The Commonwealth of Blogistan

Philly Cheesy Snakes

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:56:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission, Voice of Blogistan]

Last Night's Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia
(courtesy of the NY Times)

April 16, 2008
Transcript
Democratic Debate in Philadelphia

The following is a transcript of the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, as provided by the Federal News Service.

PARTICIPANTS:
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS

LOCATION: THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER, PHILADELPHIA

MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there.

You know, Senator Clinton and I have been running for 15 months now. We've been traveling across Pennsylvania for at least the last five weeks. And everywhere I go, what I've been struck by is the core decency and generosity of people of Pennsylvania and the American people.

But what I've also been struck by is the frustration. You know, I met a gentleman in Latrobe who had lost his job and was trying to figure out how he could find the gas money to travel to find a job. And that story, I think, is typical of what we're seeing all across the country. People are frustrated not only with jobs moving and incomes being flat, health care being too expensive, but also that special interests have come to dominate Washington, and they don't feel like they're being listened to.

I think this election offers us an opportunity to change that, to transform that frustration into something more hopeful, to bring about real change. And I'm running for president to ensure that the American people are heard in the White House. That's my commitment, if the people of Pennsylvania vote for me and the people of America vote for me.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, we meet tonight here in Philadelphia where our founders determined that the promise of America would be available for future generations if we were willing and able to make it happen.

You know, I am here, as is Senator Obama. Neither of us were included in those original documents. But in a very real sense, we demonstrate that that promise of America is alive and well. But it is at risk.

There is a lot of concern across Pennsylvania and America. People do feel as though their government is not solving problems, that it is not standing up for them, that we've got to do more to actually provide the good jobs that will support families, deal once and for all with health care for every American, make our education system the true passport to opportunity, restore our standing in the world.

I am running for president because I know we can meet the challenges of today, that we can continue to fulfill that promise that was offered to successive generations of Americans starting here so long ago.

And I hope that this evening, voters in Pennsylvania and others across the country will listen carefully to what we have to say, will look at our records, will look at the plans we have.

And I offer those on my website, hillaryclinton.com, for more detail. Because I believe with all my heart that we the people can have the kind of future that our children and grandchildren so richly deserve.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you both.

And with that as preamble, we will take a very short commercial break. And we will come back and begin 90 minutes of debate. The Pennsylvania Democratic Debate continues after just one minute.

(Announcements.)

MR. GIBSON: We'll begin each of the segments of this debate with short quotes from the Constitution that are apropos to what we're going to talk about. And it is good to be back here at the National Constitution Center.

So let's start. And I'm going to give a general question, before we get to the issues, to both of you on politics.

There have already been many votes in many states, and you have each, as you analyze the vote, appealed disproportionately to different constituencies in the party, and that dismays many in the party. Governor Cuomo, an elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, look, fight it to the end.

Let every vote be counted. You contest every delegate. Go at each other to the -- right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other will agree if they lose, to take second place on the ticket.

So I put the question to both of you: Why not?

(Pause, laughter.)

Don't all speak at once. (Laughter.)

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I'm happy to start with a response. Look, this has been an extraordinary journey that both Senator Clinton and I have been on and a number of other able candidates. And I think very highly of Senator Clinton's record. But as I've said before, I think it's premature at this point for us to talk about who vice presidential candidates will be because we're still trying to determine who the nominee will be.

But one thing I'm absolutely certain of is that come August, when we're in Denver, the Democratic Party will come together, because we have no choice if we want to deliver on the promises that not only we've made but the founders made. We are seeing peoples' economic status slipping further and further behind. We've seen people who have not only lost their jobs but now are at risk of losing their homes.

We have a sharp contrast in terms of economic policies. John McCain wants to continue four more years of George Bush policies and, on the foreign policy front, wants to continue George Bush's foreign policy.

So I'm confident that both Senator Clinton's supporters and Senator Obama's supporters will be supporting the Democratic nominee when we start engaging in that general election.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, Governor Cuomo made that suggestion because he's not so sure. And other Democrats are not so sure.

Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case," Article Two, Section One, "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Charlie, I'm going to do everything I possibly can to make sure that one of us takes the oath of office next January. I think that has to be the overriding goal, whatever we have to do.

Obviously we are still contesting to determine who will be the nominee. But once that is resolved, I think it is absolutely imperative that our entire party close ranks, that we become unified.

I will do everything to make sure that the people who supported me support our nominee.

I will go anywhere in the country to make the case. And I know that Barack feels the same way, because both of us have spent 15 months traveling our country. I have seen the damage of the Bush years. I've seen the extraordinary pain that people have suffered from because of the failed policies; you know, those who have held my hands who have lost sons or daughters in Iraq, and those who have lost sons or daughters because they didn't have health insurance.

And so, regardless of the differences there may be between us, and they are differences, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and Senator McCain.

So we will certainly do whatever is necessary to make sure that a Democrat is in the White House next January.

MR. GIBSON: All right. I will let this go. I don't think Governor Cuomo has any takers yet.

Let me start with a question to you, Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: Talking to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, you got talking in California about small-town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years. And you said they get bitter, and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them.

Now, you've said you misspoke; you said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I think there's no doubt that I can see how people were offended. It's not the first time that I've made, you know, a statement that was mangled up. It's not going to be the last.

But let me be very clear about what I meant, because it's something that I've said in public, it's something that I've said in television, which is that people are going through very difficult times right now and we are seeing it all across the country. And that was true even before the current economic hardships that are stemming from the housing crisis. This is the first economic expansion that we just completed in which ordinary people's incomes actually went down, when adjusted for inflation, at the same time as their costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump have skyrocketed.

And so the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion.

They end up feeling "This is a place where I can find some refugee. This is something that I can count on." They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns, where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them.

And yes, what is also true is that wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our -- in our politics. And part of the problem is that when those issues are exploited, we never get to solve the issues that people really have to get some relief on, whether it's health care or education or jobs.

So this i something that I've said before. It is something that I will repeat again. And yes, people are frustrated and angry about it, but what we're seeing in this election is the opportunity to break through that frustration. And that's what our campaign has been about, saying that if the American people get involved and engaged, then we are going to start seeing change. And that's what makes this election unique.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I am the granddaughter of a factory worker from Scranton who went to work in the Scranton lace mills when he was 11 years old, worked his entire life there, mostly six-day weeks.

He was also very active in the Court Street Methodist Church. And he raised three sons and was very proud that he sent all of them to college.

I don't believe that my grandfather or my father, or the many people whom I have had the privilege of knowing and meeting across Pennsylvania over many years, cling to religion when Washington is not listening to them. I think that is a fundamental, sort of, misunderstanding of the role of religion and faith in times that are good and times that are bad.

And I similarly don't think that people cling to their traditions, like hunting and guns, either when they are frustrated with the government. I just don't believe that's how people live their lives.

Now, that doesn't mean that people are not frustrated with the government. We have every reason to be frustrated, particularly with this administration.

But I can see why people would be taken aback and offended by the remarks. And I think what's important is that we all listen to one another and we respect one another and we understand the different decisions that people make in life, because we're a stronger country because of that.

And certainly the weeks that I have spent criss-crossing Pennsylvania, from Erie to Lancaster County, and meeting a lot of wonderful people, says to me that despite whatever frustration anyone has with our government, people are resilient, they are positive, and they're ready for leadership again that will summon them to something greater than themselves, and that we will deliver on that if given a chance.

MR. GIBSON: We're going to have some other questions on the same theme, so you'll be able to get back that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pick up on this. When these comments from Senator Obama broke on Friday, Senator McCain's campaign immediately said that it was going to be a killer issue in November.

Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it. But a simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I think we have to beat John McCain, and I have every reason to believe we're going to have a Democratic president and it's going to be either Barack or me. And we're going to make that happen.

And what is important is that we understand exactly the challenges facing us in order to defeat Senator McCain.

He will be a formidable candidate. There isn't any doubt about that. He has a great American story to tell. He's a man who has served our country with distinction over many years, but he has the wrong ideas about America. And those ideas will be tested in the cauldron of this campaign.

But I also know, having now gone through 16 years of being on the receiving end of what the Republican Party dishes out, how important it is that we try to go after every single vote everywhere we possibly can to get to those electoral votes that we're going to need to have the next president elected.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the question is, do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes. Yes. Yes.

Now, I think that I can do a better job. (Laughter.) I mean, obviously, that's why I'm here. I think I am better able and better prepared in large measure because of what I've been through and the work that I've done and the results that I've produced for people and the coalition that I have put together in this campaign, that Charlie referred to earlier.

Obviously, I believe I would be the best president, or I would not still be here, standing on this stage, and I believe I'm the better and stronger candidate against Senator McCain, to go toe to toe with him on national security and on how we turn the economy around.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, do yo think Senator Clinton can win?

SENATOR OBAMA: Absolutely, and I've said so before. But I too think that I'm the better candidate. (Laughter.) And I don't think that surprises anybody.

Let me just pick up on a couple of things that Senator Clinton said, though, because during the course of the last few days, you know, she's said I'm elitist, out of touch, condescending. Let me be absolutely clear. It would be pretty hard for me to be condescending towards people of faith, since I'm a person of faith and have done more than most other campaigns in reaching out specifically to people of faith, and have written about how Democrats make an error when they don't show up and speak directly to people's faith, because I think we can get those votes, and I have in the past.

The same is true with respect to gun owners. I have large numbers of sportsmen and gun owners in my home state, and they have supported me precisely because I have listened to them, and I know them well.

So the problem that we have in our politics, which is fairly typical, is that you take one person's statement, if it's not properly phrased, and you just beat it to death. And that's what Senator Clinton's been doing over the last four days. And I understand that.

That's politics, and I expect to have to go through this -- this process.

But I do think it's important to recognize that it's not helping that person who's sitting at the kitchen table who is trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month.

And Senator Clinton's right. She has gone through this. You know, I recall when back in 1992, when she made a statement about how, what do you expect, should I be at home baking cookies?

And people attacked her for being elitist and this and that. And I remember watching that on TV and saying, well, that's not who she is; that's not what she believes; that's not what she meant. And I'm sure that that's how she felt as well.

But the problem is that that's the kind of politics that we've been accustomed to. And I think Senator Clinton learned the wrong lesson from it, because she's adopting the same tactics.

What the American people want are not distractions. They want to figure out, how are we actually going to deliver on health care; how are we going to deliver better jobs for people; how are we going to improve their incomes; how are we going to send them to college?

That's what we have to focus on. And yes, they are in part frustrated and angry, because this is what passes for our politics in terms -- instead of figuring out, how do we build coalitions to actually move things forward?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, could I --

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton, before I move on, do you want to do a brief response?

SENATOR CLINTON: Oh, I do.

Well, first of all, I want to be very clear. My comments were about your remarks.

And I think that's important, because it wasn't just me responding to them, it was people who heard them, people who felt as though they were aimed at their values, their quality of life, the decisions that they have made.

Now, obviously, what we have to do as Democrats is make sure we get enough votes to win in November. And as George just said, you know, the Republicans, who are pretty shrewd about what it takes to win, certainly did jump on the comments.

But what's important here is what we each stand for and what our records are and what we have done over the course of our lives to try to improve the circumstances of those who deserve to live up to their own potential, to make the decisions that are right for them and their families. And I think year after year for now 35 years, I have a proven record of results.

And what I'm taking into this campaign is my passion for empowering people, for giving people the feeling that they can make a better future for themselves. And I think it's important that that starts from a base of respect and connection in order to be able to get people to follow you and believe that you will lead them in the better direction.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And you said subsequent to giving that speech that you never heard him say from the pulpit the kinds of things that so have offended people.

But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." I'm quoting the reverend. But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well --

MR. GIBSON: And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, understand that I hadn't seen the remarks that ended up playing on youTube repeatedly. This was a set of remarks that had been quoted in Rolling Stone Magazine and we looked at them and I thought that they would be a distraction since he had just put them forward.

But, Charlie, I've discussed this extensively. Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in.

And I disassociated myself with them.

What I also said was, the church and the body of Reverend Wright's work, over the course of 30 years, were not represented in those snippets that were shown on television, and that the church has done outstanding work in ministries on HIV/AIDS, prison ministries, providing people with the kind of comfort that we expect in our churches.

And so what I think I tried to do in the speech here at the Constitution Center was speak to a broader context, which is that there is anger in the African American community that sometimes gets expressed, whether in the barbershop or in the church.

That's true not just in the African American community. That's true in other communities as well. But what we have the opportunity to do is to move beyond it. And that's what I think my candidacy represents.

And Senator Clinton mentioned earlier that we have to connect with people. That's exactly what we've done throughout this campaign.

The reason we've attracted new people into the process, the reason we've generated so much excitement, the reason that we have been so successful in so many states across the country, bridging racial lines, bridging some of the old divisions, is because people recognize that unless we do, then we're not going to be able to deliver on the promises that people hear every 4 years, every 8 years, every 12 years.

And it's my job in this campaign to try to move beyond some of those divisions, because when we are unified, there is nothing that we cannot tackle.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton, let me -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Senator Clinton, let me follow up, and let me add to that. You have said that he would not have been my pastor, and you said that you have to speak out against those kinds of remarks, and implicitly by getting up and moving, and I presume you mean out of the church.

There are 8,000 members of Senator Obama's church. And we have heard the inflammatory remarks of Reverend Wright, but so too have we heard testament to many great things that he did. Do you honestly believe that 8,000 people should have gotten up and walked out of that church?

SENATOR CLINTON: I was asked a personal question, Charlie, and I gave a personal answer. Obviously, one's choice of church and pastor is rooted in what one believes is what you're seeking in church and what kind of, you know, fellowship you find in church. But I have to say that, you know, for Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been intolerable for me. And therefore I would have not been able to stay in the church, and maybe it's, you know, just, again, a personal reflection that regardless of whatever good is going on -- and I have no reason to doubt that a lot of good things were happening in that church -- you get to choose your pastor. You don't choose your family, but you get to choose your pastor. And when asked a direct question, I said I would not have stayed in the church.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, let me just respond to -- to two things. Absolutely many of these remarks were objectionable. I've already said that I didn't hear them, because I wasn't in church that day. I didn't learn about those statements until much later.

But --

MR. GIBSON: But you did rescind the invitation to him --

SENATOR OBAMA: But that was on -- that was on something entirely different, Charlie. That -- that was on a different statement. And I think that what Senator Clinton referred to was extremely offensive, to me and a lot of people.

But what I should also point out is that Senator Clinton's former pastor, I think, publicly talked about how Reverend Wright was being caricatured and that in fact this is somebody who had maintained an extraordinary ministry for many years.

And so there are two important points: Number one, I wasn't aware of all these statements, and I can understand how people would take offense; but number two, the church is a community that extends beyond the pastor and that church has done outstanding work for many, many years.

The third point I guess I would make is once again that unless we can bridge some of these divides we're not going to solve problems in this country. And what my entire body of work over the last 20 years has been devoted to is getting blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, young, old to work together, starting when I was a community organizer. And my own life embodies that diversity. That's what America's about and that's what this campaign has been about.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?

SENATOR OBAMA: You know, George, look, if it's not this, then it would be something else. I promise you, if Senator Clinton got the nomination, there will be a whole bunch of video clips about other things. In a general election, we know that there are going to be all kinds of attacks launched and leveled. There have been quite a few leveled in this primary campaign.

And I have confidence in the American people that when you talk to the American people honestly and directly about what I believe in, what my plans are on health care, on energy, when they see my track record of the work that I've done on behalf of people who really need help, I have absolute confidence that they can rally behind my campaign.

And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but by somebody who is associated with me, that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You've disowned him?

SENATOR OBAMA: The comments, comments that I've disowned. Then that is not something that I think --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?

SENATOR OBAMA: This is somebody who's a former Marine. And so I have -- I believe that he loves this country, but I also believe that he's somebody who, because of the experiences he's had over the course of a lifetime, is also angry about the injustices that he's seen.

MR. GIBSON: I'm getting a little out of balance here. Do you want to take a few seconds, or do you want to go to the next question?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I think, in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard. And it is something that I think deserves further exploration, because clearly what we've got to figure out is how we're going to bring people together in a way that overcomes the anger, overcomes the divisiveness and whatever bitterness there may be out there.

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks, but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in. You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds.

And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, we also did a poll today, and there are also questions about you raised in this poll. About six in 10 voters that we talked to say they don't believe you're honest and trustworthy. And we also asked a lot of Pennsylvania voters for questions they had. A lot of them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Here's Tom Rooney from Pittsburgh.

Q Senator, I was in your court until a couple of weeks ago. How do you reconcile the campaign of credibility that you have when you've made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tom, I can tell you that I may be a lot of things, but I'm not dumb. And I wrote about going to Bosnia in my book in 2004. I laid it all out there. And you're right. On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it. I've said it was a mistake. And it is, I hope, something that you can look over, because clearly I am proud that I went to Bosnia. It was a war zone.

General Wesley Clark is here in the audience with me as one of my major supporters. He and I were talking about it before I came out. You know, our soldiers were there to try to police and keep the peace in a very dangerous area. They were totally in battle gear. There were concerns about the potential dangers. The former president of Bosnia has said that he was worried about the safety of the situation.

So I know that it is something that some people have said, "Wait a minute. What happened here?" But I have talked about this and written about it. And then, unfortunately, on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past.

But I know too that, you know, being able to rely on my experience of having gone to Bosnia, gone to more than 80 countries, having represented the United States in so many different settings gives me a tremendous advantage going into this campaign, particularly against Senator McCain.

So I will either try to get more sleep, Tom, or, you know, have somebody who, you know, is there as a reminder to me. You know, you can go back for the past 15 months. We both have said things that, you know, turned out not to be accurate. You know, that happens when you're talking as much as we have talked.

But you know, I'm very sorry that I said it. And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails, just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton's credibility. And you yourself have said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president.

Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn't be here if she didn't. And you know, I haven't commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

SENATOR OBAMA: Of course, but --

SENATOR CLINTON: (Laughs.)

SENATOR OBAMA: Because we're asked about it.

But look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president.

Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered, because we are recorded every minute of every day. And I think Senator Clinton deserves, you know, the right to make some errors once in a while. I'm -- obviously, I make some as well.

I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years. Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession, but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.

