them battle it out on the floor of the united states senate. sunday. sunday. host: and that was an ad from america's liberty super pac supporting rand paul that talks about the usa freedom act. i would like both of you to comment on the ad itself and the broader issue of whether the nsa surveillance program has legs to the 2016 election. guest: i have to tell you i have not seen the ad. it is my first time. i am a little stunned, both as a you message strategist, a you democrat, and as an and you american, actually. i i think that is the definition is of over-the-top. what is interesting is what is its job? it's job is to break through to a specific audience using a specific medium in a very crowded republican field, as we talked about. now, is that the right ad? maybe.

it is not an audience i know a lot about. i will not kid you. i'm still a little stunned because that ad was obviously very contrasted. he it literally called out, by name, some of the other republicans in the race. it referred to senator ted cruz as a canadian, which is true but kind of funny. i do not know if rand paul -- you and he did not do this ad, i want to make that clear, but i do not know if senator paul would have agreed to do this if he had anything to say about it. will distinguish him? maybe. i think it will do more harm than good, which is part of the problem. with so much independent money so much of this will be done at the candidates have no control over. if it were me and i were senator paul, i would see the ad, call american liberty and take it down. he is not allowed to talk to them, so he is stuck.

he gets to live with that. is that the right thing to do? i do not think so. guest: i think the job the ad is trying to copy just something he would agree with, but i agree it is over the top. he is trying to solidify his libertarian base who think he has gone to mainstream. he is at 9%. since he announced, he is not gone anywhere. ted cruz and others are creeping up behind him. now, the risk of this is the high-end part. for the public and primary voter, national security and foreign policy are the top two issues and then on not ready to hand over the keys to the republican nomination to someone they see as a libertarian-leaning ideologue. that is the risk. what rand paul should be doing is using his time wisely to pay himself as a reluctant warrior that says when push comes to shove i will do what is in the

best interest of america in foreign policy. host: how does the meeting to discuss the nsa play into this? guest: this is the backdrop for the grandstand to be able to talk about this. what will wind up is the patriot act provisions will expire and we will adopt the usa freedom act and rand paul will say look, i did that. the problem is right now, right or wrong, americans are concerned about national security and foreign policy, and in some ways they're almost willing to trade civil liberties for stronger national security. he is running at the wrong time. if this were 2008, that would be a brilliant move. guest: what i find interesting about ad and what you said, and i agree, actually, the definition of the best republican, which all of these nominees are trying to figure out -- how do they win the

nomination by being the best republican? the definition of the best republican is really skewed. is it someone strong on national defense? is it someone that is more evangelical and catering more to the socially conservative base? is it someone that is more tea party libertarian? is it someone that is more business conservative? that is ashley, for me, as a democrat, and as a strategist -- actually, for me, as a democrat and as a strategist, the more fascinating to watch in the next year with republican field -- their positioning themselves in those buckets, and anyone crossing over those buckets. person that is going to be able to pick up more than one bucket. that will be interesting. guest: you make a commission point. you cannot win with any one of the bucket. one bucket is worth more than the others, and that is the establishment bucket, 40%. you can convince voters. the two best hybrids right now are marco will be on scott walker.

host: david from virginia. david, what are your thoughts? david, are you there? surely comment from new castle pennsylvania, on the republican line. go ahead -- shirley, from new castle, pennsylvania, on the republican line. are you there? moving on to cary. go ahead. caller: bernie sanders is the only one out there telling what is really going on in this country and people to wake up and realize that. he is telling it like it is, and the other ones -- what do they got? what do they got? bernie does not run negative ads against people. i mean, you guys are just way too sure to early.

guest: i think that hillary clinton, obviously, is such a known name. what's fascinating about her is she isn't 99% total name idea. who are the 1% who have never heard of hillary clinton which i thought was an interesting and funny article. bit more importantly, the hard thing for hillary and the color -- link: and others -- isthe caller and other callers have struck on this is to know hillary is to have an opinion on hillary. you either love her or you don't. there isn't a lot of waffling on hillary. so, those people out there including democrats who are not huge fans of hillary is that room for them to really start to make some noise and really start to take some vote?

