I think the best answer is as little as possible.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done.

I respect the right of Israel to defend itself, and - and we stand with - with Israel. We're a - a nation - two nations that come together in - in peace and that want to see Iran being dissuaded from its nuclear folly.

I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning.

I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief - to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience - it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.