In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.

What our campaign has been about is offering some specific solutions to how we move these issues forward and identifying the need to change the culture in Washington, which we haven't talked at all about, but that has blocked real reform decade after decade after decade. That, I think, is the job of the next president of the United States.

That's what I intend to do. That's why I'm running.

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look.

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November. How do you convince Democrats that this would not be a vulnerability?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, look, I revere the American flag, and I would not be running for president if I did not revere this country. This is -- I would not be standing here if it wasn't for this country.

And I've said this -- again, there's no other country in which my story is even possible; somebody who was born to a teenage mom, raised by a single mother and grandparents from small towns in Kansas, you know, who was able to get an education and rise to the point where I can run for the highest office in the land. I could not help but love this country for all that it's given me.

And so what I've tried to do is to show my patriotism by how I treat veterans when I'm working in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; by making sure that I'm speaking forcefully about how we need to bring this war in Iraq to a close, because I think it is not serving our national security well and it's not serving our military families and our troops well; talking about how we need to restore a sense of economic fairness to this country because that's what this country has always been about, is providing upward mobility and ladders to opportunity for all Americans. That's what I love about this country. And so I will continue to fight for those issues.

And I am absolutely confident that during the general election that when I'm in a debate with John McCain, people are not going to be questioning my patriotism, they are going to be questioning how can you make people's lives a little bit better.

And let me just make one last point on this issue of the flag pin. As you noted, I wore one yesterday when a veteran handed it to me, who himself was disabled and works on behalf of disabled veterans. I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

And it goes to this larger set of concerns about, you know, how we are going to run against John McCain. You know, I wish the Republicans would apologize for the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years and not run anybody, just say that it's time for the Democrats to go back into the White House. (Laughter, applause.)

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be willing to do that. So we know that they're going to be out there, full force. And you know, I've been in this arena for a long time. I have a lot of baggage, and everybody has rummaged through it for years. (Laughter.) And so therefore, I have, you know, an opportunity to come to this campaign with a very strong conviction and feeling that I will be able to withstand whatever the Republican sends our way.

SENATOR OBAMA: I'm going to have to respond to this just really quickly, but by Senator Clinton's own vetting standards, I don't think she would make it, since President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Applauds.)

MR. GIBSON: Please.

SENATOR OBAMA: -- than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago.

Look, there is no doubt that the Republicans will attack either of us. What I've been able to display during the course of this primary is that I can take a punch. I've taken some pretty good ones from Senator Clinton. And I don't begrudge her that. That's part of what the political contest is about.

I am looking forward to having a debate with John McCain, and I think every poll indicates that I am doing just as well, if not better, in pulling together the coalition that will defeat John McCain.

And when it comes to November, and people are going into the polling place, they're going to be asking, are we going to go through four more years of George Bush economic policies; are we going to go through four more years of George Bush foreign policy?

And if we as Democrats and if I as the nominee have put forward a clear vision for how we're going to move the country forward, deal with issues like energy dependence, lower gas prices, provide health care, get our troops out of Iraq, that is a debate that I'm happy to have and a debate that I'm confident I can win.

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Clinton, I'm getting out of balance in terms of time.

SENATOR CLINTON: I've noticed. (Laughs.)

MR. GIBSON: And you're getting shortchanged here. And so if you want to reply here, fine. If you want to wait, we'll do it in the next half hour.

SENATOR CLINTON: We can wait.

MR. GIBSON: All right.

We will take a commercial break. We will come back. And the Democratic debate, from the city of Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania primary, will continue. Stay with us. (Applause.)

(Announcements.)

MR. GIBSON: Another quote from the Constitution, apropos because we are here, as you heard just a moment ago, at the Constitution Center.

Senator Clinton, a question for you. We talked about the military applications from the Constitution and this is a question that involves the war in Iraq. It comes from Mandy Garber of Pittsburgh. Take a look.

MANDY GARBER (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania): So, the real question is, I mean, do the candidates have a real plan to get us out of Iraq or is it just real campaign propaganda? And you know, it's really unclear. They keep saying we want to bring the troops back, but considering what's happening on the ground, how is that going to happen?

MR. GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director in your campaign, Howard Wolfson on a conference call recently was asked, "Is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month whatever the realities on the ground?" And Wolfson said, "I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it, the answer is yes."

So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why: You know, thankfully we have a system in our country of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice and then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goalposts when it comes to Iraq.

And I am convinced that it is in America's best interest, it is in the best interest of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interest of Iraq, that upon taking office, I will ask the secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner, because obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment is dangerous.

I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States, because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdraw that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years.

I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq.

But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do.

But I think it's important that this decision be made, and I intend to make it.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?

SENATOR CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing as well, is -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world.

It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq, so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have. There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world. And there are other problems that we have failed to address.

So the bottom line for me is, we don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future.

Our military will continue to be stretched thin, and our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to reassert our leadership and our moral authority in the world.

And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that.

So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.

Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission, set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer.

Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief.

And what I have to look at is not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, we are overstretched in a way -- we do not have a strategic reserve at this point. If there was another crisis that was taking place, we would not have a brigade that we could send to deal with that crisis that isn't already scheduled to be deployed in Iraq. That is not sustainable. That's not smart national security policy, and it's going to change when I'm president.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.

Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on Americans' minds right now.

Yesterday, Senator McCain singled that the number one issue, in the general election campaign on the economy, is going to be taxes. And he says that both of you are going to raise taxes, not just on the wealthy but on everyone. Here's what he said in his speech yesterday.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): (Pre-recorded remarks.) All these tax increases are under the fine print of the slogan: hope. They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars a year. And they have the audacity to hope you don't mind.

(Laughter.)

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, two-part question.

Two-part question: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?

And if the economy is as weak a year from now as it is today, will you -- will you persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, George, I have made a commitment that I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if the economy is weak?

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes. And here's why: Number one, I do not believe that it will detrimentally affect the economy by doing that. As I recall, you know, we used that tool during the 1990s to very good effect and I think we can do so again.

I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year. In fact, I have a very specific plan of $100 billion in tax cuts that would go to help people afford health care, security retirement plans, you know, make it possible for people to get long-term care insurance and care for their parents and grandparents who they are trying to support, making college affordable and so much else.

Well, if you look at how we'd have to sequence that, we might not be able to do all of that at once. But if you go to my website, HillaryClinton.com, it is laid out there how I will pay for everything, because everything I have proposed, I have put in how I would pay for it.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: An absolute commitment, no middle-class tax increases of any kind.

SENATOR CLINTON: No, that's right. That is my commitment.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you take the same pledge?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

And one of the centerpieces of my economic plan would be to say that we are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are earning -- who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to a thousand dollars worth of relief.

Senior citizens who have earnings of less than $50,000 wouldn't have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And middle-class homeowners who currently don't itemize on their tax filings, they would be able to get a deduction the same way that wealthy individuals do.

Now, here's the reason why that's important. We have seen wages and incomes flat or declining at a time when costs have gone up. And one of the things that we've learned from George Bush's economic policies, which John McCain now wants to follow, is that pain trickles up. And so, partly because people have been strapped and have had a tough time making ends meet, we're now seeing a deteriorating housing market.

That's also as a consequence of the lack of oversight and regulation of these banks and financial institutions that gave loans that they shouldn't have. And part of it has to do with the fact that you had $185 million by mortgage lenders spent on lobbyists and special interests who were writing these laws.

So the rules in Washington -- the tax code has been written on behalf of the well connected. Our trade laws have -- same thing has happened. And part of how we're going to be able to deliver on middle-class tax relief is to change how business is done in Washington. And that's been a central focus of our campaign.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.

MR. GIBSON: All right.

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."

It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.

You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless you're eliminating some spending or you're finding some new revenue. That's how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it's going to change when I'm president of the United States.

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right.

And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we'll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying that I think we know that we've got to get back to an economy that works for everyone. The president has been very good for people who are doing well, and that's great. But it was better for our country when we had an economy that lifted everyone up at the same time, and we had that during the 1990s; you know, 22.7 million new jobs, more people lifted out of poverty than any time in our recent history. A typical family saw a $7,000 increase in income.

And we have lost that. You know, now the typical family has lost at least $1,000. And the fact is that, you know, I don't want to take one more penny of tax money from anybody. But what I want to do is make some smart investments. And I was the first to come out with a strategic energy fund, where we need to be investing in clean renewable energy. And I think we could put 5 million Americans to work.

I think we have to invest in our infrastructure. That also will get the economy moving again, and I believe we could put about 3 million people to work in good union jobs where people get a good wage with a good set of benefits that can support a middle-class family with a rising standard of living.

I want to see us actually tackle the housing crisis, something I've been talking about for over a year. If I had been president a year ago, I believe we would have begun to avoid some of the worst of the mortgage and credit crisis, because we would have started much earlier than we have -- in fact, I don't think we've really done very much at all yet -- in dealing with a way of freezing home foreclosures, of freezing interest rates, getting money into communities to be able to withstand the problems that are caused by foreclosures.

Governor Rendell has done a great job in Pennsylvania. He saw this coming. And unlike our current president, who either didn't know it or didn't care about it, he has really held the line, and Pennsylvania has been much less affected by home foreclosures. But the president hasn't done that, and what I have proposed would do that.

So you've got to look at the entire economy. And from my perspective, yes, taxes is a piece of it. But you've got to figure out what is it we would invest in that would make us richer and safer and stronger tomorrow, which would be helping everybody.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to a commercial break. But I just want to come back to one thing you said, and I want to be clear. The question was about capital gains tax. Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

MR. GIBSON: "If I raised it at all." Would you propose an increase in the capital gains tax?

SENATOR CLINTON: You know, Charlie, I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is. You know, we now have the largest budget deficit we've ever had, $311 billion. We went from a $5.6 trillion projected surplus to what we have today, which is a $9 trillion debt.

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs, police officers, firefighters and the like.

So I think we have to be very careful about how we navigate this.

So the $250,000 mark is where I am sure we're going. But beyond that, we're going to have to look and see where we are.

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly, because I owe Senator Clinton time, but, yeah, you wanted to respond.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.

That's where it's kept. Now most firefighters, most teachers, you know, they're not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6 percent of the population does. And I've also said that I'd be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that.

But understand the alternative is that because we're going to have fewer workers to more retirees, if we don't do anything on Social Security, then those benefits will effectively be cut, because we'll be running out of money.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. That's a tax on people under $250,000.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, no, look, let me -- let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton just said she certainly wouldn't do this; this was a bad idea. In Iowa she, when she was outside of camera range, said to an individual there she'd certainly consider the idea. And then that was recorded, and she apparently wasn't aware that it was being recorded.

So this is an option that I would strongly consider, because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year --

MR. GIBSON: But there's a heck of a lot of --

SENATOR OBAMA: -- those are not good policy options.

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

SENATOR OBAMA: And that's -- and that's -- and that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

But the point is, we're going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can't -- you can't get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it's going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system.

And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we're going to do that and not just say that we're going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, I am totally committed to making sure Social Security is solvent. If we had stayed on the path we were on at the end of my husband's administration, we sure would be in a lot better position because we had a plan to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund and again, President Bush decided that that wasn't a priority, that the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans were his priorities, neither of which he's ever paid for. I think it's the first time we've ever been taken to war and had a president who wouldn't pay for it.

But when it comes to Social Security, fiscal responsibility is the first and most important step. You've got to begin to reign in the budget, pay as you go, to try to replenish our Social Security Trust Fund.

And with all due respect, the last time we had a crisis in Social Security was 1983. President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill came up with a commission. That was the best and smartest way, because you've got to get Republicans and Democrats together.

That's what I will do. And I will say, number one, don't cut benefits on current beneficiaries; they're already having a hard enough time. And number two, do not impose additional tax burdens on middle-class families.

There are lots of ways we can fix Social Security that don't impose those burdens, and I will do that.

SENATOR OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax. And so Senator Clinton, if she -- she can't have it both ways. You can't come at me for proposing a solution that will save Social Security without burdening middle- income Americans, and then suggest that somehow she's got a magic solution.

SENATOR CLINTON: But there are more progressive ways of doing it than, you know, lifting the cap. And I think we'll work it out. I have every confidence we're going to work it out. I know that we can make this happen.

MR. GIBSON: On that point, we're going to take a break, a commercial break. The Democratic debate from here in Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania primary will continue. Stay with us. We'll be back. (Applause.)

(Announcements.)

MR. GIBSON: Back to the Philadelphia Debate, the Democratic Debate, just less than a week now before the Pennsylvania primary.

And I would be remiss tonight if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day, at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people at that university and for those who died.

It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign and it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania.

Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms.

Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.

Why don't you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Charlie, on Friday, I was with Mayor Nutter, who's here, in West Philadelphia at the YMCA there, to talk about what we could do together to bring down the crime rate that has ravaged Philadelphia.

You know, more than one person, on average, a day is murdered in Philadelphia. And Mayor Nutter is very committed, as the mayor of this great city, to try to do what he can to stem the violence.

And what I said then is what I have been saying, that I will be a good partner, for cities like Philadelphia, as president. Because I will bring back the COPS program, the so-called COPS program, where we had 100,000 police on the street, which really helped drive down the crime rate and also helped create better community relations.

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed -- the Republicans will not reinstate it -- are being outgunned on our streets by these military- style weapons.

I will also work to make sure that police departments in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, across America get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns, because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80 percent of the guns used in gun crimes are in the hands of that criminal, that gang member -- unfortunately, people who are sometimes, you know, mentally challenged -- because it got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

So I believe that we can balance what I think is the right equation. I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.

And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people.

So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

And...

Mr. GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?

And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

SENATOR OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.

Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children.

And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C.

Do you support the D.C. ban?

SENATOR CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe.

This case you're referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, we don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate.

And Vice President Cheney who, you know, is a fourth special branch of government all unto himself -- (laughter) -- has actually filed a brief saying, oh, no, we have to, you know, we have to prevent D.C. from doing this.

So --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you think? Do you support it or not?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts.

But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.

MR. GIBSON: Well, with all due respect, and I'm not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama. But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

SENATOR CLINTON: What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose, I think doesn't make sense.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator, you were for that when you ran for Senate in New York.

SENATOR CLINTON: I was for -- I was for the New York rules, that's right. I was for the New York rules because they have worked over time. And there isn't a lot of uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters; they have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected. You walk down the street with a police officer in Manhattan; he wants to be sure that there is some way of protecting him and protecting the people that are in his charge.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, last May we talked about affirmative action, ad you said at the time that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as pretty advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children -- kids -- should get special consideration, affirmative action.

So, as president, how specifically would you recommend changing affirmative action policies so that affluent African Americans are not given advantages, and poor, less affluent whites are?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, I think that the basic principle that should guide discussions not just on affirmative action but how we are admitting young people to college generally is, how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams?

And race is still a factor in our society. And I think that for universities and other institutions to say, you know, we're going to take into account the hardships that somebody has experienced because they're black or Latino or because they're women --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they're wealthy?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think that's something that they can take into account, but it can only be in the context of looking at the whole situation of the young person. So if they look at my child and they say, you know, Malia and Sasha, they've had a pretty good deal, then that shouldn't be factored in. On the other hand, if there's a young white person who has been working hard, struggling, and has overcome great odds, that's something that should be taken into account.

So I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system and it can't be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black or white or Hispanic, male or female.

What we want to do is make sure that people who have been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you agree to that kind of change?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, here's the way I'd prefer to think about it.

I think we've got to have affirmative action generally to try to give more opportunities to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds -- whoever they are. That's why I'm a strong supporter of early childhood education and universal pre-kindergarten.

That's why I'm against No Child Left Behind as it is currently operating. And I would end it, because we can do so much better to have an education system that really focuses in on kids who need extra help.

That's why I'm in favor of much more college aid, not these outrageous predatory student loan rates that are charging people I've met, across Pennsylvania, 20, 25, 28 percent interest rates. Let's make college affordable again.

See, I think we have to look at what we're trying to achieve here somewhat differently. We do have a real gap. We have a gap in achievement. We have a gap in income. But we don't have a potential gap.

I think our job should be to try to create the conditions that enable people to live up to their God-given potential. And that means health care for everyone -- no exceptions, nobody left out. And it means taking a hard look at what we need to do to compete and win in the global economy.

So that's how I prefer to think about it. You know, let's affirmatively invest in our young people and make it possible for them to have a good middle-class life in today's much more competitive economy.

MR. GIBSON: We're running short on time. Let me just give some quick questions here, and let me give you a minute each to answer. What are you going to do about gas prices? It's getting to $4 a gallon. It is killing truckers.

SENATOR CLINTON: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: People are in trouble. And yet the whole world pays a whole lot more for gas than we do. What are you going to do about it?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I met with a group of truckers in Harrisburg about a week and a half ago, and here's what I told them. Number one, we are going to investigate these gas prices. The federal government has certain tools that this administration will not use, in the Federal Trade Commission and other ways, through the Justice Department, because I believe there is market manipulation going on, particularly among energy traders. We've seen this movie before, in Enron, and we've got to get to the bottom to make sure we're not being taken advantage of.

Number two, I would quit putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and I would release some to help drive the price down globally.

And thirdly, if there is any kind of gas tax moratorium, as some people are now proposing --

MR. GIBSON: Like John McCain.

SENATOR CLINTON: -- like John McCain, and some Democrats, frankly -- I think Senator Menendez and others have said that we may have to do something, because when you get to $4-a-gallon gas, people are not going to be able to afford to drive to work. And what I would like to see us do is to say if we have that, then we should have a windfall profits tax on these outrageous profits of the oil companies, and put that money back into the highway trust fund, so that we don't lose out on repair and construction and rebuilding.

But ultimately, Charlie, we've got to have a long-term energy strategy. We are so much more dependent on foreign oil today than we were on 9/11, and that is a real indictment of our leadership. And I've laid out a comprehensive plan to move us toward energy independence that I hope I will have the opportunity to implement as president.

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly, Senator Obama, I -- the same thing. But we've heard from politicians for a long time we're going to end dependence on foreign oil. I just have a quote: "The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now." That was Jimmy Carter in 1979. And it's gotten a whole lot worse since then.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, you're right. And that's why people are cynical, because decade after decade, we talk about energy policy or we talk about health care policy, and through Democratic and Republican administrations, nothing gets done.

