In Hillary's case, it's a big issue, because of her -- because of the challenges that she has on the ethical side. In Trump's case, it's a big issue, because he's so erratic.

My experience in these debates, the person who wins is the person who establishes himself with the American people toward the audience, this can be a huge audience, as being one reasonably likable.

We did everything. I mean, there was virtually no stone left unturned relative to what we thought Al Gore would say.

Actually, so much of what I was going to say has already been said, and said better than I could say it.

She openly admits that, at one time, as an active environmentalist, she was totally opposed to nuclear power.

the issue for nuclear is that, because it does these good things, like reduce carbon and have reliability and be part of the diversity mix, it gets no credit for this in the marketplace.

Why would we do it? Because it makes no sense, from the standpoint of policy.

Meeting state and national carbon reduction goals will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.

It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to nuclear power.

Yes, I do. And it's driven by people being concerned about carbon emissions and global warming, and common sense taking hold.

Our Nation's nuclear power plants are vital national assets that provide reliable, carbon-free electricity.