 And I'm very gratified that we're able to do that. And let me take this opportunity to thank my staff, many of whom are sitting right here now, wondering what they're going to be doing with their lives now that they're not working 14 hours a day. And thank Phil for Monty for directing what I thought was perhaps the best campaign that we've ever run. One of the things that we did in this campaign that we have never done before is introduce the concept of canvassing, which is not simply handing out literature of which we handed out tens and tens of thousands of tabloids throughout the state. But we knocked on a lot of doors. And I think it was, Ashley, what have we knocked on? 15,000? 20,000 doors. And those are the two guys there who Peter and Ashley led that effort. And we recruited volunteers all over the state. And I happen to think that probably the most effective way to educate people and get your point of view is just doing that, is knocking on doors. And what we found is that not only were people not hostile, but we found a whole lot of interest. People wanted to talk to our people. Sometimes they agree with us. Sometimes they didn't. But I think it made me aware that there's more of a hunger for good political discourse out there than I think many of us believe. So I'm grateful that we were able to knock on 20,000 doors in the state. Let me just say a word about Susan Sweetser. Running for statewide office and getting out there and working hard and being in front of the TV cameras every day and getting called on radio talk shows is not an easy business. And it goes without saying that Susan Sweetser and I have very, very different philosophical differences. But I happen to respect anybody who has the guts to go out and fight for his or her point of view. And Susan Sweetser certainly did that. And I also congratulate Mr. Long and the other candidates for their efforts. Now what I want to do very briefly is just touch on a couple of the issues, at least so you get my perspective for the historical record about the campaign. There will be articles in the paper talking about the kind of money that was spent in this campaign. So let me just say a word about that for the record. I do not know who will have ended up spending more money in this campaign. And I would hope the media will do a little bit of investigation to find that out. We raised a certain sum of money. I think it will be more than $950,000. That's a lot of money. But on the other hand, we ended up not spending all of the money that we raised. In terms of the Sweetser campaign for the record, I know I've made this point often, but I would hope that people remember it. When you're dealing with Ms. Sweetser's finances, please remember that she raised what she raised. And I'm not quite sure what it was with $500,000 was in it. On top of that, she will have received, I believe, as I understand it, about $130,000 from the National Republican Committee. On top of that, there is a group that was called the Coalition Americans Working for Real Change. My estimate is they spent $40,000, $45,000 on negative television ads. And these guys, by the way, represent corporate America. These are some of the largest corporations in America. In addition to that, I don't know how many of these things were sent around the state. But in my household, we received two. And we are not generally regarded as a bastion of Republican support. But two of my stepkids received these glossy things. I presume they were mailed out all over the state at considerable expense. The NRA made independent expenditures of tape-recorded messages that went to many of their members, also putting information into their Vermont publication. The National Right to Work Organization, which is a right-wing anti-union group, also sent out letters. We know two letters. How many Vermontas received that, I don't know. And further, the point that I want to emphasize, and sometimes gets lost in the shuffle when somebody writes Sanders or his opponent, as an independent, and I can't make this point strongly enough, we do not have the kind of infrastructure that either Democrats or Republicans have. And what that infrastructure means in the case of a strong candidate like Susan Switzer, it means polling information. It means offices. It means literature that goes out all over the state from the Republican Party. It means tabloids in certain parts of the state which criticize me, which are published by county Republican parties. When you add all of those things up, I think you're going to end up finding that probably, roughly speaking, an equal amount of money was spent. And I would hope that the media does that for the historical record. So my point is not to complain. We had a lot of money, and we spent a lot of money. But just that be understood, and it's not just what Sanders raised and Switzer raised, because she got a lot more additional outside help than we did. Let me say a few words about the media. And I don't want to be misunderstood in this respect, because I think I sometimes am. I'm often critical of the media, but I'm not critical, and I don't believe with very, very few exceptions that I'll touch upon, that there's a prejudice against Bernie Sanders. I think with the exception, let me say of channel three, where I think there has been, for many years, a built-in Republican prejudice that goes way back, the owner of channel three has contributed $2,000 to my opponent. And I think there is a Republican bias there. That's not to say that there are not many stories on channel three, which are fair and objective there are. But I think if you check the record, you'll find that there's a bias there. But that is not even the main point of what I wanted to talk about in regard to the media. The problem that I have had in somebody with my political point of view has is the following. I happen to believe, as many of you know, that the most important dynamic of America's economic and political life is the class issue, the class issue. The fact that