Now, I think many of the steps that Senator Clinton outlined are similar to the plans that we talked about. It is absolutely true that we've got to investigate potential price gouging or market manipulation. I have strongly called for a windfall profits tax that can provide both consumers relief and also invest in renewable energies.

I think that long term, we're going to have to raise fuel efficiency standards on cars, because the only way that we're going to be able to reduce gas prices is if we reduce demand. You've still got a billion people in China, and maybe 700 million in India, who still want cars. And so the long-term trajectory is that we're going to have to get serious about increasing our fuel efficiency standards and investing in new technologies.

That's something I'm committed to doing. I've talked about spending $150 billion over 10 years in an Apollo Project, a Manhattan Project to create the alternative energy strategies that will work not only for this generation but for the next.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: We're running out of time for this segment. Very quickly, for each of you, 30 seconds. Senator Clinton, you've said that you believe in using former presidents. How would you use George W. Bush if you were president? (Laughter.)

SENATOR CLINTON: I'm going to have to give some serious thought to that. (Laughter.) You know, I do believe that it's a way to unify our country. I thought that President Bush was right when he asked his father and Bill to represent us during the aftermath of the tsunami. I thought it sent a great message here at home and around the world. And I'm sure that there will be opportunities to ask all the former presidents to work on behalf of our nation.

You know, we've got to come together. And the former presidents really exemplify that, whether one agrees with them politically or not. When they're all together, representing our country, that sends a strong message. And I would look for a way to use all our former presidents, but that'll take some careful thought on my part. (Laughter.)

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that having the advice and counsel of all former presidents is important. I'm probably more likely to ask advice of the current president's father than president himself because I think that when you look back at George H.W. Bush's foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy.

And how we executed the Gulf War, how we managed the transition out of the Cold War, I think, is an example of how we can get bipartisan agreement. I don't think the Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas. I think that there are a lot of thoughtful Republicans out there.

The problem is, we've been locked in a divided politics for so long that we've stopped listening to each other. And I think that this president in particular has fed those divisions. That's something that we've tried to end in this campaign, and I think we're being successful.

MR. GIBSON: All right.

We're going to take one more commercial break, come back with a final question for both of you in just a moment.

(Announcements.)

MR. GIBSON: Final question, now, to finish what I think has been a fascinating debate, and I appreciate both of you being here -- thanking you in advance.

I -- it is hard to see how either one of you win this nomination on the basis of pledged delegates in primaries. And it could well come down to superdelegates. And I know you've been talking to them all along. But let's say you're at the convention in Denver, and you're talking to a group of 20 undecided superdelegates. How are you going to make the case to them why you're the better candidate and more electable in November?

What do you say to them -- minute-and-a-half each. And by a flip of the coin, Senator Clinton goes first.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, I say to them what I've said to voters across America -- that we need a fighter back in the White House. We need someone who's going to take on the special interests.

And I have a plan to take away $55 billion of the giveaways and the subsidies that the president and Congress have lavished on the drug companies and the oil companies and the insurance companies and Wall Street. And I have a plan to give that money back -- give it back in tax cuts to the middle class -- people who deserve it, who have been struggling under this president, who feel invisible, who feel like, you know, they're not even seen anymore.

And we're going to make everybody feel like they're part of the American family again. And we're going to tackle the problems that have been waiting for a champion back in the White House.

Now, obviously, I can't do this alone. I can only do it if I get people who believe in me and support me and who look at my track record and know that, you know, I've spent a lifetime trying to empower people, trying to fight for them.

And I think it's going to be challenging, but it is absolutely what we must do in order to keep faith with our country and to give our children the future that they deserve.

So I will tell everyone who listens that I'm ready to be the commander in chief. I've 35 generals and admirals, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Wesley Clark and others, who believe that I am the person to lead us out of Iraq, to take on al Qaeda, to rebuild our military.

And I will turn this economy around. We will get back to shared prosperity and we will see once again that we can do this the right way so it's not just a government of the few, by the few and for the few. And I need your help. I need the help of the voters here in Pennsylvania, first and foremost, in order to be able to get to those conversations.

And I hope that I have demonstrated not just over the last weeks or even over the last hour and half but over a lifetime that you can count on me. You know where I stand. You know that I will fight for you and that together we're going to take back our country.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, when we started this campaign 15 months ago, it was based on a couple of simple principles: number one, that we were in a defining moment in our history. Our nation's at war. Our planet's in peril. Our economy is in a shambles. And most importantly, the American people have lost trust in their government, not just Democrats but independents and Republicans who've been disillusioned about promises that have been made election after election, decade after decade.

And the bet I was making was a bet on the American people; that they were tired of a politics that was about tearing about each other down, but wanted a politics that was about lifting the country up; that they didn't want spin and PR out of their elected officials, they wanted an honest conversation.

And most importantly, I believe that change does not happen from the top down, it happens from the bottom up. And that's why we decided we weren't going to take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, that we were not going to be subject to special- interest influence, but instead were going to enlist the American people in a project of changing this country.

And during the course of these last 15 months, my bet's paid off because the American people have responded in record numbers, and not just people who are accustomed to participating, but people who haven't participated in years. I talked to a woman here in Pennsylvania, 70 years old, she whispered to me, "I've never voted before, but I'm going to vote in this election."

And so my point to the super delegates would be that if we're going to deliver on health care for every American, improve our schools, deliver on jobs, then it's going to be absolutely vital we form a new political coalition in this country. That's what we've been doing in this campaign, and that's what I'm going to do when I'm president of the United States of America.

MR. GIBSON: The audience has been very good in restraining themselves. I think a round of applause for Senators Obama and Clinton. (Applause.)

And that concludes tonight's Pennsylvania debate. We appreciate both of you and wish you both the best.

Thank you very much. (Applause continues.)

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE

[POSTSCRIPT: this 'review' from Editor and Publisher, the newspaper industry's trade publication, is worth reading in its entirety:

Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Gaffes, Flag Pins and '60s Radicals

By Greg Mitchell

Published: April 16, 2008 10:15 PM ET

NEW YORK In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.

Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end.

Yet David Brooks' [NOTE: Right wing, Republican columnist whose hands in this matter can not possibly be clean. — HW] review at The New York Times concluded: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gave ABC an "A."

But Tom Shales of The Washington Post had an opposite view: "Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political writer, declared in Salon, "Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon."

[End Transmission, Voice of Blogistan]

Obama's Actual Remarks in San Francisco

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:25:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

The entire blogosphere seems to have its panties in a bunch over the obligatory mischaracterization of a sound bite. Before you jump in your hatemobile and rev up the engine, it might behoove you to read what Senator Obama ACTUALLY said.

From Mark Halperin's page at TIME magazine:

Transcript of Obama’s Remarks at San Francisco Fundraiser Sunday

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

[End Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:21:00 +0000

OBAMA SPEECH IN FULL: A MORE PERFECT UNION
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008/ 10:17:53 ET
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

END

Clinton Attacks On All Fronts (debate)

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:44:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

Title borrowed from The Boston Globe headline, this AM.

from The New York Times

February 26, 2008

Transcript

The Democratic Debate in Cleveland

The following is a transcript of the Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC in Cleveland, Ohio, as provided by the Federal News Service and CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

PARTICIPANTS:
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL)

MODERATORS:
BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR
TIM RUSSERT, NBC NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot has been said since we last gathered in this forum, certainly since -- in the few days since you two last debated. Senator Clinton, in your comments especially, the difference has been striking. And let's begin by taking a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) You know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

(From videotape.) So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let's have a debate about your tactics and your -- (cheers, applause).

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, this is a contested campaign. And as I have said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences. And in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and the choices that Senator Obama's campaign has made regarding flyers and mailers and other information that has been put out about my health care plan and my position on NAFTA have been very disturbing to me.

And therefore, I think it's important that you stand up for yourself and you point out these differences so that voters can have the information they need to make a decision.

You know, for example, it's been unfortunate that Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not. You know, health care reform and achieving universal health care is a passion of mine. It is something I believe in with all my heart. And every day that I'm campaigning, and certainly here throughout Ohio, I've met so many families -- happened again this morning in Lorain -- who are just devastated because they don't get the health care they deserve to have. And unfortunately it's a debate we should have that is accurate and is based in facts about my plan and Senator Obama's plan, because my plan will cover everyone and it will be affordable. And on many occasions, independent experts have concluded exactly that.

And Senator Obama's plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out. So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone. That's my goal. That's what I'm fighting for, and I'm going to stand up for that.

MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours -- a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, so far as I know, it did not. And I certainly know nothing about it and have made clear that that's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign. But we have no evidence where it came from.

So I think that it's clear what I would do if it were someone in my campaign, as I have in the past: asking people to leave my campaign if they do things that I disagree with.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, your response.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that's something that we can set aside.

I do want to focus on the issue of health care because Senator Clinton has suggested that the flyer that we put out, the mailing that we put out, was inaccurate. Now, keep in mind that I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.

I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada and other places suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.

According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.

The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.

And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.

If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.

Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.

But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls.

And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --

SEN. CLINTON: But I have to -- I have to respond to that because this is not just any issue, and certainly we've had a vigorous back and forth on both sides of our campaign. But this is an issue that goes to the heart of whether or not this country will finally do what is right, and that is to provide quality affordable health care to every single person.

Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.

We will continue to have a hidden tax, so that when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance -- 15 million or however many -- that amount of money that will be used to take care of that person will be then spread among all the rest of us.

And most importantly, you know, the kind of attack on my health care plan, which the University of Pennsylvania and others have said is misleading -- that attack goes right to the heart of whether or not we will be able to achieve universal health care. That's a core Democratic Party value. It's something that ever since Harry Truman we have stood for.

And what I find regrettable is that in Senator Obama's mailing that he has sent out across Ohio, it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it, because in my plan there is enough money, according to the independent experts who've evaluated it, to provide the kind of subsidies so that everyone would be able to afford it. It is not the same as a single state trying to do this, because the federal government has many more resources at its disposal.

SEN. OBAMA (?): (Inaudible.)

SEN. CLINTON: So I think it's imperative that we stand as Democrats for universal health care. I've staked out a claim for that. Senator Edwards did. Others have. But Senator Obama has not.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Senator Clinton. And this is -- this is, I think, the point of the debate, is that Senator Clinton repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Senator Clinton to say that, I think, is simply not accurate.

Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it. President Clinton's own secretary of Labor has said that my plan does more to reduce costs and as a consequence makes sure that the people who need health care right now all across Ohio, all across Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, all across America, will be able to obtain it. And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there.

Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we've heard tonight, we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies.

And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SEN. OBAMA: That is a genuine difference between myself and Senator Clinton.

And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, as you two --

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Brian -- Brian, wait a minute. I've got -- this is too important.

You know, Senator Obama has a mandate. He would enforce the mandate by requiring parents to buy insurance for their children.

SEN. OBAMA: This is true.

SEN. CLINTON: That is the case.

If you have a mandate, it has to be enforceable. So there's no difference here.

SEN. OBAMA: No, there is a difference.

SEN. CLINTON: It's just that I know that parents who get sick have terrible consequences for their children. So you can insure the children, and then you've got the bread-winner who can't afford health insurance or doesn't have it for him or herself.

And in fact, it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary -- that's -- you know, that's -- let's let everybody get in it if they can afford it -- or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, let me --

SEN. CLINTON: What we have said is that at the point of employment, at the point of contact with various government agencies, we would have people signed up. It's like when you get a 401(k), it's your employer. The employer automatically enrolls you. You would be enrolled.

And under my plan, it is affordable because, number one, we have enough money in our plan. A comparison of the plans like the ones we're proposing found that actually I would cover nearly everybody at a much lower cost than Senator Obama's plan because we would not only provide these health care tax credits, but I would limit the amount of money that anyone ever has to pay for a premium to a low percentage of your income. So it will be affordable.

Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't try to get everyone into health insurance, that's a big difference, because I believe if we don't have universal health care, we will never provide prevention.

I have the most aggressive measures to reduce costs and improve quality. And time and time again, people who have compared our two approaches have concluded that.

SEN. OBAMA: Brian, I'm sorry.

SEN. CLINTON: So let's -- let's have a debate about the facts.

SEN. OBAMA: I'm going to get filibuttered -- I'm getting filibustered a little bit here.

MR. WILLIAMS: The last answer on this topic.

SEN. OBAMA: I mean, it is just not accurate to say that Senator Clinton does more to control costs than mine. That is not the case. There are many experts who have concluded that she does not.

I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.

Now, I am -- I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Clinton about how we can both achieve the goal of universal health care. What I do not accept -- and which is what Senator Clinton has consistently done and in fact the same experts she cites basically say there's no real difference between our plans, that are -- that they are not substantial.

But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, I'm going to change the subject.

SEN. CLINTON: About 20 percent of -- about 20 percent of the people who are uninsured have the means to buy insurance. They're often young people --

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: -- who think they're immortal --

SEN. OBAMA: Which is why I cover them.

SEN. CLINTON: -- except when the illness or the accident strikes. And what Senator Obama has said, that then, once you get to the hospital, you'll be forced to buy insurance, I don't think that's a good idea. We ought to plan for it --

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and we ought to make sure we cover everyone.

That is the only way to get to universal health care coverage.

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: That is what I've worked for for 15 years --

SEN. OBAMA: With respect --

SEN. CLINTON: -- and I believe that we can achieve it. But if we don't even have a plan to get there, and we start out by leaving people, you'll never ever control costs, improve quality, and cover everyone.

SEN. OBAMA: With respect to the young people, my plan specifically says that up until the age of 25 you will be able to be covered under your parents' insurance plan, so that cohort that

Senator Clinton is talking about will, in fact, have coverage.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, a 16-minute discussion on health care is certainly a start. (Laughter.) I'd like to change up --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, there's hardly anything be more important? I think it would be good to talk about health care and how we're we going get to universal health care.

MR. WILLIAMS: I -- well, here's another important topic, and that's NAFTA, especially where we're sitting here tonight. And this is a tough one depending on who you ask. The Houston Chronicle has called it a big win for Texas, but Ohio Democratic Senator Brown, your colleague in the Senate, has called it a job-killing trade agreement. Senator Clinton, you've campaigned in south Texas. You've campaigned here in Ohio. Who's right?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it.

You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.

But what I have seen, where I represent up-state New York, I've seen the factories closed and moved. I've talked to so many people whose children have left because they don't have a good shot. I've had to negotiate to try to keep factories open, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, because the companies got tax benefits to actually move to another country.

So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement.

We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now. We will stop the kind of constant sniping at our protections for our workers that can come from foreign companies because they have the authority to try to sue to overturn what we do to keep our workers safe.

This is rightly a big issue in Ohio. And I have laid out my criticism, but in addition my plan, for actually fixing NAFTA. Again, I have received a lot of incoming criticism from Senator Obama. And the Cleveland Plain Dealer examined Senator Obama's attacks on me regarding NAFTA and said they were erroneous. So I would hope that, again, we can get to a debate about what the real issues are and where we stand because we do need to fix NAFTA. It is not working. It was, unfortunately, heavily disadvantaging many of our industries, particularly manufacturing. I have a record of standing up for that, of chairing the Manufacturing Caucus in the Senate, and I will take a tough position on these trade agreements.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

Before we turn the questioning over to Tim Russert, Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she's always opposed NAFTA. In her campaign for Senate, she said that NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be good for Wall Street but also be good for Main Street. And if you travel through Youngstown and you travel through communities in my home state of Illinois, you will see entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.

Now, I think that Senator Clinton has shifted positions on this and believes that we should have strong environmental standards and labor standards, and I think that's a good thing. But you know, when I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s and I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants -- black, white, and Hispanic -- and I worked on the streets of Chicago to try to help them find jobs, I saw then that the net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating.

And as president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers. We can't have toys with lead paint in them that our children are playing with. We can't have medicines that are actually making people more sick instead of better because they're produced overseas. We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.

And if we do those things, then I believe that we can actually get Ohio back on the path of growth and jobs and prosperity. If we don't, then we're going to continue to see the kind of deterioration that we've seen economically here in this state.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.

Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.

The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do. But you know, in fairness --

MR. RUSSERT: Just because -- maybe Clinton --

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I am serious.

MR. RUSSERT: You will get out. You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.

But let's be fair here, Tim. There are lots of parts of New York that have benefitted, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefitted. The problem is in places like upstate New York, places like Youngstown, Toledo, and others throughout Ohio that have not benefitted. And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent.

You know, Senator Obama told the farmers of Illinois a couple of years ago that he wanted more trade agreements. I -- right now --

MR. RUSSERT: We're going to get -- we're going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that -- but that is important --

MR. RUSSERT: -- because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you're in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I -- I -- you don't have all the record because you can go back and look at what I've said consistently. And I haven't just said things; I have actually voted to toughen trade agreements, to try to put more teeth into our enforcement mechanisms. And I will continue to do so.

But you know, Tim, when you look at what the Cleveland Plain Dealer said when they examined the kind of criticism that Senator Obama was making of me -- it's not me saying it -- they said it was erroneous. And it was erroneous because it didn't look at the entire picture, both at what I've said and what I've done.

But let's talk about what we're going to do. It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.

I would also say that you can go back and look at from the very beginning -- I think David Gergen was on TV today remembering that I was very skeptical about it.

It has worked in some parts of America. It has not worked in Ohio. It has not worked in upstate New York. And since I've been in the Senate -- neither of us voted on this. That wasn't something either of us got to cast an independent vote on. Since I have been in the Senate, I have worked to try to ameliorate the impact of these trade agreements.

MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you're suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all. What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say, in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country.

And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, two journalists here in Ohio wrote a piece called "Business as Usual," which is very well known, suggesting it wasn't trade or manufacturing jobs that were being lost because of it, but rather business as usual: lack of patents, lack of innovation, lack of investment, 70 percent of the Ph.D.s in biology, chemistry, engineering leaving the state.

The fact is, exports now have the highest share of our national income ever. Ohio ranks fourth in terms of exports to Canada and Mexico. Are you sure this has not been better for Ohio than you're suggesting?