i don't think so. but this is america and anything can happen. host: let's play a clip of bernie sanders' clip of his announcement for candidacy. senator sanders this campaign : starting today is going to send a message to the billionaire class. and that is you can't have it all. [applause] you can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. [applause] you can't continue sending our jobs abroad while millions are looking for work. [applause] you can't hide your profits in the cayman islands and other tax havens well there are massive unmet needs of every corner of this nation. [applause] to the billionaire class, i say that your greed has got to end. you cannot take advantage of all

of the benefits of america if you refuse to accept your responsibilities. host: and that was bernie sanders announcing his bid for president in 2016. ford o'connell, your thoughts. guest: as the republican, i want bernie sanders to keep singing, i want him to yell it. any way that he can discredit hillary clinton is fantastic for my guys. at the same time though, there's one thing that he did say that we're going to be able to play over and over and he said that hillary clinton has been outhustling for money and she's disconnected from the reality of the everyday american which she's trying to represent. so therefore, bernie sanders is the best person so far of who we think is going to be on that deal who can really drive hillary clinton. the question is whether or not she's going to take the bait. i hope she does. guest: the most interesting about watching that is as an absolute self-identified liberal, i'm listening to him and he is striking chords with

me. i love the term "billionaire class." instead of eight the -- instead of saying the wealthy, which is such a difficult at some points, to determine definition. what is wealthy? $100,a year? -- 100,000 a year? $500,000 a year? when you say billionaire class we all know what that means. i am a pragmatist and i know that pretty much what just came out of bernie sanders' mouth is not going to play to the middle class, the swing voter in a general election in iowa. it's not going to play in ohio. it's not going to play across this country to the more moderate middle part of america. that doesn't mean that i don't agree with him. i'm glad he's out there saying it. but do i think he's going to be our nominee and do i want him to be our nominee? that's a whole different question. host: bill from holden nebraska, is calling out from the democrat line. bill, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning.

i think if hillary clinton is the nominee on the democratic class, i really think we're going to hand the candidacy to the republicans. i think she's got too much baggage. i'm half wondering is if she's running because people expect her to run. i don't know she would be that good a president. she is certainly knowledgeable. she has been in washington for many years. bernie sanders is saying a lot about the right things.st 80. it would be interesting to know what he would have had as vice president. and i think hillary clinton will not be elected. i think secretly, the republicans want her to be the nominee because i can only imagine how much money they've already spent in ads they haven't shown attacking her. and i just don't want to go through a whole year of negative politics and that's probably

what's going to happen. the caller a little bit ago talked about bernie sanders and how he had doesn't run that negative type of campaign. but i do worry about his age. host: bernie sanders is 73. guest: the first important point is the optics around why she's running. is she running because she is so ambitious that she just can't help herself or is she running because she wants to do good things for this nation? you're going to get a different answer from just about everybody you talk to. and one thing that drives me a little nuts about hillary

clinton and the advisors around her is that they don't know they have that problem. or if they do know, they're not doing much to address it. let's talk about the age back to her. what is really interesting here is that hillary clinton is 68 so it is not like with all of the respective 68-year-olds, she is a spring chicken. joe biden, 72. the last three presidents of the u.s. were 44 when they were elected. is america ready for grandma and chief? i don't know. and that's going to be a really big question in this election. guest: and my guys are going to say because of ambition and she's been doing this since 2005 and that's why she's wanting to be secretary of state. she wanted to bide her time while she's waiting to run in 2016. it is the worst kept secret in washington.

caller: i want to say a few things about marco rubio. i think he can use the military to control the drug trafficking that comes back from the caribbean. guest: let me say this about marco rubio if he wins the republican nomination. it would be largely on the backs of national security and foreign policy. that is his strength over a lot of candidates. the military is a strength for marco rubio, not a negative. guest: you know what i'm finding really interesting is two months ago, which feels like a lifetime ago. i think we only had two official

people running for republican nomination two months ago. but if you had asked me if marco rubio was really going to be in the top tier of candidates for the republican nomination, i might have said no. i've totally changed my opinion. not that i have a vote in the republican nominating process, but i am really actually impressed with the way senator rubio has handled himself in the last couple of months and what i'm finding interesting when i talk to republican friends and i have a few. when i talk to my republican strategic friends but when i talk to my republican friends from texas, i've got a few back home, his name is coming up all the time. i'm going to start to pay a lot more attention to rubio. guest: i am a troll on this. i just want us to beat hillary clinton. i'm not picking any favorites here. marco rubio was the frontrunners for a very long time.

