The commission has recommended a very bad plan. It is my belief that it makes the nominating process much more narrow and less democratic. You will have a Democratic nominee chosen in three weeks in January of 2008.

Neither candidate has found a compelling argument that knocks out the other or is decisive for their candidacy. It's like when there's parity in commercial products. After you've thrown everything at the other side, you bring in everything else you can and try to give this the standing of a national contest.

[Siebel is celebrating its triumph over the SEC.] This was a win not only for Siebel but for all public companies trying to do the right thing, ... We contested the SEC's claims in order to exonerate the company and its executives and to bring clarity to an important issue that was mishandled by the regulators.

We need to decrease front-loading, increase diversity, recognize Iowa and New Hampshire laws and traditions and have a calendar that will let us elect a Democrat to the White House.

Instead of focusing on electing a president in 2008, this commission appears to be heading down a precipitous path. If you have all theses caucuses front-loaded, Democrats will end up with a nominee by the middle of January.

The most frustrating thing of all to me is there is no need for this dispute. We've always worked well in Iowa and could have in this instance,