SEN. OBAMA: I'm positive it hasn't been better for Ohio. But you are making a very legitimate point, which is, is that this trade (can/can't ?) be the only part of our economic agenda. But we've seen seven years in which we have a president who has been looking out for the well-heeled and people who are doing very well in the global economy, in the financial industries, in the telecommunications industries, and has not been looking out for ordinary workers.

What do we have to do? We're going to have to invest in infrastructure to make sure that we're competitive. And I've got a plan to do that. We're going to have to invest in science and technology. We've got to vastly improve our education system. We have to look at energy and the potential for creating green jobs that can not just save on our energy costs but, more importantly, can create jobs in building windmills that will produce manufacturing jobs here in Ohio, can put rural communities back on their feet by working on alternative fuels, making buildings more energy efficient.

We can hire young people who are out of work and put them to work in the trade. So there are all sorts of things that we're going to have to do to make the United States economy much more competitive, and those are plans that I have put forward in this campaign and I expect to pursue as president of the United States of America.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

SEN. CLINTON: No, Tim, because what happened in 2000 is that I thought Al Gore was going to be president. And when I made the pledge I was counting on having a Democratic White House, a Democratic president who shared my values about what we needed to do to make the economy work for everyone and to create shared prosperity.

And as you know, despite the difficulties of the Bush administration and a Republican Congress for six years of my first term I have worked very hard to create jobs but obviously as president I will have a lot more tools at my disposal. And the reason why we can create at least 5 million new jobs -- I mean, this is not a big leap. Twenty-two point seven million new jobs were created during the eight years of the Clinton administration under my husband. We can create at least 5 million new jobs.

I'm not just talking about it. I helped to pass legislation to begin a training program for green collar jobs. I want to see people throughout Ohio being trained to do the work that will put solar panels on roofs, install wind turbines, do geothermal, take advantage of biofuels, and I know that if we had put $5 billion into the stimulus package to really invest in the training and the tax incentives that would have created those jobs as the Democrats wanted, as I originally proposed, we would be on the way to creating those.

You know, take a country like Germany. They made a big bet on solar power. They have a smaller economy and population than ours.

They've created several hundred thousand new jobs, and these are jobs that can't be outsourced. These are jobs that have to be done in Youngstown, in Dayton, in Cincinnati. These are jobs that we can create here with the right combination of tax incentives, training, and a commitment to following through. So I do think that at least 5 million jobs are fully capable of being produced within the next 10 years.

MR. RUSSERT: Brian?

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, yesterday Senator Clinton gave a speech on foreign policy and I'm going to read you a quote from it. Quote, "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many." Some of the comments in the speech were more pointed. The senator has compared your foreign policy expertise to that of George W. Bush at the same period. Provided you could be going into a general election against a Republican with vast foreign policy expertise and credibility on national security, how were her comments about you unfair?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Senator Clinton I think equates experience with longevity in Washington. I don't think the American people do and I don't think that if you look at the judgments that we've made over the last several years that that's the accurate measure. On the most important foreign policy decision that we face in a generation -- whether or not to go into Iraq -- I was very clear as to why we should not -- that it would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment -- that it would distract us from Afghanistan -- that it would cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and would not make us more safe, and I do not believe it has made us more safe.

Al Qaeda is stronger than anytime since 2001 according to our own intelligence estimates, and we are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years, spending $12 billion a month that could be invested in the kinds of programs that both Senator Clinton and I are talking about. So on Pakistan, during the summer I suggested that not only do we have to take a new approach towards Musharraf but we have to get much more serious about hunting down terrorists that are currently in northwestern Pakistan.

And many people said at the time well, you can't target those terrorists because Musharraf is our ally and we don't want to offend him. In fact, what we had was neither stability in Pakistan nor democracy in Pakistan, and had we pursued a policy that was looking at democratic reforms in Pakistan we would be much further along now than we are. So on the critical issues that actually matter I believe that my judgment has been sound and it has been judgment that I think has been superior to Senator Clinton's as well as Senator McCain's.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Clinton, in the last debate you seemed to take a pass on the question of whether or not Senator Obama was qualified to be commander in chief. Is your contention in this latest speech that America would somehow be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander in chief?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women's rights as human rights and so much else. And every time the question about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised, Senator Obama rightly points to the speech he gave in 2002. He's to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn't have responsibility, he didn't have to vote; by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had responsibility, when it wasn't just a speech but it was actually action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the war?

And on a number of other issues, I just believe that, you know, as Senator Obama said, yes, last summer he basically threatened to bomb Pakistan, which I don't think was a particularly wise position to take. I have long advocated a much tougher approach to Musharraf and to Pakistan, and have pushed the White House to do that.

And I disagree with his continuing to say that he would meet with some of the worst dictators in the world without preconditions and without the real, you know, understanding of what we would get from it.

So I think you've got to look at, you know, what I have done over a number of years, traveling on behalf of our country to more than 80 countries, meeting and working out a lot of different issues that are important to our national security and our foreign policy and our values, serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee for now five years. And I think that, you know, standing on that stage with Senator McCain, if he is, as appears to be, the nominee, I will have a much better case to make on a range of the issues that really America must confront going forward, and will be able to hold my own and make the case for a change in policy that will be better for our country.

MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply -- not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

And so when I bring this up, it is not simply to say "I told you so," but it is to give you an insight in terms of how I would make decisions.

And the fact was, this was a big strategic blunder. It was not a matter of, well, here is the initial decision, but since then we've voted the same way. Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out. The question is, who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch? And the fact is that Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue. So the same person that she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can't afford to have another one of those, in fact she facilitated and enabled this individual to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America.

With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we -- and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.

That is the position that we should have taken in the first place. And President Musharraf is now indicating that he would generally be more cooperative in some of these efforts, we don't know how the new legislature in Pakistan will respond, but the fact is it was the right strategy.

And so my claim is not simply based on a speech. It is based on the judgments that I've displayed during the course of my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while I've been in the United States Senate, and as somebody who, during the course of this campaign, I think has put forward a plan that will provide a clean break against Bush and Cheney. And that is how we're going to be able to debate John McCain. Having a debate with John McCain where your positions were essentially similar until you started running for president, I think, does not put you in a strong position.

Tim Russert.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I guess that --

MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the future -- let me talk the future about Iraq, because this is important, I think, to Democratic voters particularly. You both have pledged the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You both have said you'd keep a residual force there to protect our embassy, to seek out al Qaeda, to neutralize Iran. If the Iraqi government said, President Clinton or President Obama, you're pulling out your troops this quickly?

You're going to be gone in a year, but you're going to leave a residual force behind? No. Get out. Get out now. If you don't want to stay and protect us, we're a sovereign nation. Go home now." Will you leave?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.

Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests.

But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed. We will provide them continued support. But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, that's distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly, not only and most importantly in the lost lives of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, if the Iraqis said I'm sorry, we're not happy with this arrangement; if you're not going to stay in total and defend us, get out completely; they are a sovereign nation, you would listen?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. And I believe that there is no military solution that the Americans who have been valiant in doing everything they were asked to do can really achieve in the absence of full cooperation from the Iraqi government. And --

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask -- let me ask you this, Senator. I want to ask you --

SEN. CLINTON: And they need to take responsibility for themselves. And --

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what's --

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No -- well, it isn't reality. You're -- you're -- you're making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

I believe that it is in America's interests and in the interests of the Iraqis for us to have an orderly withdrawal. I've been saying for many months that the administration has to do more to plan, and I've been pushing them to actually do it. I've also said that I would begin to withdraw within 60 days based on a plan that I asked begun to be put together as soon as I became president.

And I think we can take out one to two brigades a month. I've also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be, 50 to a hundred years.

So, when you talk about what we need to do in Iraq, we have to make judgments about what is in the best interest of America. And I believe this is in the best interest.

But I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee. He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.

You have to look at the entire situation to try to figure out how we can stabilize Afghanistan and begin to put more in there to try to get some kind of success out of it, and you have to work with the Iraqi government so that they take responsibility for their own future.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, I want you to respond to not holding oversight for your subcommittee. But also, do you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

I have been very clear in talking to the American people about what I would do with respect to Afghanistan.

I think we have to have more troops there to bolster the NATO effort. I think we have to show that we are not maintaining permanent bases in Iraq because Secretary Gates, our current Defense secretary, indicated that we are getting resistance from our allies to put more troops into Afghanistan because they continue to believe that we made a blunder in Iraq and I think even this administration acknowledges now that they are hampered now in doing what we need to do in Afghanistan in part because of what's happened in Iraq.

Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.

I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9/11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator, I need to reserve --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but I have -- I just have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Senator, I've got to --

SEN. CLINTON: Now wait a minute, I have to add --

MR. WILLIAMS: I've got to get us to a break because television doesn't stop.

SEN. CLINTON: -- because the question -- the question was about invading -- invading -- Iraq.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can you hold that thought until we come back from a break? We have limited commercial interruptions tonight, and we have to get to one of them now. Despite the snowstorm swirling outside here in Cleveland, we're having a warm night in the arena. We'll return to it right after this. (Laughter, applause.)

(Announcements.)

(Cheers, applause.)

MR. WILLIAMS: We are back, and because our first segment went long and we are in a large arena -- (cheers, applause) --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mike) -- for Hillary!

MR. WILLIAMS: -- we are just now welcoming back both of our candidates to the stage and asking our cooperation of the audience.

We're back live tonight in Cleveland, Ohio.

Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we'll take a look.

SEN. CLINTON: (From videotape.) Now I could stand up here and say: Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open -- (laughter) -- the light will come down -- (laughter) -- celestial choirs will be singing -- (laughter) -- and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect!

SEN. OBAMA: Sounds good! (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: Of all the charges -- (laughter, applause) -- of all the charges and countercharges made tonight, we can confirm that is not you, Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: (Chuckles.)

MR. WILLIAMS: That was Senator Clinton. But since we played that tape, albeit in error, for this segment, how did you take that?

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

(Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: How did you take those remarks when you heard them?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I thought Senator Clinton showed some good humor there. I would give her points for delivery.

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.)

(Laughter.)

SEN. OBAMA: Look, I understand the broader point that Senator Clinton's been trying to make over the last several weeks. You know, she characterizes it typically as speeches, not solutions, or talk versus action. And as I said in the last debate, I've spent 20 years devoted to working on behalf of families who are having a tough time and they're seeking out the American dream. That's how I started my career in public service, that's how I brought Democrats and Republicans together to provide health care to people who needed it, that's how I helped to reform a welfare system that wasn't working in Illinois, that's how I've provided tax breaks to people who really needed them as opposed to just the wealthy, and so I'm very proud of that track record.

And if Senator Clinton thinks that it's all talk, you know, you got to tell that to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed who had to pay for their food and pay for their phone calls before I got to the Senate. And I changed that law. Or talk to those folks who I think have recognized that special interests are dominating Washington and pushing aside the agenda of ordinary families here in Ohio.

And so when I pass an ethics reform bill that makes sure that lobbyists can't get gifts or meals or provide corporate jets to members of Congress and they have to disclose who they're getting money from and who they're bundling it for, that moves us in the direction of making sure that we have a government that is more responsive to families.

Just one point I'll make, I was in Cincinnati, met with four women at a table like this one. And these were middle-aged women who, as one woman put it, had done everything right and never expected to find themselves in the situation where they don't have health care. One of them doesn't have a job. One of them is looking after an aging parent. Two of them were looking after disabled children. One of them was dipping into their retirement accounts because she had been put on disability on the job. And you hear these stories and what you realize is nobody has been listening to them. That is not who George Bush or Dick Cheney has been advocating for over the last seven years.

And so I am not interested in talk. I am not interested in speeches. I would not be running if I wasn't absolutely convinced that I can put an economic agenda forward that is going to provide them with health care, is going to make college more affordable, and is going to get them the kinds of help that they need not to solve all their problems, but at least to be able to achieve the American dream.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask you, Senator Clinton: What did you mean by that piece of videotape we saw from the campaign?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I was having a little fun. You know, it's hard to find time to have fun on the campaign trail, but occasionally you can sneak that in.

But the larger point is that I know trying to get health insurance for every American that's affordable will not be easy. It's not going to come about just because we hope it will or we tell everybody it's the right thing to do. You know, 15 years ago I tangled with the health insurance industry and the drug companies, and I know it takes a fighter. It takes somebody who will go toe-to-toe with the special interests.

You know, I have put forth very specific ideas about how we can get back $55 billion from the special interests -- the giveaways to the oil companies, the credit card companies, the student loan companies, the health insurance companies. These have all been basically pushed on to these special interests not just because of what the White House did, but because members of Congress went along. And I want to get that money back and invest it in the American middle class -- health care, college affordability, the kinds of needs that people talk to me about throughout Ohio, because what I hear as I go from Toledo to Parma to Cleveland to, you know, Dayton is the same litany that people are working harder than ever, but they're not getting ahead. They feel like they're invisible to their government. So when it came time to vote on Dick Cheney's energy bill, I voted no, and Senator Obama voted yes. When it came time to try to cap interest rates for credit cards at 30 percent -- which I think is way too high, but it was the best we could present -- I voted yes and Senator Obama voted no.

MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator -- Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: So part of what we have to do here is recognize that the special interests are not going to give up without a fight. And I believe that I am a fighter, and I will fight for the people of Ohio and the people of America.

MR. WILLIAMS: What I was attempting to do here is to show something Senator Obama said about you, and I'm told it's ready.

MR. RUSSERT: Let's try it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's try it. Hang on. Watch your monitor.

Let's try it. We're going to come back to you.

SEN. OBAMA: But I'm going to have an opportunity to respond to this.

SEN. OBAMA: (From videotape.) -- herself as co-president during the Clinton years. Every good thing that happened she says she was a part of. And so the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now, Senator Obama, you can react to it and whatever you wanted to react to from earlier, but I've been wanting to ask you about this assertion that Senator Clinton has somehow cast herself as co-president.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think what is absolutely true is, is that when Senator Clinton continually talks about her experience, she is including the eight years that she served as first lady, and you know, often says, you know, "Here's what I did."

"Here's what we did." "Here's what we accomplished" -- which is fine.

And I have not -- I have not in any way said that that experience is not relevant, and I don't begrudge her claiming that as experience. What I've said, and what I would continue to maintain, is you can't take credit for all the good things that happened but then, when it comes to issues like NAFTA, you say, well, I -- behind the scenes, I was disagreeing. That doesn't work. So you have to, I think, take both responsibility as well as credit.

Now there are several points that I think Senator Clinton made that I -- we need to discuss here. First of all, she talked about me objecting to caps on credit cards. Keep in mind, I objected to the entire bill -- a bill that Senator Clinton, in its previous version, in 2001 had voted for. And in one of the debates with you guys said, well, I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn't pass -- which, as a general rule, doesn't work. If you don't want it to pass, you vote against it. (Laughter.)

You know, she mentioned that she is a fighter on health care. And look -- I do not in any way doubt that Senator Clinton genuinely wants to provide health care to all Americans.

What I have said is that the way she approached it back in '93, I think, was wrong in part because she had the view that what's required is simply to fight. And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party. And as a consequence, there were a number of people, like Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, who were not included in the negotiations. And we had the potential of bringing people together to actually get something done.

I am absolutely clear that hope is not enough. And it is not going to be easy to pass health care. If it was, it would have already gotten done. It's not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily.

But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we're going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they're paying attention to what their government is doing. And that's what I've been doing in this campaign, and that's what I will do as president.

And there's nothing romantic or silly about that. If the American people are activated, that's how change is going to happen.

The second thing we've going to have to do is we're actually going to have to go after the special interests.

Senator Clinton in one of these speeches -- it may have been the same speech where you showed the clip -- said you can't just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away. That is absolutely true, but it doesn't help if you're taking millions of dollars in contributions from those special interests. They are less likely to go away.

So it is important for us to crack down on how these special interests are able to influence Congress. And yes, it is important for us to inspire and mobilize and motivate the American people to get involved and pay attention.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring, keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said if you were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said, calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we can work on an arrangement here.

Why won't you keep your word in writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?

SEN. OBAMA: Tim, I am not yet the nominee. Now, what I've said is, is that when I am the nominee, if I am the nominee -- because we've still got a bunch of contests left and Senator Clinton's a pretty tough opponent. If I am the nominee, then I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides, because Tim, as you know, there are all sorts of ways of getting around these loopholes.

Senator McCain is trying to explain some of the things that he has done so far where he accepted public financing money, but people aren't exactly clear whether all the T's were crossed and the I's were dotted.

Now what I want to point out, though, more broadly is how we have approached this campaign. I said very early on I would not take PAC money. I would not take money from federal-registered lobbyists. That -- that was a multimillion-dollar decision but it was the right thing to do and the reason we were able to do that was because I had confidence that the American people, if they were motivated, would in fact finance the campaign.

We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports.

MR. RUSSERT: So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.

SEN. OBAMA: What I -- what I have said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, an issue of accountability and credibility. You have loaned your campaign $5 million. You and your husband file a joint return. You refuse to release that joint return, even though former President Clinton has had significant overseas business dealings.

Your chief supporter here in Ohio, Governor Strickland, made releasing his opponent's tax return one of the primary issues of the campaign, saying repeatedly, "Accountability, transparency." If he's not releasing, his campaign said, his tax return, what is he hiding? We should question what's going on.

Why won't you release your tax return, so the voters of Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island know exactly where you and your husband got your money, who might be in part bankrolling your campaign?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the American people who support me are bankrolling my campaign. That's -- that's obvious. You can look and see the hundreds of thousands of contributions that I've gotten. And ever since I lent my campaign money, people have responded just so generously. I'm thrilled at so many people getting involved. And we're raising, on average, about a million dollars a day on the Internet. And if anybody's out there, wants to contribute, to be part of this campaign, just go to HillaryClinton.com, because that's who's funding my campaign.

And I will release my tax returns. I have consistently said that. And I will --

MR. RUSSERT: Why not now?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I will do it as others have done it: upon becoming the nominee, or even earlier, Tim, because I have been as open as I can be.

You have -- the public has 20 years of records for me, and I have very extensive filings with the Senate where --

MR. RUSSERT: So, before next Tuesday's primary?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I can't get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep. But I will certainly work toward releasing, and we will get that done and in the public domain.

MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It's now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that -- again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I've urged that the process be as quick as possible. It's a cumbersome process, set up by law. It doesn't just apply to us, it applies to everyone in our position. And I have urged that our end of it move as expeditiously as we can. Now, also, President Bush claims the right to look at anything that is released, and I would urge the Bush White House to move as quickly as possible.

MR. RUSSERT: But you've had it for more than a month. Will you get to him -- will you get it to the White House immediately?

SEN. CLINTON: As soon as we can, Tim. I've urged that, and I hope it will happen.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.

On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."

OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.

This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: Senator...

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

(APPLAUSE)

WILLIAMS: Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing.

We're going to take advantage of this opportunity to take the second of our limited breaks. We'll be back live from Cleveland right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: We are back from Cleveland State University. We continue with our debate.

The question beginning this segment is for you, Senator Obama.

The National Journal rates your voting record as more liberal than that of Ted Kennedy.

In a general election, going up against a Republican Party, looking for converts, Republicans, independents, how can you run with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, let's take a look at what the National Journal rated us on.

It turned out that Senator Clinton and I had differences on two votes. The first was on an immigration issue, where the question was whether guest workers could come here, work for two years, go back for a year, and then come back and work for another two years, which meant essentially that you were going to have illegal immigrants for a year, because they wouldn't go back, and I thought it was bad policy.

The second -- and this, I think, is telling in terms of how silly these ratings are -- I supported an office of public integrity, an independent office that would be able to monitor ethics investigations in the Senate, because I thought it was important for the public to know that if there were any ethical violations in the Senate, that they weren't being investigated by the Senators themselves, but there was somebody independent who would do it.

This is something that I've tried to push as part of my ethics package.

OBAMA: It was rejected. And according to the National Journal, that position is a liberal position.

Now, I don't think that's a liberal position. I think there are a lot of Republicans and a lot of Independents who would like to make sure that ethic investigations are not conducted by the people who are potentially being investigated. So the categories don't make sense.

And part of the reason I think a lot of people have been puzzled, why is it that Senator Obama's campaign, the supposed liberal, is attracting more Independent votes than any other candidate in the Democratic primary, and Republican votes as well, and then people are scratching their head? It's because people don't want to go back to those old categories of what's liberal and what's conservative.

They want to see who is making sense, who's fighting for them, who's going to go after the special interests, who is going to champion the issues of health care and making college affordable, and making sure that we have a foreign policy that makes sense? That's what I've been doing, and that's why, you know, the proof is in the pudding. We've been attracting more Independent and Republican support than anybody else, and that's why every poll shows that right now I beat John McCain in a match-up in the general election.

WILLIAMS: Let's go from domestic to foreign affairs and Tim Russert.

RUSSERT: Before the primary on Tuesday, on Sunday, March 2, there's an election in Russia for the successor to President Putin. What can you tell me about the man who's going to be Mr. Putin's successor?

CLINTON: Well, I can tell you that he's a hand-picked successor, that he is someone who is obviously being installed by Putin, who Putin can control, who has very little independence, the best we know. You know, there's a lot of information still to be acquired. That the so-called opposition was basically run out of the political opportunity to wage a campaign against Putin's hand-picked successor, and the so-called leading opposition figure spends most of his time praising Putin. So this is a clever but transparent way for Putin to hold on to power, and it raises serious issues about how we're going to deal with Russia going forward.

I have been very critical of the Bush administration for what I believe to have been an incoherent policy toward Russia. And with the reassertion of Russia's role in Europe, with some of the mischief that they seem to be causing in supporting Iran's nuclear ambitions, for example, it's imperative that we begin to have a more realistic and effective strategy toward Russia. But I have no doubt, as president, even though technically the meetings may be with the man who is labeled as president, the decisions will be made by Putin.

RUSSERT: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

CLINTON: Medvedev -- whatever.

RUSSERT: Yes.

CLINTON: Yes.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, do you know anything about him?

OBAMA: Well, I think Senator Clinton speaks accurately about him. He is somebody who was hand-picked by Putin. Putin has been very clear that he will continue to have the strongest hand in Russia in terms of running the government. And, you know, it looks -- just think back to the beginning of President Bush's administration when he said -- you know, he met with Putin, looked into his eyes and saw his soul, and figured he could do business with him.

He then proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power, rattling sabers against his European neighbors, as well as satellites of the former Soviet Union. And so we did not send a signal to Mr. Putin that, in fact, we were going to be serious about issues like human rights, issues like international cooperation that were critical to us. That is something that we have to change.

RUSSERT: He's 42 years old, he's a former law professor. He is Mr. Putin's campaign manager. He is going to be the new president of Russia. And if he says to the Russian troops, you know what, why don't you go help Serbia retake Kosovo, what does President Obama do?

OBAMA: Well, I think that we work with the international community that has also recognized Kosovo, and state that that's unacceptable. But, fortunately, we have a strong international structure anchored in NATO to deal with this issue.

We don't have to work in isolation. And this is an area where I think that the Clinton administration deserves a lot of credit, is, you know, the way in which they put together a coalition that has functioned.

OBAMA: It has not been perfect, but it saved lives. And we created a situation in which not only Kosovo, but other parts of the former Yugoslavia at least have the potential to over time build democracies and enter into the broader European community.

But, you know, be very clear: We have recognized the country of Kosovo as an independent, sovereign nation, as has Great Britain and many other countries in the region. And I think that that carries with it, then, certain obligations to ensure that they are not invaded.

RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?

Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.

I would certainly, as president, never have taken us to war in Iraq. And I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war, which I warned against and said I disagreed with.

But I think that this election has to be about the future. It has to be about what we will do now, how we will deal with what we're going to inherit.

You know, we've just been talking about Russia. We could have gone around the world. We could have gone to Latin America and talked about, you know, the retreat from democracy. We could have talked about Africa and the failure to end the genocide in Darfur.

We could have gone on to talk about the challenge that China faces and the Middle East, which is deteriorating under the pressures of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the interference that is putting Israel's security at stake.

We could have done an entire program, Tim, on what we will inherit from George Bush.

And what I believe is that my experience and my unique qualifications on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue equip me to handle with the problems of today and tomorrow and to be prepared to make those tough decisions in dealing with Putin and others, because we have so much work to do, and we don't have much time to try to make up for our losses.

RUSSERT: But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?

CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you'd like to take back?

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.

It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.

And so that's an example I think of where inaction...

RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube...

OBAMA: That's exactly right.

RUSSERT: ... and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.

OBAMA: And I think that's an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.

But let me say this, since we're wrapping up this debate. We have gone through 20 debates now. And, you know, there is still a lot of fight going on in this contest, and we've got four coming up, and maybe more after that.

But the one thing I'm absolutely clear about is Senator Clinton has campaigned magnificently. She is an outstanding public servant. And I'm very proud to have been campaigning with her.

And part of what I think both of us are interested in, regardless of who wins the nomination, is actually delivering for the American people.

You know, there is a vanity aspect and ambition aspect to politics. But when you spend as much time as Senator Clinton and I have spent around the country, and you hear heartbreaking story after heartbreaking story, and you realize that people's expectations are so modest.

You know, they're not looking for government to solve all of their problems. They just want a little bit of a hand-up to keep them in their homes if they're about to be foreclosed upon, or to make sure their kids can go to college to live out the American dream.

You know, it is absolutely critical that we change how business is done in Washington and we remind ourselves of what government is supposed to be about.

And, you know, I have a lot of confidence that whoever ends up being the nominee that the Democratic standard-bearer will try to restore that sense of public service to our government. That's why I think we're both running, and I'm very pleased that I've had this opportunity to run with Senator Clinton.

RUSSERT: But the voters can only choose one, Brian.

RUSSERT: And I think you have a question.

WILLIAMS: Well, we don't have such thing in our format as a closing statement, but I am going to ask a closing and fundamental question of you both. And I'll ask it of you fist, Senator Obama.

What is the fundamental question you believe Senator Clinton must answer along the way to the voters here in Ohio and in Texas, and for that matter across the country, in order to prove her worthiness as the nominee? And then we will ask the same question of Senator Clinton.

OBAMA: I have to say, Brian, I think she is -- she would be worthy as a nominee. Now, I think I'd be better. Otherwise, I wouldn't be running. But there's no doubt that Senator Clinton is qualified and capable and would be a much better president than John McCain, who I respect and I honor his service to this country, but essentially has tethered himself to the failed policies of George Bush over the last seven years.

On economics, he wants to continue tax cuts to the wealthy that we can't afford, and on foreign policy he wants to continue a war that not only can we not afford in terms of money, but we can't afford in terms of lives and is not making us more safe. We can't afford it in terms of strategy.

So I don't think that Senator Clinton has to answer a question as to whether she's capable of being president or our standard bearer.

I will say this, that the reason I think I'm better as the nominee is that I can bring this country together I think in a unique way, across divisions of race, religion, region. And that is what's going to be required in order for us to actually deliver on the issues that both Senator Clinton and I care so much about.

And I also think I have a track record, starting from the days I moved to Chicago as a community organizer, when I was in my 20s, on through my work in state government, on through my work as a United States senator, I think I bring a unique bias in favor of opening up government, pushing back special interests, making government more accountable so that the American people can have confidence that their voice is being heard.

Those are things -- those are qualities that I bring to this race, and I hope that the people of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont decide that those are qualities that they need in the next president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, same question, and that is again -- is there a fundamental question Senator Obama must answer to the voters in this state and others as to his worthiness?

CLINTON: Well, Brian, there isn't any doubt that, you know, both of us feel strongly about our country, that we bring enormous energy and commitment to this race and would bring that to the general election and to the White House.

As I said last week, you know, it's been an honor to campaign. I still intend to do everything I can to win, but it has been an honor, because it has been a campaign that is history making.

You know, obviously I am thrilled to be running, to be the first woman president, which I think would be a sea change in our country and around the world, and would give enormous...

(APPLAUSE)

... you know, enormous hope and, you know, a real challenge to the way things have been done, and who gets to do them, and what the rules are.

So I feel that either one of us will make history.

The question that I have been posing is, who can actually change the country? And I do believe that my experience over 35 years in the private sector as well as the public and the not-for-profit sector, gives me an understanding and an insight into how best to make the changes that we all know we have to see.

You know, when I wasn't successful about getting universal health care, I didn't give up. I just got to work and helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. And, you know, today in Ohio 140,000 kids have health insurance. And yet this morning in Lorain, a mother said that she spent with the insurance and everything over $3 million taking care of her daughter, who had a serious accident. And she just looked at me, as so many mothers and fathers have over so many years, and said, "will you help us?"

That's what my public life has been about. I want to help the people of this country get the chances they deserve to have. And I will do whatever I can here in Ohio, in Texas, Rhode Island, in the states to come making that case. Because I think we do need a fighter back in the White House.

You know, the wealthy and the well-connected have had a president. It's time we had a president for the middle class and working people, the people who get up every day and do the very best they can. And they deserve somebody who gets up in that White House and goes to bat for them.

And that's what I will do.

WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

The Texas Showdown

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 02:55:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

transcript from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Feb. 20: Austin Debate - Clinton vs. Obama

The following is a transcript of the Feb. 20 Democratic debate in Austin, Texas, sponsored by CNN and Univision, as provided by Federal News Service.

PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-IL) MODERATORS: CAMPBELL BROWN, CNN JORGE RAMOS, UNIVISION JOHN KING, CNN

MS. BROWN: And we have given the candidates the opportunity to make opening statements. The order was determined by a draw. Senator Obama won the draw and elected to go second, so please go ahead, Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, thank you.

And I am just delighted to be back here in Austin. You know, nearly 36 years ago I came to Austin for my very first political job, and that was registering voters in south Texas. And I had the great privilege of living for a while in Austin and in San Antonio, and meeting people and making friends that have stayed with me for a lifetime. And I found that we had a lot in common, a lot of shared values -- a belief that hard work is important, that self-reliance and individual responsibility count for a lot.

And among the people whom I got to know who became not only friends, but heroes, were Barbara Jordan, who taught me a lot about courage. And today -- (applause) -- today would actually be her birthday. And I remember all the time about how she got up every single morning facing almost insurmountable odds to do what she did. And another was my great friend Ann Richards, who taught me so much -- (cheers, applause) -- about determination.

You know, Ann was a great champion for the people of Texas. She also reminded us that every so often, it's good to have a laugh about what it is we're engaged in.

And as I think back on those years, and the work that I've done ever since, you know, for me, politics is about making real differences in people's lives. And I'm very, very proud that over these years, I have been able to make a difference in the lives of people in Texas, Ohio and elsewhere.

You know, 350,000 children in Texas get health care every month, because I helped to start the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Applause.) And 21,000 National Guard and Reserve members get access to health care, because I went across the party line and joined up with a Republican senator to make that happen.

So there's a lot that we've already done, but there's so much more to do. I want to take on the tough issues that face us now. I want to stop the health insurance companies from discriminating against people because they're sick. You know, it's unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race or gender or ethnic origin or religion, but it's okay to discriminate against sick people. And we're going to end that, because it's time we said, "No more." (Applause.)

And I want to continue the work that I've done in the Senate to take care of our veterans. It was shocking and shameful what happened, that we discovered about a year ago at Walter Reed. We can do so much better to take care of the people who have taken care of us.

And there is a lot of work ahead. I offer a lifetime of experience and proven results. And I know that if we work together, we can take on the special interests, transfer $55 billion of all those giveaways and subsidies that President Bush has given them back to the middle class to create jobs and provide health care and make college affordable -- (applause) -- and I ask you -- I ask you to join in my campaign.

It's now up to the people of Texas, Ohio and the other states ahead. So if you'll be part of this campaign, which is really your campaign about your futures, your families, your jobs and your health care, we'll continue to make a difference for America.

Thank you all very much. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton, thank you.

Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, thank you so much to the University of Texas for hosting us, and it's a great honor to share the stage once again with Senator Clinton. I've said before that we've been friends before this campaign started; we will be friends afterwards -- unified to bring about changes in this country.

You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war, and our economy is increasingly in shambles. And the families of Texas and all across America are feeling the brunt of that failing economy.

This week I met a couple in San Antonio who have, as a consequence of entering into a predatory loan, are on the brink of foreclosure, and are actually seeing them having to cut back on their medical expenses because their mortgage doubled in two weeks.

I've met a young woman who gets three hours of sleep a night because she has to work the night shift even as she's going to school full time, and still can't afford to provide the health care for her sister, who's ill.

In Youngstown, Ohio, I've talked to workers who have seen their plant shipped overseas as a consequence of bad trade deals like NAFTA, literally seeing equipment unbolted from the floors of factories and shipped to China, resulting in devastating job losses and communities completely falling apart.

And all across America I'm meeting not just veterans, but also the parents of those who have fallen. One mother in Green Bay gave me this bracelet in memory of a 20-year-old son who had been killed in a roadside bomb as a consequence of a war that I believe should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and that has cost us billions of dollars that could have been invested here in the United States, in roads and bridges and infrastructure and making sure that young people can go to college, and that those who need health care actually get it.

Now, Senator Clinton -- (applause) -- and I have been talking about these issues for the last 13 months. And we both offer detailed proposals to try to deal with them. Some of them are the same; some, we have differences of opinion on. But I think we both recognize that these problems have to be dealt with, and that we've seen an administration, over the last seven years, that has failed to address them, in many ways has made them worse.

But understand that what's lacking right now is not good ideas. The problem we have is that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die. (Applause.) They go to die, because lobbyists and special interests have a stranglehold on the agenda in Washington. They go to die in Washington, because too many politicians are interested in scoring political points rather than bridging differences in order to get things done.

And so the central premise of this campaign is that we can bring this country together, that we can push against the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda in Washington, that we can be straight with the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and enlist them in taking back their government.

You know, Senator Clinton mentioned Barbara Jordan, somebody who was an inspiration to me and so many people throughout the country, and she said that what the American people want is very simple. They want an America that is as good as its promise. I'm running for president because I want to help America be as good as its promise.

Thank you very much. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right, Senator Obama, thank you. And let's begin with questions.

Jorge Ramos.

MR. RAMOS: Thank you very much. (Speaks in Spanish.) Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news.

After nearly half a century in office Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States we might have a new opportunity.

A question for you, Senator Clinton. Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once to get a measure of the man?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy, and this gives the Cuban government under Raul Castro a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I'm going to be looking for some of those changes -- releasing political prisoners, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy. Of course the United States stands ready, and as president I would be ready, to reach out and work with a new Cuban government once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction. I want to bring the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, to try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people the United States will welcome that. And as president, I would look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the momentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit. But there has to be evidence that, indeed, the changes are real, that they're taking place, and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves.

MR. RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

SEN. CLINTON: I -- I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening because I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction.

Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.

But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement, where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest and, in this case, in the interest of the Cuban people. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, among others. So presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

SEN. OBAMA: That's correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in -- in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba, after over half a century.

I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

But I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies.

In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference. (Applause.)

One other thing that I've said as a show of good faith, that we're interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I've called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton talked about.

MS. BROWN: But that's different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy towards Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you've back-tracked now.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, the -- I support the eventual normalization, and it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure.

I mean, the fact is is that during my entire lifetime -- and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization, but that's going to happen in steps.

And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel. And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I'm -- I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down I think is one that we should try to take advantage of. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I agree absolutely that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I've been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran for a number of years because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, you know, toward the world community. It's in our interest. It's in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran.

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting without preconditions with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations, and it should be part of a process. But I don't think it should be offered in the beginning because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

And as President Kennedy said, he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it.

And therefore I do think we should be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has been very narrowly defined and frankly against our interests, because we have failed to reach out to countries. We have alienated our friends and we have emboldened our enemies.

So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country. Because I want to send a very clear message, to the rest of the world, that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance, of the Bush administration, is over. And we're going to start working together. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Okay. Very briefly, and then we're going to move on.

SEN. OBAMA: I think, as I've said before, preparation is actually absolutely critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that either of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that's caused so much damage.

But I do think it is important, precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations, that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem isn't -- is if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time, and I think that it's important for us, in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step. That's the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: A question now on the economy. John King.

MR. KING: Campbell noted -- Senators, good evening, first. I want to bring the conversation back home.