where he tripped and fell was the immigration reform. now that he is back up on the state, he is reminding them why is so important. there was an article in the new york times that said who do you fear the most to the clinton staff? and they said we fear marco rubio because he can win florida. he's fluent in spanish and he has a very compelling personal narrative. when you go into marketing which is what we do here, that's a very big product statement going forward. host: going back to rand paul a little bit, how much of a chance do you think he has of making any inroads here? guest: i have to be tough. i have to be a little -- rand paul is probably not going to win the republican nomination and the reason is is because national policy plays such heavy roles. you have to understand something -- well, substantial amount to majority in the first 14 nominating contests were republican voters over 50.

they tend to be more hawkish. because he's been unable to actually differentiate himself on foreign policy and make a cogent argument particularly after those isis morning he had a morning joe he's had to find a , way to paint himself as a reluctant lawyer and people that can accept. host closed an: sort of going to social media and also going to sort of a variety shows. any place but the political media in order to make their case. do you still think that's true? guest: well, first of all, i'm glad someone read my book. here in lies the problem. we lived in an hbo, tmz society. folks say i care about the issue. most people don't know the issues.

what i'm trying to say is in general, hillary clinton's biggest strength right now is the fact that she's going to be in women's magazines. they're going to develop 53 million readers. a great democratic pollster said unmarried women which is hillary clinton's primary target voters, basically 71% of them pay little to no politics. being able to go out there and talk about anything other than politics and making yourself look like a likable hard-working person may be more valuable than any perfectly stated policy person. guest: i couldn't agree more. and one of the things that's really interesting and i really actually say this with respect is that the democrats have at least since 2008 but the idea of being authentic, the idea of being real, the idea of talking about things about yourself beyond your political position that's not just key.

that's the baseball game. that's crucial. if you cannot present yourself to those voters, the ones who are not watching "washington journal" this morning, they're still asleep, right? when you're talking to voters what they want to know is their elected officials are motivated by something other than political ambition. that is their most desperate desire. and if you can't tell them that in an authentic and geniune way, you're not going to win their vote. so reaching out to those voters through non-political , traditional mediums and more women's magazines on social media or on late night television is key. it doesn't matter if you're a democratic or republican. that goes back to marco rubio and i think he gets that. host: kathleen is calling on the democratic line. kathleen, good morning to you. caller: thank you. can you give me as much time as you gave the guy from maine? i want to talk to the democrat strategists. why do you get on tv? and i'm a democrat.

you're sitting there giving this guy a playbook to how to hurt the democrats. they don't give you all any advice. and let me tell you some of your republican candidates. marco rubio flip-flop drinking water while trying to give a speech. ted cruz tried the to shut the government down over obama's health care. and then there's 50 hearings on health care costs and the day he said he was going to run for president, he said he was going to get rid of health care. tuesday, he said he was going to get health care. rick perry, under investigation. jeb bush, brother, war, chris christie, on investigation scott walker, on investigation. you know, mike huckabee is a lying preacher. donald trump is a joke. so why don't you sit up there and help the democrats instead of trying to give republicans a

playbook and republican guy, it's amazing how you all said president obama's not worth anything. but child done stole all his ideas. he got his ideas wrapped up in a package with a pink ribbon on it. if you win, you overtake this man's ideas and go forward and pretend like they're your ideas. host: that was kathleen from chicago. response. guest: kathleen, while i appreciate that people think that i am a vault of information, i promise you that republicans are well aware of many of the things that i'm saying today. what's really interesting about what she's saying is there are many people across the country who feel passionately about this election and i'm very excited about that because one of the things that we saw in 2014 was the lowest national turnout in a midterm election since world war ii. we saw between 30%-35% across

the country. that's dismal. i want everybody to go vote. i want more democrats than republicans to go vote but i want everybody to go vote and that means getting fired up about this election and getting your friends and neighbors fired up and talking to people who don't get all that fired up and that's what i want people to do. guest: i give her kudos for passion and participating in the political process and following this. about the mid terms versus the general elections. mid terms, only about 47% of america turns out to vote. in a presidential election, it's about 63%. when we get to that 63%, then we get to a tight tug of war and it tends to favor the democratic nominee just because the current electorial vote is matched. host: and jason calling from new york on the republican line. good morning, jason. caller: good morning and thank you so much for taking my call. i just have what i hope is regarded as the practical question about the upcoming republican debates and i think i saw it on fox news.