a relatively small number of very wealthy individuals and institutions control to a very large degree the economic and political life of this country. Now, some people may disagree with me. Well, they may agree with me. But that happens to be my point of view. And from that belief comes my analysis of what happens politically and economically in this country. And that's how I approach politics and economics. And that is very different, to be honest with you, than how the vast majority of the members of Congress control politics. Now, let me give you just a few examples of what I mean and the problems that I end up having with the media. If one examines my Republican opponent's FEC report, it will show that she was very, very successful, as we all know, in raising a large sum of money from the wealthiest people in Vermont and from a large corporate interest. I don't think there's any debate about that. The second issue of interesting dynamics is that I haven't seen the results, but based on what I did glimpse on TV in the papers, we received, I believe, over 80% of the vote in the working class wards of Burlington. And I suspect, and I have not done this yet, I suspect that if one went down to Rutland, to St. Albans, to Bennington, to Brattleboro, you would find us doing phenomenally well in the working class areas of those communities. I would hope that the media would examine what does that mean? What does it mean that we do well in working class and low income areas, and that my opponent attracts enormous sums of money from the wealthy and large corporations? What are the implications of that? Again, understanding that I think this campaign was covered fairly and objectively by the media. Let me just mention a few of the questions that, given my politics, was not asked of me. And I say this not in a critical way. I really do not mean to be in a critical way, because I think the media did a good job in an objective job, in a fair job, in a very difficult circumstances. I appreciate how overworked you all are in trying to cover the media. But given my politics, for example, nobody, not only in this campaign, I cannot recall that anyone has ever asked me, what am I going to do to end the reality that America has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world? Is that an important question? It's an important question, but it starts from a certain position. If you think that that is a problem, I think it's a problem. But what we have all, all of us, have developed a certain way of approaching problems. And Dan Rather doesn't think it's a problem. Rush Limbo doesn't. The New York Times does not think it's a problem. I think it's a problem. But that type of question is virtually never asked of me. No one speaks to me and say, Bernie, what are we going to do to end the disgrace that 22% of the kids in America live in poverty and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Is that a crisis? I think it's a crisis. Over and over again, I'm asked, what are we going to do about Social Security, which is solvent for the next 35 years? Is that a problem? Sure, it's a problem. Should we work on it tomorrow? Yes, we should work on it tomorrow. But over and over again, I'm asked that problem, but no one is saying, why is it not a problem that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? Well, corporate America doesn't think it's a problem. Democratic leadership doesn't think it's a problem. Republican leadership doesn't think it's a problem. It is a problem. So what I'm suggesting of all of us, I know you have a problem, is that my politics are different than most people's. But it concerns me that we can't get those type of issues out as much. Another example, the facts are very clear. Check it out. US News and Rural Report just a few weeks ago. 10 years ago in 1985, the United States paid its working people the highest wages and best benefits in the industrialized world. You know what place we're in today? We're in 13th place according to US News and Rural Report. Is that a story? I think it's an enormous story. I talk about it. There was a wonderful article in the Rutland Herald. Do you guys see that by Bartlett and Steele? Anyone see that? Terrific article. I mean, dealing with all of the issues that I spend my life talking about. There's a wonderful article in the Rutland Herald. And the Rutland Herald, by the way, does a pretty good job in getting that stuff out every now and then. Why is it not a major story? Why is it not on chat? And I'm not saying this in a critical sense. I'm not being here to be critical. It's not different any place in the country. I'm not picking on the Vermont media. But why don't we talk to that issue? First, the 13th place in 12 or 13 years. Is that a story? I think it's a story. Health care. People don't ask me. I mean, the question about health care is we can argue about how we move to a different health care system or the problems. Why is the question not asked me? Why is the United States the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health care system? Is that a fair question? Is the whole world crazy when they say that people are entitled to health care as a right of citizenship and we are not? And I don't want to make a big deal about it. But I sometimes get concerned that, given my politics, those questions are not asked. Let me maybe conclude in a rather having been glum. I hope people don't think I was picking on me. Today, this morning, the USA Today published the election results. And they said, in the state of Vermont, this is their morning results. At large, had 62%. Jack Long, Democrat, had 9%. Susan Sweets, a Republican, had 32%. This is the life of an independent. But I want to assure the people of the state of Vermont that Mr. Lodge did not win this election. Bernie Sanders won it. Let me just conclude by thanking. The media, it's a tough job. And you've done a very fair and objective job. And I appreciate that. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that people might have.