You know from your travels, you don't need to look at the polls or anything else, that the economy is by far now the dominant issue that voters want to hear about from the candidates, and for some that's a question about what should we do about an economy that is at the edge or perhaps in the early stages of a recession. For some, it's more focused; maybe it's will you raise the minimum wage, maybe it is about trade deals that they think leave them on the raw end, as you mentioned in your opening statement, Senator Obama. But when we asked Democrats how are these two candidates different, many of them say they don't know.

So Senator Obama, beginning with you, tell us as specifically as you can how would a President Obama be different than a President Clinton in managing the nation's economy.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, let me emphasize the point that you just made, which is you don't need an economist or the Federal Reserve to tell the American people that the economy's in trouble because they've been experiencing it for years now.

Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less.

Wages and incomes have flatlined. People are seeing escalating costs from -- of everything from health care to gas at the pump. And so people have been struggling for a long time, and in some communities they have been struggling for decades now. So this has to be a priority of the next president.

Now, what I've said is that we have to restore a sense of fairness and balance to our economy, and that means a couple of things.

Number one, with our tax code, we've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the United States of America. (Applause.) We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy -- (cheers, applause) -- and to provide tax breaks to middle- class Americans and working Americans who need them. So I've said that if you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give a(n) offset to your payroll tax that will mean a thousand extra dollars in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than 50,000 (dollars), you shouldn't have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated.

On our trade deals, I think it is absolutely critical that we engage in trade, but it has to be viewed not just through the lens of Wall Street, but also Main Street, which means we've got strong labor standards and strong environmental standards, and safety standards so we don't have toys being shipped into the United States with lead paint on them. (Applause.)

Now -- so that's -- these are all issues that I've -- I've talked about repeatedly.

And I think there are also opportunities in our economy around creating a green economy. We send a billion dollars to foreign countries every day because of our addition to foreign oil. And for us to move rapidly to cap greenhouse gases, generate billions of dollars that we can reinvest in solar and wind and biodiesel -- that can put people back to work. (Applause.)

So the -- now, I don't want to take too much time, and I'm sure we'll be able to spend more time discussing this.

Senator Clinton and I, I think, both agree on many of these issues. And I think it's a credit to the Democratic Party as a whole that the other candidates who were involved earlier on agreed with us on many of these issues. I think that there is a -- a real, solid agenda for moving change forward in the next presidency. The question people are going to have to ask is, how do we get it done? And it is my strong belief that the changes are only going to come about if we're able to form a working coalition for change, because people who are benefiting from the current code are going to resist, the special interests and lobbyists are going to resist. And I think it has to be a priority for whoever the next president is to be able to overcome the dominance of the special interests in Washington, to bring about the kinds of economic changes that I'm talking about, and that's an area where Senator Clinton and I may have a slight difference.

But I'm happy to let her speak first, and then can pick up on anything that's been left out. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Let's give Senator Clinton that opportunity then.

As you have campaigned, Senator, on this issue and others but specifically on this issue, you have said, I am ready on day one to take charge of the economy. The clear implication, since you have one opponent at the moment, is that you're ready; he's not.

What would you do differently on day one than a President Obama would when it comes to managing the nation's economy?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I would agree with a lot that Senator Obama just said, because it is the Democratic agenda.

We are going to rid the tax code of these loopholes and giveaways. We're going to stop giving a penny of your money to anybody who ships a job out of Texas, Ohio or anywhere else to another country. We're certainly going to begin to get the tax code to reflect what the needs of middle class families are, so we can rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class.

The wealthy and the well-connected have had a president for the last seven years. And I think it's time that the rest of America had a president who works for you every single day. (Cheers, applause.)

We will also have a different approach toward trade. We're going to start having trade agreements that not only have strong environmental and labor standards, but I want to have a trade timeout.

We're going to look and see what's working, what's not working. And I'd like to have a trade prosecutor to actually enforce the trade agreements that we have before we enter into any others.

We're also going to put much tougher standards in place so that people cannot import toys with lead paint, contaminated pet food, contaminated drugs into our market. We're going to have a much more vigorous enforcement of safety standards.

Now, in addition, there are steps I would take immediately. One is on this foreclosure crisis. I have been saying for nearly a year we had to crack down on the abusive practices of the lenders. But we also need a moratorium on home foreclosures. Everywhere I go, I meet people who either have been or are about to lose their home -- 85,000 homes in foreclosure in Texas, 90,000 in Ohio. I've met the families: the hairdresser, the single mom who's going to lose her home; the postal worker who got really hoodwinked into an agreement that wasn't fair to him. So I would put a moratorium for 90 days to give us time to work out a way for people to stay in their homes, and I would freeze interest rates for five years because these adjustable-rate mortgages, if they keep going up, millions of Americans are going to be homeless -- (applause) -- and vacant homes will be across the neighborhoods of Texas and America.

Now, in addition, there are three ways we need to jumpstart the economy. Clean green jobs -- I've been promoting this. I wanted it to be part of the stimulus package.

I thought a $5 billion investment in clean green jobs would put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work helping to create our future. We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don't have enough roads to take care of the congestion. We have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work.

And finally, we need to end George Bush's war on science, which has been waged -- (cheers, applause) -- (off mike).

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Senator.

And we've got a lot of ground to cover --

SEN. CLINTON: So I want to think about how we fund the future. We've got to get back to being the innovation nation. Think of everything that goes on at this great university to create the new economy -- (cheers, applause).

MS. BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton, thank you very much.

As I was saying, we've got a lot to get through, so I do want to shift gears and go on to another topic especially important here in Texas, which is immigration.

And Jorge, you have a question.

MR. RAMOS: (Speaks in Spanish.) Federal raids by immigration enforcement officials on homes and businesses have generated a great deal of fear and anxiety in the Hispanic community and have divided the family of some of the 3 million U.S.-born children who have at least one undocumented parent.

Would you consider stopping these raids once you take office until comprehensive immigration reform can be passed?

SEN. CLINTON: I would consider that, except in egregious situations where it would be appropriate to take the actions you're referring to. But when we see what's been happening with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left -- that is not the America that I know.

That is against American values. (Applause.) And it is -- it is a stark admission of failure by the federal government.

We need comprehensive immigration reform. I have been for this. I signed on to the first comprehensive bill back in 2004. I've been advocating for it. Tougher, more secure borders -- of course. But let's do it the right way: cracking down on employers, especially once we get to comprehensive immigration reform, who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages for everyone else. I'd like to see more federal help for communities like Austin and others, like Laredo where I was this morning, that absorb the health care, education and law enforcement costs. And I personally, as president, would work with our neighbors to the south to help them create more jobs for their own people.

And finally, we need a path to legalization to bring the immigrants out of the shadows, give them the conditions that we expect them to meet: paying a fine for coming here illegally, trying to pay back taxes over time, and learning English. If they had committed a crime in our country or the country they came from, then they should be deported. But for everyone else, there must be a path to legalization. I would introduce that in the first 100 days of my presidency. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Obama, is your position the same as Hillary Clinton's?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, there are a couple of things I would add. Comprehensive immigration reform is something that I've worked on extensively. Two years ago we were able to get a bill out of the Senate. I was one of a group of senators that helped to move it through, but it died in the House this year. Because it was used as a political football instead of a way of solving a problem, nothing happened.

And so there are a couple of things that I would just add to what Senator Clinton said. Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly. Oftentimes it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate, as it's been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.

We are a nation of laws and we are a nation of immigrants, and we can reconcile those two things.

So we need comprehensive reform -- (applause) -- we need comprehensive reform, and that means stronger border security. It means that we are cracking down on employers that are taking advantage of undocumented workers because they can't complain if they're not paid a minimum wage, they can't complain if they're not getting overtime, worker safety laws are not being observed. We have to crack down on those employers, although we also have to make sure that we do it in a way that doesn't lead to people with Spanish surnames being discriminated against. So there's got to be a -- a -- a safeguard there.

We have to require that undocumented workers, who are provided a pathway to citizenship, not only learn English, pay back taxes and pay a significant fine, but also that they're going to the back of the line, so that they're not getting citizenship before those who have applied legally, which raises two last points.

Number one, it is important that we fix the legal immigration system, because right now we've got a backlog that means years for people to apply legally. (Applause.) And what's worse is, we keep on increasing the fees, so that if you've got a hard-working immigrant family, they've got to hire a lawyer; they've got to pay thousands of dollars in fees. They just can't afford it, and it's discriminatory against people, who have good character, we should want in this country, but don't have the money. So we've got to fix that.

The second thing is, we have to improve our relationship with Mexico and work with the Mexican government, so that their economy is producing jobs on that side of the border. (Applause.)

And the problem that we have, the problem that we have, is that we have had an administration that came in promising all sorts of leadership on creating a U.S.-Mexican relationship. And frankly President Bush dropped the ball. He has been so obsessed with Iraq that we have not seen the kinds of outreach and cooperative work that would ensure that the Mexican economy is working, not just for the very wealthy in Mexico but for all people.

And that's a policy that I'm going to change when I'm president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right, Senator Obama.

We're going to stay with this topic. I want to have John King ask another question. Go ahead, John.

MR. KING: I want to stay on the issue, but move to a controversial item that was not held up when the immigration debate collapsed in Washington, and that is the border fence. To many Americans, it is a simple question of sovereignty and security:

America should be able to keep people out that it doesn't want in. But as you know, in this state, especially if you go to the south of here along the border, and in other border states, to many people it's a much more personal question. It could be a question of their livelihood. It could be a question of cross-border trade. It might be an issue to a rancher of property rights. It might be a simple question of whether someone can take a walk or a short drive to see their family members.

Senator, back in 2006 you voted for the construction of that fence. As you know, progress has been slow. As president of the United States, would you commit tonight that you will finish the fence and speed up the construction, or do you think it's time for a president of the United States to raise his or her hand and say, you know what, wait a minute, let's think about this again; do we really want to do this?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think both Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate.

And having been along the border for the last week or so -- in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville, and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders and there is a dumb way to protect our borders. (Laughter, applause.)

And what I learned last night, when I was there with Congressman Ortiz, is that the University of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.

This is the kind of absurdity that we're getting from this administration. I know it because I've been fighting with them about the northern border. Their imposition of passports and other kinds of burdens are separating people from families, interfering with business and commerce and movement of goods and people.

So what I've said is that I would say, wait a minute. We need to review this. There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate. I think when both of us voted for this we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense it would be considered, but as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive.

So I would have a review. I would listen to the people who live along the border, who understand what it is we need to be doing to protect our country. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Let me go on and --

Sorry, John.

MR. KING: But does that mean that you think your vote was wrong or the implementation of it was wrong, because, as you know, when they first built the fence in the San Diego area it only went so far, and what it did was it stopped the people coming straight up the path of where that was built and they simply moved, and California's problem became Arizona's problem.

SEN. CLINTON: But you know, John, there is -- there's a lot we've learned about technology and smart fencing. You know, there is technology that can be used instead of a physical barrier. It requires us having enough personnel along the border, so that people can be supervising a certain limited amount of space and will be able to be responsive in the event of, you know, people attempting to cross illegally.

And -- and I think that the way that the Bush administration is going about this, filing eminent domain actions against landowners and municipalities, makes no sense.

So what I have said is, yes, there are places when, after a careful review -- again, listening to the people who live along the border -- there may be limited places where it would work.

But let's deploy more technology and personnel instead of the physical barrier. I frankly think that will work better, and it will give us an opportunity to secure our borders without interfering with family relations, business relations, recreation and so much else that makes living along the border, you know, wonderful.

MS. BROWN: All right --

SEN. CLINTON: And the people who live there need to have a president who understands it, will listen to them and be responsive.

MS. BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton.

Senator Obama, go ahead, please. (Applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree. I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it's on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.

And the Bush administration is not real good at listening. That's not what they do well. (Laughter.) And so I will reverse that policy.

As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having Border Patrol, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach.

The one thing I do have to say, though, about this issue is it is very important for us, I think, to deal with this problem in terms of thousands of -- hundreds of thousands of people coming over the borders on a regular basis if we want to also provide opportunity for the 12 million undocumented workers who are here. Senator Clinton and I have both campaigned in places like Iowa and Ohio and my home state of Illinois, and I think that the American people want fairness, want justice. I think they recognize that the idea that you're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we're not going to be -- (applause) -- devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back. But what they do also want is some order to the process.

And so we're not going to be able to do these things in isolation. We're not going to be able to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows if we don't also deal with the problem of this constant influx of undocumented workers. And that's why I think comprehensive reform is so important. That's the kind of leadership that I've shown in the past. That's the kind of leadership that I'll show in the future.

One last point I want to make on the immigration issue, because we may be moving to different topics. Something that we can do immediately that I think is very important is to pass the DREAM Act, which allows children who -- (applause) -- through no fault of their own are here but have essentially grown up as Americans -- allow them the opportunity for higher education.

I do not want two classes of citizens in this country. I want everybody to prosper. That's going to be a top priority. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Okay. Let's -- we've got one last question on immigration.

Jorge, go ahead.

MR. RAMOS: (Remarks in Spanish.)

Right now there are more than 30 million people in this country who speak Spanish. (Applause.) Many of them are right here. By the year 2050, there will be 120 million Hispanics in the United States.

Now, is there any downside, Senator Clinton, to the United States becoming -- (remarks in Spanish) -- becoming a bilingual nation? Is there a limit?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think it's important for as many Americans as possible to do what I've never been able to do. And that is learn another language and try to be bilingual, because that connects us to the rest of the world.

I think it is important though that English remain our common, unifying language -- (applause) -- because that brings our country together in a way that we've seen generations of immigrants, coming to our shores, be able to be part of the American experience and pursue the American dream.

You know, I have been adamantly against the efforts by some to make English the official language.

That I do not believe is appropriate, and I have voted against it and spoken against it. I represent New York. We have a hundred and seventy languages in New York City alone, and I do not think that we should be in any way discriminating against people who do not speak English, who use facilities like hospitals or have to go to court to enforce their rights.

But I do think that English does remain an important part of the American experience, so I encourage people to become bilingual, but I also want to see English remain the common unifying language of our country. (Applause.)

MR. RAMOS: Senator Obama, is there any downside to the United States becoming a bilingual nation?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think it is important that everyone learns English and that we have that process of binding ourselves together as a country. I think that's very important.

I also think that every student should be learning a second language because -- (interrupted by applause) -- you know -- so when you start getting into a debate about bilingual education, for example, now I want to make sure that children who are coming out of Spanish-speaking households have the opportunity to learn and are not falling behind. And if bilingual education helps them do that, I want to give them the opportunity. But I also want to make sure that English-speaking children are getting foreign languages because this world is becoming more interdependent, and part of the process of America's continued leadership in the world is going to be our capacity to communicate across boundaries, across borders.

And that's something, frankly, that's fallen very -- where we've fallen behind. And one of the failures of No Child Left Behind, a law that I think a lot of local and state officials have been troubled by, is that it is so narrowly focused on standardized tests that it has pushed out a lot of important learning that needs to take place. (Cheers, applause.)

And foreign languages is one of those areas that I think has been neglected. I want to put more resources into it.

MS. BROWN: All right.

We're going to take a quick break. We've got to go to a commercial. We'll be back with a lot more.

There's also a debate, we should mention, raging online right now, so go to our website, CNNPolitics.com, to join in.

The debate here at the University of Texas in Austin continues right after this. (Cheers, applause.)

(Announcements.)

MS. BROWN: And we are back. We're here in Austin, Texas, the capital city. Welcome back to the Texas Democratic debate at the University of Texas-Austin.

The first question now goes to John King.

MR. KING: Senators, as I'm sitting here, we're about 45 minutes into the discussion tonight, and I'm having what I like to call one of those parallel universe moments. I've been watching each of you give speeches in arenas not unlike this one, individually, and the tone is often quite different than the very polite, substantive discourse -- (laughter, applause) -- we've had tonight.

And so I want to ask you about that. There are times when each of you seems to call into question the other one's credibility or truthfulness. And Senator Clinton, I want to talk specifically about some words you've spoken here in the state of Texas over the past couple of days. You've said, quote, "My opponent gives speeches; I offer solutions." You said the choice for Democrats in this campaign is, quote, "talk versus action."

Now, in a campaign that some of us are old enough to remember -- maybe not many of the students here -- this would be called the "Where's the beef?" question. (Laughter.) But since we're in Texas, I'd like to borrow a phrase that they often use here, and you've used yourself in the context of President Bush. Are you saying that your opponent is all hat and no cattle? And can you say that after the last 45 minutes? (Laughter, applause.)

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that about President Bush, and I think our next president needs to be a lot less hat and a lot more cattle. (Cheers, applause.)

You know, I think you can tell from the first 45 minutes, you know, Senator Obama and I have a lot in common. We both care passionately about our country. We are devoted to public service. We care deeply about the future. And we have run a very vigorous and contested primary campaign, which has been by most standards, I think, very positive and extremely civil.

But there are differences between us, and I think in our efforts to draw those contrasts and comparisons we obviously try to let voters know how we see the world differently. And I do offer solutions. That's what I believe in and what I have done, and it's what I offer to voters because it's part of my life over the last 35 years:

working to get kids health care, working to expand legal services for the poor, working to register voters, working to make a difference, because I think that this country has given me so much. And there are differences between our records and our accomplishments. I have to confess I was somewhat amused the other night when on one of the TV shows, one of Senator Obama's supporters was asked to name one accomplishment of Senator Obama, and he couldn't. So I know that there are comparisons and contrasts to be drawn between us, and it's important that voters get that information.

So yes, I do think that words are important and words matter, but actions speak louder than words, and I offer -- (by cheers, applause) -- (off mike).

MS. BROWN: Senator Obama, go ahead. Senator Obama, do you want to respond?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think actions do speak louder than words, which is why over the 20 years of my public service I have acted a lot to provide health care to people who didn't have it, to provide tax breaks to families that needed it, to reform a criminal justice system that had resulted in wrongful convictions, to open up our government, and to pass the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate -- (applause) -- to make sure that we create transparency -- to make sure that we create transparency in our government so that we know where federal spending is going and it's not going to a bunch of boondoggles and earmarks that are wasting taxpayer money that could be spent on things like early childhood education.