i'm inclined to believe that even having 10 people on state is too much. these primaries are extended -- intended to be competitive seems to me the debate should be an attempt to inform voters in addition to start the process of elimination. so for instance, if there are plans to have four debates during the season, seems to me that you take the top five and then in each debate, you whittle it down until you get to two. there has to be a process in place through these debates, you know to cut through all of what i call the muck and the mire and get down to the most serious candidate who is have an opportunity to win. if they don't do that, seems to me they're going to have the problem they did in 2012. the whole debate cycle will run too long and they will effectively end up eliminating each other. and i'll hang up and take your

comments. guest: i wholeheartedly agree with everything he just said. we may have 12, 16 candidates up there. there are only five to seven candidates. i'm not going to name them that can win the nomination and take on hillary clinton in a general election. but he's absolutely right. what's going to happen if somebody gets up there and they're not in there to win the nomination? maybe they want to run for another office? maybe they want a media deal so they can sit down and talk to you. there's a lot of reasons why people run. when you do have that many people someone is going try with , a i call a low blow. as newt gingrich did in 2012. all of a sudden, barack obama's team said gee, we now have a winner and if we run that commercial we're going to knock of romney we're going to knock down his favorables. , we're going to decide this in displace like colorado, virginia and florida and it wound up killing us.

host: good or bad for democrats? guest: i think it's good for democrats. in some ways, it's good for republicans. although i completely agree with your point -- guest: we should have an open process. guest: i agree about your point of the potential nominee or one of his or her competitors that is used in the general. your vulture capital comment is very fair. that is for better or worse the way the game gets played. in 2008, when the democrats had their own contentious primary. it energized the democrats. and while to this day, you will still find people who democratic primary voters -- i have many friends -- even though you will still find that level of contingent man, were we fired , up. we came out of that primary season and we were fired up and

ready to go. and i'm wondering though, if that's not a good thing. guest: no, it's not. i disagree with you because in 2008, you had two candidates and it was two candidates who were in it to win it. you could have as many people on the stage as you want as long as you're in it to win it. do not tell me donald trump is in this to win this. donald trump is a sideshow. we have a new thing now. now we have the announcement to announce. it's sort of like the soft opening before the hard opening and that way you, keep generating headlines. i want to know whether he's in or out and i want him to play by i'm in it to win it rules. if he has the numbers, good for him. host: should the democratic field have more candidates in it? guest: that's a fascinating question and many people have asked me both personal friends and professional friends. why do we not have more strong and -- with all due respect

bernie sanders and martin o malley -- viable candidates running. 37 states hope their governor races in the midterm election. when you get annihilated in 2010 and 2014, you don't have a lot of governors. we lost seven united states senators in 2014. we have no bench. who is left? there is one. democratic female governor. that is something we as a party are going to have to take a look at. would it help us? i don't think so. i actually think in all honesty, there is so much residual feeling from 2008 around the obama -- hillary primary that we're all very happy that she's on the ticket. guest: i can't disagree with you more. you do have some candidates,

namely elizabeth or in warren. . some people do not want to leverage her political career on a long shot. host: next up, suzanne is calling from luthersville, georgia, on the democrat line. caller: i am a democrat. i was a republican up until i lost a job of four years working for attorneys. and i went to go get food stamps and i had a $2,000 -- which they made me sell in order to get food stamps to feed my children. at that point, i realize the democratic party represented the small guys. i changed parties. i since worked. i've gotten a college degree. i've raised two kids. i help with my parents.

i would vote for hillary simply because she's a woman. i watch c-span. i watch congress. i watch the news. i am very political. but i've decided is that both parties basically, they're all politicians. they're all going to say what you want to hear. and it's their basic premise, the bottom line as to what the party represents that i care about. and then next, what is good for the country? and what will be good for the country is a woman president. host: all right, suzanne from georgia on the democratic line. guest: well, i think this is one of the most interesting things about 2016, is the women of this nation, republican independent, democrat, unmarried, married, old, young. are they all going to rally behind hillary clinton because she's a woman?

