent time with Romney described him as genuinely relaxed and much looser than during the marathon of the 2012 campaign, but that he appears “very serious” about running again. The adviser said Romney is not as worried about money and support materializing as the coverage of the last few days suggests. 
 
 “His assumption is, if he decides to run, a lot of that stuff will come online,” the adviser said. “He has a desire to be president. I’m not sure if he has an overwhelming desire to run for president. I tend to think this will flush out over the next 10 days.” 
 
 Longtime Romney confidant Eric Fehrnstrom said it is premature to sketch out what a campaign organization would look like when the former governor has not made a final decision on whether to run. But he spoke to why Romney is giving the race another look. 
 
 “Our economy is still not as strong as it could be, long-term growth is in doubt, workers have gone a long time without pay raises and can’t save for a kid’s college or their own retirement, and around the world there’s deep concern that as America’s leadership has unraveled, hostile forces have filled the vacuum,” Fehrnstrom wrote in an email. “Mitt Romney spoke to these issues in the last campaign, he was right on many of them, and I expect if he runs again they will form the core of another campaign for president.” 
 
 James Carville, a longtime backer of Hillary Clinton, the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, said Team Romney is engaging in wishful thinking. He not only has fared poorly with minority voters, a growing bloc, in the past, but the economy has improved significantly since 2012. Carville pointed out that Romneyites like to say what he got right but leave out that he predicted economic calamity if Obama was reelected. 
 
 “We know the demographics are going the wrong way for him, and if the trend is any good, it looks like the economy is going to be going the wrong way [for Romney too],” Carville said. He added that more generally, “2016 is going to be a challenging year for Republicans.” 
 
 But another alumnus of Romney’s presidential campaigns said a new effort would “tell the story of Mitt better.” Several Romney veterans recalled how well the accounts from parishioners in Romney’s Mormon community resonated with voters who had been bombarded with ads about his tenure at Bain Capital. 
 
 The documentary “Mitt,” released by Netflix last year, further improved Romney’s image. Campaign operatives had resisted giving the filmmakers access, but Romney’s five sons opened up family meetings and other private conversations. The result was a production that humanized him and his Mormon faith. 
 
 “The movie really pulled the curtain back,” one Romney alum said. “It’s a good story to tell. We didn’t do that last time, and it allowed Obama to paint a caricature. We’d show him as a person more. In the first campaign, we were so afraid to even mention the ‘M’ word. Now it doesn’t even matter.” 
 
 Tom Rath, a New Hampshire-based Republican and a longtime Romney backer who also received a call from him, said he believes the different circumstances of 2016 versus 2012 are in Romney’s favor. He also expects Romney to make up his mind “sooner rather than later.” 
 
 “The context of this campaign will be very different than the one we ran last time,” Rath said. “There’s not going to be a lot of surprises to him.” 
 
 Follow @politico ||||| Grant Cornett for TIME Jon Huntsman 
 
 Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman has just proved he can keep 1,100 graduating college kids awake for 17 minutes  and even led them in a popular local cheer about kicking ass. But Obama's lean, understated former ambassador to China is really here to prove he can mount a credible campaign against the man he was working for a week prior. In a brightly lit cinder-block room inside the sports arena where the University of South Carolina has held its commencement, the former Utah governor jokes that the stark setting of our interview  his first since returning to the U.S.  suggests he might be in for some "enhanced interrogation." 
 
 But if that's what I'm up to, then torture really doesn't work, because in several sittings and a couple of hours together over a week's time, I don't even come close to getting him to spill such puny secrets as whether he thinks we should be in Afghanistan or Libya ("There will be more to say about that"), in what ways he disagrees with Obama ("I don't want to get into specifics") or, for that matter, where he parts company with his fellow Republicans, including his distant cousin, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ("It wouldn't be fair to offer an opinion without doing due diligence"). And as for whether or not Huntsman still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints, I know less than I did before I asked him. ("I'm a very spiritual person," as opposed to a religious one, he says, "and proud of my Mormon roots." Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? "That's tough to define," he says. "There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.") (See "Twelve for '12: A Dozen Republicans Who Could Be the Next President.") 
 
 So careful that he's disinclined to weigh in on any matter on which he hasn't been fully briefed or made up his mind, Huntsman is nonetheless plenty open about wanting to compete for Obama's job. Already he's in primary-season mode, moderating his previously moderate views by praising the Tea Party as "a very legitimate manifestation of people's anger and frustration in where we are today" and junking his support for the regional cap-and-trade carbon-emissions pact he and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once championed. "It hasn't worked," he says now, "and our economy's in a different place than five years ago." Until it recovers, he adds, "this isn't the moment" to keep trying. 
 
 While some Republican hopefuls have failed or are still trying to coax their loved ones onto the campaign bus, Huntsman's wife and their seven children are more than ready for a yearlong road trip that could begin as soon as June. "I would be extremely excited" if he ran, his daughter Liddy, 23, says. "He'd be the ultimate fresh face." ("Thanks, chief," he tells her in his usual soothing sotto voce style.) 
 