You know, I think if you talk to those wounded warriors at Walter Reed who, prior to me getting to the Senate, were having to pay for their meals and have to pay for their phone calls to their family while they're recovering from amputations, I think they'd say that I've engaged not just in talk, but in action. (Cheers, applause.)

Now -- now, I think Senator Clinton has a fine record, and I don't to denigrate that record. I do think there is a fundamental difference between us in terms of how change comes about. Senator Clinton of late has said "let's get real." And the implication is, is that, you know, the people who have been voting for me or involved in my campaign are somehow delusional -- (laughter) -- and that -- (chuckles) -- that, you know, the -- (laughter) -- you know, the 20 million people who have been paying attention to 19 debates, and the editorial boards all across the country at newspapers who have given me endorsements including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas -- (cheers, applause) -- you know, the thinking is that somehow they're being duped and that eventually they're going to see the reality of things.

Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. And what they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, then we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well -- (applause) -- the reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand that it is not just a matter of putting forward policy positions.

Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions. But if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government, and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions, that have plagued our politics for so long, then we will continue to see the kind of gridlock and non-performance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways.

I'm running for president to start doing something about that suffering and so are the people who are behind my campaign. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: I think -- I think one of the points -- (interrupted by continued cheers, applause). I think one of the points that John King was alluding to in talking about some of Senator Clinton's comments is there has been a lot of attention lately on some of your speeches, that they're very similar to some of the speeches by your friend and supporter, Deval Patrick, the governor of Massachusetts. And Senator Clinton's campaign has made a big issue of this. To be blunt, they've accused you of plagiarism.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MS. BROWN: How do you respond?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, the -- first of all, it's not a lot of speeches. There are two lines in speeches that I've been giving over the last couple of weeks. I've been campaigning now for the last two years. Deval is a national co-chairman of my campaign and suggested an argument that I share, that words are important, words matter, and the implication that they don't, I think, diminishes how important it is to speak to the American people directly about making America as good as its promise. And Barbara Jordan understood this as well as anybody.

Now, the notion that I had plagiarized from somebody who's one of my national co-chairs -- (laughter) -- who gave me the line and suggested that I use it, I think is silly. (Cheers, applause.)

And -- you know, but -- but -- but this is where we start getting into silly season in politics, and I think people start getting discouraged about it. (Cheers, applause.) They don't want -- what they want is, how are we going to create good jobs at good wages? How are we going to provide health care to the American people? How are we going to make sure that college is affordable?

So what I have been talking about in these speeches -- and I got to admit, some of them are pretty good -- (laughter, cheers, applause) -- what I've been talking about is not just hope and not just inspiration; it's a $4,000 tuition credit for every student every year -- (cheers, applause) -- in exchange for national service so that college becomes more affordable. I've been talking about making sure that we change our tax code so that working families actually get relief. I have been talking about making sure that we bring an end to this war in Iraq so that we can start bringing our troops home and invest money here in the United States. (Applause.)

And so just to finish up, these are very specific, concrete, detailed proposals, many of them which I've been working on for years now. Senator Clinton has a fine record.

So do I. And I'm happy to have a debate on the issues, but what we shouldn't be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton, is it the silly season?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. (Applause.) And you know -- you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox. And I just don't think --

SEN. OBAMA: Oh, but that -- that's not what happened there --

SEN. CLINTON: No, but -- you know, but Barack, it is, because if -- you know, if you look -- (jeers from the audience) -- if you look -- if you look -- if you look at the YouTube of these videos, it does raise questions.

Now, there is no doubt that you are a passionate, eloquent speaker, and I applaud you for that. But when you look at what we face in this country, we do need to unite the country, but we have to unite it for a purpose around very specific goals. It is not enough to say, "Let's come together." We know we're going to have to work hard to overcome the opposition of those who do not want the changes to get to universal health care.

You know, when I proposed a universal health care plan, as did Senator Edwards, we took a big risk, because we know it's politically controversial to say we're going to cover everyone.

And you chose not to do that. You chose to put forth a health care plant that will leave out at least 15 million people. That's a big difference.

When I said we should put a moratorium on home foreclosures, basically your response was, well, that wouldn't work, and you know, in the last week even President Bush said we have to do something like that.

I just believe that we've got to look hard at the difficult challenges we face, especially after George Bush leaves the White House. The world will breathe a sigh of relief once he is gone. (Applause.) We all know that. But then we've got to do the hard work of not just bringing the country together, but overcoming a lot of the entrenched opposition to the very ideas that both of us believe in and for some of us have been fighting for a very long time.

You know, when I took on -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).

When I took on universal health care back in '93 and '94, it was against a fire storm of special interest opposition. I was more than happy to do that because I believe passionately in getting quality affordable health care to every American. I don't want to leave anybody out. I see the results of leaving people out. I am tired of health insurance companies deciding who will live or die in America.

That has to end. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right. Senator Clinton, thank you.

Senator Obama, please respond.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that Senator Clinton mentioned two specific issue areas where we've got some differences. And I'm happy to debate those, which is what I think should be the focus of this campaign.

We both want universal health care. When I released my plan, a few months later, we were in a debate, and Senator Clinton said, we all want universal health care. And of course, I was down 20 points in the polls at the time, and so my plan was pretty good. It's not as good now, but my plan hasn't changed. The politics have changed a little bit.

We do -- we both -- 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both want to set up a system in which any person is going to be able to get coverage that is as good as we have as members of Congress. And we are going to subsidize those who can't afford it. We're going to make sure that we reduce costs by emphasizing prevention, and I want to make sure that we're applying technology to improve quality, cut bureaucracy.

Now, I also want to make sure that we're reducing costs for those who already have health insurance. So we put in place a catastrophic reinsurance plan that would reduce costs by $2,500 per family per year.

So we've got a lot of similarities in our plan.

We've got a philosophical difference which we've debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it, and my belief is the reason that people don't have it is not because they don't want it, but because they can't afford it. And so I emphasize -- (applause) -- reducing costs. And as has been noted by many observers, including Bill Clinton's former secretary of Labor, my plan does more than anybody to reduce costs, and there is nobody out there who wants health insurance who can't have it.

Now, there are legitimate arguments for why Senator Clinton and others have called for a mandate, and I'm happy to have that debate. But the notion that I am leaving 15 -- 15 million people out somehow implies that we are different in our goals of providing coverage to all Americans, and that is simply not true. We think that there's going to be a different way of getting there.

One last point I want to make on the health care front. I admire the fact that Senator Clinton tried to bring about health care reform back in 1993. She deserves credit for that. (Applause.) But I -- I've said before I think she did it in the wrong way because it wasn't just the fact that the insurance companies and the drug companies were battling her -- and no doubt they were -- it was also that Senator Clinton and the administration went behind closed doors, excluded the participation even of Democratic members of Congress who had slightly different ideas than the ones that Senator Clinton had put forward.

And as a consequence, it was much more difficult to get Congress to cooperate.

And I've said that I'm going to do things differently. I think we have to open up the process, everybody has to have a seat the table, and most importantly, the American people have to be involved and educated about how this change is going to be brought about.

The point is this: We can have great plans, but if we don't change how the politics is working in Washington, then neither of our plans are going to happen and we're going to be four years from now debating once again how we're going to bring universal health care to this country. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right --

SEN. OBAMA: That's not something I want to do.

MS. BROWN: -- I've got -- we've got some time constraints here.

Now, we've got to take to another real quick break. Stay with us. We've got a lot more ahead. You can compare the candidates on the issues any time, just go to our website, cnnpolitics.com. A lot more ahead here at the University of Texas. We'll be right back. (Cheers, applause.)

(Announcements.)

(Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: An enthusiastic crowd here at the University of Texas. Welcome back to the Texas Democratic debate. Let's get right to it. Jorge Ramos with the next question.

MR. RAMOS: (Thank you ?), Campbell.

Senator Clinton, yesterday you said -- and I'm quoting -- "one of us is ready to be commander in chief." Are you saying that Senator Obama is not ready and not qualified to be commander in chief?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I believe that I am ready, and I am prepared. And I will leave that to voters to decide.

But I want to get back to health care because I didn't get a chance to respond --

MS. BROWN: All right --

MR. RAMOS: Oh, but --

SEN. CLINTON: -- after Senator Obama. No, let -- let me finish,

Jorge --

MR. RAMOS: But I would like you also to come back to this after --

SEN. CLINTON: -- because this is a significant difference. You know, Senator Obama has said it's a philosophical difference. I think it's a substantive difference. He has a mandate for parents to be sure to insure their children. I agree with that. I just know that if we don't go and require everyone to have health insurance, the health insurance industry will still game the system, every one of us with insurance will pay the hidden tax of approximately $900 a year -- (applause) -- to make up for the lack of insurance.

And you know, in one of our earlier debates John Edwards made a great point. It would be as though Social Security were voluntary; Medicare, one of the great accomplishments of President Johnson, was voluntary. (Applause.) I do not believe that is going to work.

So it's not just a philosophical difference. You look at what will work and what will not work. If you do not have a plan that starts out attempting to achieve universal health care, you will be nibbled to death, and we will be back here, with more and more people uninsured and rising costs. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right. We appreciate that you want to make a point.

Senator Obama, we have limited time --

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.

MS. BROWN: -- so I would like Jorge to move on to another subject, or we're going to be out of time.

SEN. OBAMA: But I -- well, I -- I understand, but I think that Senator Clinton made a -- (laughter) -- you know, she's making a point, and I -- and I think I should have the opportunity to respond very briefly, and I'll -- I'll try to make it as quickly as possible.

MS. BROWN: Very briefly, absolutely.

SEN. OBAMA: Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance; it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.

Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (Applause.) And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty. And Senator Clinton has said that we will go after their wages.

Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there, okay.

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MS. BROWN: All right. All right, Senator Clinton --

SEN. CLINTON: Wait a minute. No, this is too important. (Laughter.) This is the number one issue that people talk to me about. You know, when a mother grabs my arm and says "I can't get the operation my son needs because I don't have health insurance," it is personal for me. And I just fundamentally disagree.

You know, Senator Obama's plan has a mandate on parents and a fine if parents --

SEN. OBAMA: That's right.

SEN. CLINTON: -- do not insure their children.

SEN. OBAMA: That's right.

SEN. CLINTON: Because he recognizes that unless we have some kind of restriction, we will not get there. He's also said that if people show up at the hospital sick without health insurance, well, maybe at that point, you can fine them.

We would not have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if everyone did not have to participate. I want a universal health care plan. (Cheers, applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: That mother, who is desperate to get health care for her child, will be able to get that health care under my plan, point number one.

Point number two, the reason a mandate for children can be effective is, we've got a ability to make affordable health care available to that child right now. There are no excuses. If a parent is not providing health care for that child, it's because the parent's not being responsible under my plan, and those children don't have a choice.

But I think that adults are going to be able to see that they can afford it under my plan; they will get it under my plan. And it is true that if it turns out that some are gaming the system, then we can impose potentially some penalties on them for gaming the system. But the notion that somehow I am interested in leaving out 15 million people, without health insurance, is simply not true.

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MS. BROWN: (Off mike) -- (applause).

SEN. CLINTON: We disagree on that.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Let's let Jorge re-ask his question because I don't think anyone remembers. (Laughter.)

MR. RAMOS: Let me try again and not in Spanish, okay? (Laughter.) Here we go again -- because we also believe the war in Iraq is very important, and here's the question.

Are you suggesting that Senator Obama is not ready, he doesn't have the experience to be commander in chief? That's a question.

What did you mean by that phrase?

SEN. CLINTON: What I mean is that, you know, for more than 15 years I've been honored to represent our country in more than 80 countries to negotiate on matters such opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, to stand up for women's rights and human rights around the world. I've served on the Senate -- (interrupted by cheers, applause). I've served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I have worked as one of the leaders in the Congress on behalf of homeland security and the very difficult challenges we face. You know, just this week -- it's a good example -- we had elections in Pakistan; we had a change in government in Cuba or at least the leadership; we've had the elections that, you know, should have happened, that haven't happened, and just change the leader the way they do in Cuba; we've had Kosovo declaring independence; and we have had our embassy set on fire in Serbia.

x x x Serbia.

So we have serious problems that pose a real question about presidential leadership, and also some great opportunities. You know, we now have opportunities, perhaps, with Cuba, I hope with President Musharraf for him to do the right thing. I've supported the independence of Kosovo because I think it is imperative that in the heart of Europe we continue to promote independence and democracy.

And I would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy. Under international law they should be doing that.

So when you think about everything that is going to happen, what we can predict and what we cannot predict, I believe that I am prepared and ready on day one to be commander in chief, to be the president, to turn our economy around, and to begin making a lot of these very difficult decisions that we will inherit from George Bush. And that is what I am putting forth to the voters. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Obama. Go ahead, Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief. (Cheers, applause.) And my -- my number one job as president will be to keep the American people safe. And I will do whatever is required to accomplish that, and I will not hesitate to act against those that would do America harm.

Now, that involves maintaining the strongest military on earth, which means that we are training our troops properly and equipping them properly and putting them on proper rotations. And there are an awful lot of families, here in Texas, who have been burdened under two and three and four tours, because of the poor planning of the current commander in chief. And that will end when I'm president.

(Applause.)

But it also means using our military wisely. And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation -- whether or not to go to war in Iraq -- I believe I showed the judgment of a commander in chief. I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that. (Applause.)

Now, that has consequences. That has significant consequences because it has diverted attention from Afghanistan, where al Qaeda, that killed 3,000 Americans, are stronger now than at any time since 2001.

I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead. And I think that on every critical issue that we've seen in foreign policy over the last several years -- going into Iraq originally, I didn't just oppose it for the sake of opposing it. I said this is going to distract us from Afghanistan; this is going to fan the flames of anti- American sentiment; this is going to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives and overstretch our military, and I was right.

On the question of Pakistan, which Senator Clinton just raised, we just had an election there, but I've said very clearly that we have put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. That was a mistake. We should be going after al Qaeda and making sure that Pakistan is serious about hunting down terrorists as well as expanding democracy, and I was right about that.

On the issues that have come up, that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right, Senator Clinton, we're going to stay with this and stay on Iraq.

John King.

MR. KING: I want to continue in this vein and hone in on the very point you just made because one of you, unless this remarkable campaign here takes another wacky, unpredictable turn, is going to be running against a decorated war hero who is going to say that you don't have the experience to be commander in chief.

And you have both said it's not about that type of experience; it's about judgment.

You both had to make a judgment a short time ago in your job in the United States Senate about whether to support the surge. And as that was going on, Senator Clinton, you had the commanding general in Iraq before you, and you said, "I think that the reports you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief," your words to General Petreaus.

I want you to look at Iraq now and listen to those who say the security situation is better. Ideal? No, but better, some say significantly. In recent days, even some steps toward the political reconciliation. Is Iraq today better off than it was six months or a year ago because of the surge?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, John, I think you forget a very important premise of the surge. The rationale of the surge was to create the space and time for the Iraqi government to make the decisions that only it can make. Now, there is no doubt, given the skill and the commitment of our young men and women in uniform, that putting more of them in will give us a tactical advantage and will provide security in some places. And that has occurred.

But the fact is that the purpose of it has not been fulfilled.

The Iraqi government has slowly inched toward making a few of the decisions in a less than complete way.

It was one of the reasons why the economy was booming. I've got that, you know, clearly in my economic blueprint, which is something that I've published the last few days, because it's part of what we have to do again, and I think that I will be very comfortable and effective in taking on Senator McCain over the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican Party that he's been a part of. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right. An issue relating to the current election. Jorge.

MR. RAMOS: As we can see, this has been an extremely close nomination battle that will come down to superdelegates. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in government, said recently -- and I'm quoting -- "It would be a problem" -- and this is a question for you, Senator Clinton -- "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided." Do you agree?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, these are the rules that are followed, and I -- you know, I think that it'll sort itself out. I'm not worried about that. We will have a nominee, and we will a unified Democratic Party, and we will go on to victory in November. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Obama, go ahead. Do you have a response to Senator Clinton?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think it is important, given how hard Senator Clinton and I have been working, that these primaries and caucuses count for something. (Applause.) And so my belief is that -- that the will of the voters, expressed in this long election process, is what ultimately determine who our next nominee is going to be.

But understand what I think is most important to the voters, and that is that we have a government that is listening to them again. They feel as if they've been shut out.

You know, when I meet mothers who are trying to figure out how to get health care for their kids, it's not just the desperation of that single mom. It's also that when they try to find some help, oftentimes they're hitting a brick wall. And they don't get a sense that the debates that are happening in Washington right now relate to them at all. What they believe is that people are trying to get on TV, and they're trying to score points, and they're trying to win elections, and that they're not interested in knocking down the barriers that stand between the American people and their dreams.

And I have no doubt that the Democratic Party, at its best, can summon a sense of common purpose again, and higher purpose, for the American people. And I think that the next nominee, going into the November election, is going to have a lot to talk about, because the American people are tired of a politics that's dominated by the powerful, by the connected. They want their government back, and that's what I intend to provide them when I'm nominated for president of the United States.

MS. BROWN: We have time for just one final question and we thought we'd sort of end on a more philosophical question.

You've both spent a lot of time talking about leadership, about who's ready and who has the right judgment to lead if elected president.

And a leader's judgment is -- is most tested at times of crisis. And I'm wondering if both of you will describe what was a moment -- what was THE moment that tested you the most, that moment of crisis?

Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I -- I wouldn't point to a single moment, and what I look at is the trajectory of my life, because I was raised by a single mom. My father left when I was two, and I was raised by my mother and my grandparents. And there were rocky periods during my youth when I made mistakes and was off course. And what was most important in my life was learning to take responsibility for my own -- my own actions -- learning to take responsibility for not only my own actions, but how I can bring people together to actually have an impact on the world. And so working as a community organizer on the streets of Chicago with ordinary people, bringing them together and organizing them to provide jobs and health care and economic security to people who didn't have it, then working as a civil rights attorney and rejecting the jobs on Wall Street to fight for those who were being discriminated against on the job, that cumulative experience I think is the judgment that I now bring. It's the reason that I have the capacity to bring people together, and it's the reason why I am determined to make sure that the American people get a government that is worthy of their decency and their generosity. (Applause.)

MS. BROWN: Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think everybody here knows I have lived through some crises and some challenging -- (laughter) -- moments in my life, and -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).