the likelihood that carly will be the republican nominee is low. i think we can all agree. the likelihood that hillary clinton will be the democratic nominee is pretty high. we all agree with that. which means we're going to have a woman on the ticket and this will be the first time in history whether she wins or not. first time we ever have a truly viable woman on the ticket as the nominee for the presidency. so does that mean that the women rally to her side because she's a woman or does she have to win them over like she wins them over the male vote? does she has to appeal to us as people and not just as women? that will be a fascinating thing to watch as we move forward. guest: unmarried women under 50 is a big problem. there's a lot of voters out there who share that sentiment of voting for hillary clinton. that is why carly and others having woman surrogates out there is so important is to see we are not just a party of old

white men. the problem we have had over and over -- and this is a historical issue, not a recent thing -- unmarried women went to barack obama 70% in 28 -- 2008. this is the issue in the modern era for republicans. it's not something we can unpack in 12 seconds but it is something that we can work with and it'sen a tough slogging but what does concern me the number one thing about hillary clinton, some people are going to say like the caller. she had a tough story. the one thing she said that does matter is i'm going to vote for hillary clinton because she's a woman. host: mike is on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. excuse me. one thing that distinguishes rand paul from the militarists including hillary and the gop field is the fact that he stands on the intellectual shoulders of the geniuses that founded this country.

for example, james madison wrote no nation can preserve is freedom in the midst of continuous war fair. how do particularly the republicans, and conservatives pretend to endorse the founders wisdom -- how can they stand up against that kind of critique? guest: i agree with what he's saying here. it is a little bit of schism within the republican party between civil liberties and national security. unfortunately herein lies the problem. we have a lot of people who are fearful of terrorism. when you have fear that is a bigger motivator for a lot of voters than actually what was the exact law passed in the 1700s. guest: i agree. the two easiest emotions to elicit are fear and anger so when politicians of either party, democrats or republicans , are out there talking about the threat of terrorism, it is

something that's going to be a visceral reaction from voters and at this point, we all simply want to continue our 14-year streak of not having a major terrorist attack on our shores. and at this point, the vast number of americans will do almost anything to keep that streak going. guest: including sacrifice on civil liberty. i wish we could have this debate and not in a bastardized way and people were walking through the patriot act and discussing what it does and how it does it versus saying the government can always listen to your phone calls. if there's a lot of showboating going on in this debate and i think the american people are losing out. host: where do the republican candidates fall in terms of support for the patriot act? guest: they're all over the map. there is no -- one thing that they all agree is the freedom act is going to be the next piece of legislation, they're for it. you have rubio who favors

something in between the patriot and the freedom act. you have rand paul who thinks the freedom act goes too far. so they mostly err on the side of security but they recognize the need for civil liberty. it is very tough to balance when we are in an emotional environment. host: william is next from tennessee calling on the democratic line. go ahead, william. caller: yes. hello? host: hello, william, you're on the air. caller: yes. you know, i came here in 2001. and i went to school because when i came here, i was 21. i could not go to high school. so i went to local school in oregon. so before the iraq war. and i was like this war is not going to end good because i'm from south of there, if you know that.

the sudan government and fighting -- so when i came here, i know it's bad. saddam hussein was a bad president. but to invade iraq cause a lot of problems because it was like, you know, a bullet guy that's give away from the -- killing him was not an answer. they're saying what happened in libya. they go and took out gaddafi. host: so william, who do you plan to support in the next presidential election then? caller: ok, yes. my problem is we are 100 senators. 435 congressmen. these number of 500 people don't have idea what they're doing.

some of them been there like 20 years. when real senators come in or new president, they don't have the power. host: all right. that's william from tennessee. we'll move on now to garland from the democratic line. garland, go ahead. caller: one of the best discussions in recent history. great stuff. well, here's my book title. i'm post-election already. how the g.o.p. lost in 2016. hence, it was an inside job. and that's the candidate clutter. the party is not going to get past it. you're ensuring the most electable candidate is not nominated. the way this is going, they're not even thinking like that. host: ford, your response. guest: there's some points there that the republican party's been

trying to brush up between when the primaries began. i wish we had a perfect system. and unfortunately, we do have a cattle call free-for-all and what's going to happen here is we're going to try to nominate the best candidate out there. that's the best we can do because that's the system we have right now. guest: you know what i think is really interesting about this and i appreciate the caller saying this. i have been asked several times both on air and personal friends who are the democrats the most afraid of? since i've already been called out by another caller for giving away too many secrets, i'm not going to say that but i am not afraid of any of the frontrunners right now. they're not conservative enough to make it to the primary and therefore, i don't have to worry about them.