 Certainly, his party is in the market for one of those; competition was so modest at the first GOP presidential debate of the season that the sole top-tier contender who showed, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, was begging for a rival who could help him keep his skills up. As Huntsman's would-be campaign manager John Weaver tells me, "This is the weakest Republican field since Wendell Willkie won the nomination on the sixth ballot in 1940." (Watch TIME's video "The GOP: Optimism and Obstacles.") 
 
 But is the understated 51-year-old Jon Meade Huntsman Jr. really the answer to the Republican Party's personnel problem? He is, after all, a pro-civil-union Mormon who has just finished nearly two years of service for Obama in the land many Americans consider the new evil empire. He is pro-environment  a little too green for many in his party  and hardly anyone knows who he is. Though Huntsman's path to the nomination is a certified long shot, you have to wonder why so many on both the right and left seem to be freaking out at the prospect of his jumping into the race. 
 
 Democrats who fear that Huntsman would do well against Obama in next year's general election are busy pelting him with rose petals  take that, you wonderful man!  that they openly hope will disqualify him in the eyes of Republican Party regulars. But it's Huntsman's fellow conservatives who are in a swivet over all the attention he's gotten since arriving home from China on April 30. As governor, the antiabortion, pro-gun Huntsman did all the things Tea Party conservatives say they want, slashing taxes and adding jobs. He did that in part by using his sway with Mormon elders to pave the way for a reform of state liquor laws that made it easier to get a drink. (See TIME's graphic "Mark Halperin Weighs In on the Republican Party.") 
 
 Yet on the right, he still somehow stands accused both of writing the President the kind of "love letters" most of us refer to as thank-you notes and of showing disloyalty to his country by "plotting" to run against that same President while in a position to undermine him on the world stage. Both what he says and what he doesn't say in our interviews make clear, though, that he really has not been steeping himself in presidential politics. "I'm not even sure I could name all of them," he says of his GOP rivals. 
 
 Fortunately for him, much of the country can't either. ||||| Hillary Clinton should be judged on her own record, not her husband's, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Sunday. 
 
 "I don't think Bill Clinton is as relevant as Hillary Clinton, if Hillary Clinton decides to run for president," Romney said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "In her case, I think people will look at her record as the secretary of state, and say, 'During that period of time, did our relations with nations around the world elevate America and elevate our interests, or were they receding?'" 
 
 Romney was asked to respond to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's recent assertions that former President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky should be revisited if Hillary Clinton seeks the Democratic presidential nomination again. 
 
 "I think her record is what will be judged upon, and not the record of her husband," Romney responded. "Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee, will have plenty to discuss about her own record, and I don't imagine that Bill Clinton is going to be a big part of it." 
 
 Romney didn't give Bill Clinton a pass but added that each member of the husband-and-wife team should be considered on their own merits. 
 
 "That being said, the times when he was president were, by and large, positive economic times for the country," Romney said. "On the other hand, he embarrassed the nation, he breached his responsibility, I think, as an adult and as a leader in this relationship, and I think that's unfortunate. But I don't think that's Hillary Clinton's to explain. She has her own record and her own vision for where she would take the country." 
 
 Romney was asked again if he'd consider another presidential bid in 2016, despite previous denials that he's interested in the race. Ronald Reagan ran three times, host David Gregory pointed out. 
 
 "I'm not Ronald Reagan; I think that 's been pointed out to me before," Romney joked. "I'm not running for president. We've got some very good people who are considering the race, and I'm looking forward to supporting someone who I think has the best shot of defeating whoever it is the Democrats put up." 
 
 Read more about: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul
– Hillary Clinton may or may not run for president in 2016, but Bill Clinton is doing nothing to disabuse supporters of their hopes, reports Politico. Appearing today on Face the Nation, Clinton said, "I have no earthly idea what she'll decide to do," before repeating the oft-repeated line that "she's worked hard for 20 years, and she's tired." One definite: "She wants to take some time off, kind of regroup, write a book, I hope we'll be working together" on the Clinton Global Initiative. "I think we ought to give her a chance to organize her life and decide what she wants to do," he concluded. Elsewhere on your Sunday dial, as per Politico: David Brooks on Mitt Romney: "Romney does not have the passion. He’s a problem solver. I think he’s a non-ideological person running in an extremely ideological age, and he’s faking it. So if I were him, I’d go to what he’s been for the last several decades: be a PowerPoint guy. Say ‘I’m making a sales pitch to the country. You don’t have to love me but I’m going to do these four things for you.’" Kelly Ayotte on Romney's 47% gaffe: “That certainly was a political analysis at a fundraiser, but it’s not a governing philosophy. He absolutely has a vision for 100% of America. And that is very different from this president.” Reince Priebus on GOP's 'good week': "I think in retrospect, in that we were able to frame up the debate." Of Romney's GOP critics: I respect and I admire people that get very concerned." David Axelrod on GOP's 'good week': "Well, I don't know what prism he's looking through. I don't think anybody else would define it as a good week." And Axelrod on Romney's taxes: "Two months ago, he said that anybody who didn't take the deductions they were owed wasn't qualified to be president. Well, I guess he's not qualified, because that's exactly what he did last week to try and get his number up from 9% or 10% to 14%."