yes, one of them's a governor from the northeast but were never going to probably see him be the nominee. frankly at this point of the what we may call top five, if you will, the only one who i really think is going to be quite a challenge for us in the fall is marco rubio. i still think marco rubio's young. i think he is untested. i think he can easily gas. i think we have a long way to go. but boy, i am growing more and more impressed with him. i believe his story, his ability to be authentic is fascinating. are there republicans going to let him out of the primary? guest: it's a funny validation. let me say this about chris christie. democrats did one heck of a hit job knocking him down for over a year and a half. it was chris christie 24/7. nobody could have survive that. chris christie's biggest problem

is more of his record as a governor with respect to finances than bridge gate. one thing i will say about chris christie, he is the best republican when it comes to a rally and giving a speech. i would take that skill from him and i would love to put it into another candidate. guest: i couldn't agree with you more. and i don't think it's bridge gate. i don't think it's bridge gate that's going to keep him out of the nomination. i don't think with that record you make it out of the current republicans' nominating office. host: we will move on to our final caller for this segment and that is kevin from charlotte, north carolina, on the independent line. kevin, go ahead. caller: really, i look at this whole process and how the candidates are rolled out has been kind of sad.

because you see all the individuals coming out but it's like a dog and pony show. everybody just acting like they don't really care. they don't have their own personal interests towards what they're trying to be able to get done or whatever slighted way. and it's kind of like left me at no end where i can't really find a candidate that is smart, intelligent, who's going to make the right decisions for america, comparatively for themselves. honestly, it's more like, you know, i'm still trying to be able to find that evidence process and not just about, you know, if you're a woman or you're a mexican or this and where is the intelligence? where is the person that i can look at that i can find within this election that is going to be smart? not president bush who i'm trying to blow up some money because they're talking about my daddy or something else talking about. i want somebody smart. host: final thoughts, ford

o'connell. guest: i agree with him. i wish we could change the process. it's headline and two quick bytes. no rational human will base their votes on that but we all do. guest: i think the caller really just summed up what i said earlier which is that the american people are desperate to know that their elected officials are motivated something other than just ambition and possibly greed. i think the next president whoever he or she may be, is going to have the ability to inspire. it is what we want as americans from our leaders and certainly from our president. and i think at this point, it's going to be a very interesting race. guest: and it should be a very close race. guest: i agree. host: liz chadderdon and ford o'connell. thank you so much better for being here. guest: thank you. >> damien paletta of the wall

street journal talks about provisions of the patriot act set to expire sunday at midnight and the last-minute effort congress is making to address the issue. also the state department tom perry a low talks about foreign aid efforts. we will also take your calls and look for your comments. washington journal live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this week on q and a, our guest is to time poulter prizewinner david mccullough. he shared stories about his new book. >> they didn't graduate from high school who that is largely because their father always said he had an interesting project they were working on. he knew how bright they were. wilbur was a genius.

orville was very bright inventive, clever mechanically but he didn't have the reach of mind that wilbur had. they loved music. they loved books. nathaniel hawthorne was or bills -- orville's favorite writer. catherine loved sir walter scott. one of her birthdays, her brother gave her a bust of sir walter scott. no indoor plumbing, no electricity, and they are giving a bust of a great english literary giant to their sister for her birthday. there is a lot of hope in that but i think what i was but to get to know even more about is the sense of purpose they had. it sounds like a bad pun but a

high purpose. not something ordinary. they are going to achieve this big idea. nothing was going to stop them. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> next come a discussion on women's leadership in africa. this was hosted by the u.s. institute of peace. it is an hour and 40 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody, we are complete. i'm delighted to welcome everybody this afternoon. i'm the president of the united states institute of peace.

and for those who are here for the first time, we were founded about 30 years ago as an independent federally funded bipartisan institute that is really dedicated to a world without violent conflict. and so it's in that spirit that i'm delighted to welcome you all here today. and as we mark today's africa days event, which is, i think, commemorating a very critical moment in moving towards a peaceful africa with the 1963 founding of africa, of the africa union. we have a wonderful set of guests with us today. i like to extend a special warm welcome to our co-host this afternoon, ambassador mohammed of the republic of egypt. thank you for joining us this afternoon. and, especially, warm welcome to

ambassador mutild of rwanda, who are with us here today. and i know there are a number of other ambassadors who are coming in and out. so, please, feel welcomed, we're delighted to have you with us today. and, of course, i'm always happy to see ambassador princeton limon who i worked with through the years. and we will also have him here. he was the former u.s. special envoy for sudan and south sudan. so two years ago on the 50th anniversary of the african union, the 53 nations set out a plan for the next half century. and i think, incredible set of vision and foresight. and they came together for the agenda 2063, which was a road map that put together a vision of the continent as a prosperous