And I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me, how do you do it, you know, how do you keep going, and I just have to shake my head in wonderment because with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day.

You know, a few months ago I was honored to be asked, along with Senator McCain, as the only two elected officials to speak at the opening of the Intrepid Center at Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio, a center designed to take care of and provide rehabilitation for our brave young men and women who have been injured in war. And I remember sitting up there and watching them come in: those who could walk were walking; those who had lost limbs were trying with great courage to get themselves in without the help of others; some were in wheelchairs and some were on gurneys. And the speaker representing these wounded warriors had had most of his face disfigured by the results of fire from a roadside bomb.

You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That's what gets me up in the morning. That's what motivates me in this campaign. (Cheers, applause.) And -- and you know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored. I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (Cheers, applause.)

SEN. OBAMA: (Off mike.)

SEN. CLINTON: And you know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about. Thanks. (Cheers, applause.)

MS. BROWN: All right. A standing ovation here in Austin, Texas. Our thanks to Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. Appreciate your time tonight -- (cheers, applause) -- and to John and Jorge as well.

(Applause continues.) We also want to thank our debate partners, the university, the University of Texas at Austin, and the Texas Democratic Party and the LBJ Library, as well as the city of Austin.

Stay with CNN on March 4th for complete coverage of the primary results in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island. I'm Campbell Brown in Austin. This debate will be broadcast in Spanish later tonight on the Univision television network. It'll air at 11:30 p.m. Eastern and 10:30 p.m. Central.

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

Hillary Clinton’s Feb. 19 Speech Ignoring Election

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:19:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

from The New York Times

February 19, 2008
Transcript
Hillary Clinton’s Feb. 19 Speech

The following is a transcript of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech to supporters after the Feb. 19 primary in Wisconsin, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, hello, Youngstown. How are you tonight?

(APPLAUSE)

I am thrilled to be here with all of you. And it is great to see this enthusiasm and this energy. And tonight I want to talk to you about the choice you have in this election and why that choice matters. It is about picking a president who relies not just on words, but on work, on hard work to get America back to work. That's our goal.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, when I think about what we're really comparing in this election, you know, we can't just have speeches. We've got to have solutions. And we need those solutions for America.

We've got to get America back in the solutions business, because while words matter, the best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action.

(APPLAUSE)

But this election is not about me or my opponent. It is about you. It's about your lives and your dreams and your future. And I can't do this without all of you here in Youngstown and across Ohio. It is going to take an effort from all of us.

Now, you may have heard that I actually loaned my campaign some money. And I was honored and humbled by the support that I have received since, from people like the young mom who sent me $10 and wrote that, "My two daughters are 2 and 4, and I want them to know anything is possible"...

(APPLAUSE)

... or the gentleman who described himself as an independent voter, a veteran, and a "generally cranky conservatives" who decided to support me.

If we pull together, I know we can do this. So I hope you'll go to and support this campaign because it is your campaign. I hope you will go to my Web site, because if you do, you'll find at HillaryClinton.com all of my positions, everything that I have been working on, because I know what's happening in America.

People are struggling. They're working the day shift, the night shift. They're trying to get by without health care. They're just one paycheck away from losing their homes. They cannot afford four more years of a president who just doesn't see or hear them at all.

(APPLAUSE)

They need a president ready on day one to be commander-in-chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to beat the Republicans in November.

(APPLAUSE)

With your help, I will be that president.

(APPLAUSE) This is the choice we face. One of us is ready to be commander- in-chief in a dangerous world. Every day, around the world, situations arise that present new threats and new opportunities, situations like the change of leadership in Cuba today.

I have served on the Armed Services Committee. I've been to more than 80 countries, worked with world leaders, stood up to the Chinese government to declare that women's rights are human rights.

(APPLAUSE)

And I am ready to end this war in Iraq and this era of cowboy diplomacy.

(APPLAUSE)

I will restore our leadership and moral authority in the world without delays, without on-the-job training, from day one.

One of us has a plan to provide health care for every single American, no one left out. And I believe -- I believe health care is a right, not a privilege. And I will not rest until every American is covered. That is my solemn promise to you.

(APPLAUSE)

My opponent leaves out at least 15 million Americans. The question is: Who would we leave out? Would we leave out the mother I met who grabbed my arm and said the insurance company wouldn't pay for the treatment that her son needed? Will we leave that family out?

And who will pay for those we leave out? I don't want to leave anyone out. I am not running to put Band-Aids on our problems; I'm running to solve our problems.

(APPLAUSE)

One of us has a plan to actually address the growing foreclosure crisis, which is so terrible here in Ohio. I've called for a freeze on subprime foreclosures and interest rates to ensure that millions of families across the country won't be receiving that grim letter from the bank.

I proposed $30 billion in assistance to help families avoid foreclosures and to help communities rebound from this housing crisis, because no one should foreclose on the American dream. And we're going to stop it. (END AUDIO FEED)

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

John McCain’s Feb. 19 Speech Attacking Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:27:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

from The New York Times

February 19, 2008
Transcript
John McCain’s Feb. 19 Speech

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator John McCain’s speech to supporters after the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary, as provided his presidential campaign.

Thank you, my friends, for your support and dedication to our campaign. And thank you, Wisconsin, for bringing us to the point when even a superstitious naval aviator can claim with confidence and humility that I will be our party's nominee for President. I promise you, I will wage a campaign with determination, passion and the right ideas for strengthening our country that prove worthy of the honor and responsibility you have given me.

I, again, want to commend Governor Huckabee, who has shown impressive grit and passion himself, and whom, though he remains my opponent, I have come to admire very much. And, of course, I want to thank my wife, Cindy, and my daughter, Meghan, who are here tonight, and the rest of my family for their indispensable love and encouragement.

My friends, we have traveled a great distance together already in this campaign, and overcome more than a few obstacles. But as I said last week, now comes the hard part and, for America, the bigger decision. Will we make the right changes to restore the people's trust in their government and meet the great challenges of our time with wisdom, and with faith in the values and ability of Americans for whom no challenge is greater than their resolve, courage and patriotism? Or will we heed appeals for change that ignore the lessons of history, and lack confidence in the intelligence and ideals of free people?

I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. Our purpose is to keep this blessed country free, safe, prosperous and proud. And the changes we offer to the institutions and policies of government will reflect and rely upon the strength, industry, aspirations and decency of the people we serve.

We live in a world of change, some of which holds great promise for us and all mankind and some of which poses great peril. Today, political change in Pakistan is occurring that might affect our relationship with a nuclear armed nation that is indispensable to our success in combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere. An old enemy of American interests and ideals is leaving the world stage, and we can glimpse the hope that freedom might someday come to the people of Cuba. A self-important bully in Venezuela threatens to cut off oil shipments to our country at a time of sky-rocketing gas prices. Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next President have the experience, the judgment experience informs, and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?

The most important obligation of the next President is to protect Americans from the threat posed by violent extremists who despise us, our values and modernity itself. They are moral monsters, but they are also a disciplined, dedicated movement driven by an apocalyptic zeal, which celebrates murder, has access to science, technology and mass communications, and is determined to acquire and use against us weapons of mass destruction. The institutions and doctrines we relied on in the Cold War are no longer adequate to protect us in a struggle where suicide bombers might obtain the world's most terrifying weapons.

If we are to succeed, we must rethink and rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the purposes of our alliances; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to marshal all elements of American power: our military, economy, investment, trade and technology and our moral credibility to win the war against Islamic extremists and help the majority of Muslims, who believe in progress and peace, win the struggle for the soul of Islam.

The challenges and opportunities of the global economy require us to change some old habits of our government as well. But we will fight for the right changes; changes that understand our strengths and rely on the common sense and values of the American people. We will campaign:

to balance the federal budget not with smoke and mirrors, but by encouraging economic growth and preventing government from spending your money on things it shouldn't; to hold it accountable for the money it does spend on services that only government can provide in ways that don't fail and embarrass you;

to save Social Security and Medicare on our watch without the tricks, lies and posturing that have failed us for too long while the problem became harder to solve;

to make our tax code simpler, fairer, flatter, more pro-growth and pro-jobs;

to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil with an energy policy that encourages American industry and technology to make our country safer, cleaner and more prosperous by leading the world in the use, development and discovery of alternative sources of energy;

to open new markets to American goods and services, create more and better jobs for the American worker and overhaul unemployment insurance and our redundant and outmoded programs for assisting workers who have lost a job that's not coming back to find a job that won't go away;

to help Americans without health insurance acquire it without bankrupting the country, and ruining the quality of American health care that is the envy of the world;

to make our public schools more accountable to parents and better able to meet the critical responsibility they have to prepare our children for the challenges they'll face in the world they'll lead.

I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced. I know what our military can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how Congress works, and how to make it work for the country and not just the re-election of its members. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. And I know who I am and what I want to do.

I don't seek the office out of a sense of entitlement. I owe America more than she has ever owed me. I have been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. I have never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I haven't been proud of the privilege. Don't tell me what we can't do. Don't tell me we can't make our country stronger and the world safer. We can. We must. And when I'm President we will.

Thank you, and God bless you.

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

Hillary Clinton’s Feb. 12 Speech

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:59:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

from The New York Times

February 12, 2008
Transcript
Hillary Clinton’s Feb. 12 Speech

The following is a transcript of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech to supporters after the Feb. 12 primaries, as provided by CQ Transcriptions via The Associated Press.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Oh, it is so wonderful to be here.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank the congressman so much. He does an extraordinary job representing you, and I know how proud you are to have him as the chairman of one of the most important committees in the United States Congress. Thank you so much.

He and his wife, Carolina, have been friends and colleagues for a long time, and so it is especially a privilege to be introduced by him tonight and to be part of this extended family, because it is family, and I am proud to be part of the El Paso, Texas, family starting right now.

(APPLAUSE)

There are so many people who have come tonight and who have helped make this extraordinary event possible. I want to thank Rick and Louis Bolanos. They are part of Texas Veterans for Hillary. And the Bolanos family is so well-known because of their service to our country, and I am honored to have them supporting me. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank my old friend, Alicia Chacon, the former county judge, the UTEP Young Democrats for hosting me tonight...

(APPLAUSE)

... Norma Flores Fisher, Danny Achando (ph), Aaron Rosas (ph), Senator Eliot Shapleigh.

I want to thank the students and the staff of the university, and I want to thank my huge, Texas-sized steering committee.

(APPLAUSE)

Well, I can't think of any better place to start our campaign for Texas than right here in El Paso. And I am honored to be an honorary miner.

(APPLAUSE)

And we're going to sweep across Texas in the next three weeks, bringing our message about what we need in America, the kind of president that will be required on day one to be commander-in-chief to turn the economy around. I'm tested. I'm ready. Let's make it happen.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, there's a great saying in Texas -- you've all heard it -- "all hat and no cattle." Well, after seven years of George Bush, we need a lot less hat and a lot more cattle.

Texas needs a president who actually understands what it's going to take to turn the economy around, to get us universal health care, to save hardworking Americans homes from foreclosure at the abusive practices of the mortgage companies.

We have a lot of work to do. And I know that El Paso understands that picking a president is one of the most important jobs we're going to do in this country in the next couple of weeks.

When I think about Texas, I think about, as the congressman said, coming here 35 years ago. I was working for the Democratic National Committee. And I was going along the border registering voters. And we had the greatest time. I met some of the best friends that I've ever had in my life.

We had a chance to go into people's homes. We ate a lot of great food.

(APPLAUSE)

We listened to some wonderful music. And we registered a few voters, too.

Well, here I am back in Texas, and I'm asking the children of those voters to vote for me for their future.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, some people, when they run for a political office, they only think about the next election. But I like to think about the next generation, because that's what I think this election is about.

It is about what kind of country and world we're going to pass onto the young people who are students here, to that beautiful young boy who came up and gave me the flowers, for each of our children and grandchildren. Are we going to give them the same shot at the American dream that many of us were given?

Well, if we make the right decision in this election, we sure are. We're going to give our young people not only confidence and optimism, but real results, 21st-century solutions for what we need to do to fix our problems, meet our challenges, and seize our opportunities.

As I travel around the country, I know from what people tell me that a lot of really hard-working folks are concerned. You know, they're working as hard as they can, but they don't feel like they're getting ahead. They're not getting the kind of health care and educational opportunities that they want for themselves and their children.

I hear the mothers who tell me they don't know what they're going to do because they can't afford health care, and they have sick children, and the only place they have to turn to is the emergency room.

I've been in the homes of families that are on the brink of losing the American dream because they got sucked into one of these subprime mortgages and they can't afford to stay in their home. They're looking for somebody to say this was wrong and we will help you.

I meet the people who work hard every single day but can't pay their energy bills; they can't fill up their gas tank. They're looking for answers.

And then I meet all of the people who want to solve the problems, the young people who are focused on a better future and want to make it happen.

(APPLAUSE)

There isn't anything America can't do if we make up our minds to do it. Every once of us, every single one of us knows that tomorrow can be better than today, but it doesn't happen just by wishing it or hoping for it. It happens by working really, really hard to make it a reality to give everybody a better chance.

(APPLAUSE)

I see an America where everyone willing to work hard has a job with a rising income. And if you're willing to work full-time, you have wages that lift you out of poverty. I want to make sure every American who works full-time has a minimum wage of at least $9.50.

(APPLAUSE)

In fact, I would require that Congress cannot raise its own salaries unless it raises the minimum wage.

(APPLAUSE)

I see an America where health care is a moral right, not a privilege, where every man, woman and child has access to quality, affordable health care. We can do this. We can have a uniquely America solution.

We already have a plan that we can make available to everyone. It's the plan that provides health care to members of Congress. And it works well for members of Congress and our staffs and federal employees. It has lots of choices.

I want to make sure you have the same choices as your member of Congress does.

(APPLAUSE)

And we will help people pay for it because I want everybody, everybody, to have quality, affordable health insurance.

And I also see an America where we end our dependence on foreign oil and we start growing and making our own energy right here in Texas and America.

(APPLAUSE)

Aren't you tired of paying those exorbitant costs at the gas pump? Aren't you tired of sending billions of our dollars to countries that turn around and use it against us?

(APPLAUSE) Well, why don't we get smart and start creating our own energy? We have the sun; we have the wind; we can grow the products; we can turn what we have here in Texas into the energy of the future.

(APPLAUSE)

I think that if we do this we will create millions of new, good jobs, jobs with rising incomes, jobs that will be right here in El Paso, right here in Texas, jobs that will give a family a good potential opportunity to raise their kids, and send them to school, and feel like they're part of the American dream.

Energy can be the key that unlocks our economic future, makes us more secure in the world. And, if we do it right, we will begin to deal with the problem of global warming, which is a real problem that has to be attacked.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, I see an America where children are better prepared before they ever go to school, where we help families prepare their own children, where we have a universal pre-kindergarten program, so that 4-year-olds can get off to a good start.

I see an America where the federal government doesn't tell the teachers, and the principals, and the superintendents in El Paso what they're supposed to teach and what they're supposed to test.

(APPLAUSE)

I will the end the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.

(APPLAUSE)

And, together, we will come up with a 21st-century educational system for our children, where we look at each individual child and try to decide what we need to do to lift that little boy or girl to his or her God-given potential. That is the purpose of education, not test after test after test after test after test.

(APPLAUSE)

I see an America where every young person who is willing to work hard will be able to go to college. They will not have the door slammed in their face because of the costs of higher education.

In my America, we're going to make sure that the federal government gets back into loaning people money at a low interest like they did when I went to school instead of the student loan companies.

(APPLAUSE)

We're going to give young people the opportunity for national service so that you can earn money to go to college. One year of national service, you can earn up to $10,000. That would give you the resources to be able to go to school.

It is wrong in America when families have to mortgage or sell their homes to send their sons or daughters to college. It should be an investment we all make in you.

I see an America where we finally have comprehensive immigration reform with a path to earned legalization.

(APPLAUSE)

Of course, we're going to have secure borders. We're going to work very hard on that. And, yes, we're going to make sure employers don't exploit undocumented workers.

(APPLAUSE)

And we will do more to help communities like El Paso that need resources for health and education and law enforcement. And I want to work more with our neighbors and friends to the south to help those countries create more jobs for their own people, so that everyone would have a chance at a better life.

(APPLAUSE)

But we're going to bring people out of the shadows. We're going to tell them that, if they meet certain conditions, like paying a fine for coming here illegally, like paying back taxes, like learning English, we're going to give people a path to citizenship, because so many of the people who are here work hard, send their children to school, and deserve a chance at the American dream.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, I see an America where we, once again, are builders and architects of our future, where we're investing in all of the different kinds of transportation and physical buildings that are required.

We need more roads; we need more bridges; we need more tunnels. We should be putting millions of Americans to work building the 21st- century America, investing in that richer and brighter future.

(APPLAUSE)

And I see an America where we know that we have to be respected around the world again, where we have to repair our reputation, where we have to work with other countries to solve our problems.

(APPLAUSE)

I have said that, when I become president, I will begin to put a plan into place to bring our troops home starting within 60 days.

(APPLAUSE)

Many of you are veterans. You know that planning to withdraw our troops has to be done carefully and responsibly, but we must start. Our young men and women who serve our country have done everything they were asked to do.

(APPLAUSE)

They have performed bravely and heroically, but there is no military solution. It is up to the Iraqis themselves to make the tough decisions about their country's future.

(APPLAUSE)

So as we bring our sons and daughters home, let's take care of our veterans. Let's give our veterans the services, the health care, the other programs that they so richly have earned, because when someone signs up to serve America, America signs up to serve that veteran.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to be sure that all of our veterans, from our youngest to our oldest, get taken care of. I'd like to see our youngest veterans get a 21st-century GI Bill of Rights, with money for college, and money to buy a home, and money to start a business.

(APPLAUSE)

And as a president, President Bush has not done what needed to be done for our veterans. We haven't funded the VA. We have so many coming home who are injured and not being taken care of. I think it is the highest obligation of the president, who is also our commander- in-chief, to take care of those who have served our nation, and I pledge to you I will take care of our veterans.

I will make sure our youngest veterans get what they need. We will honor our oldest veterans from World War II. And I want to pay special attention to the veterans of my generation who served and fought in Vietnam, to give them what they deserve to have.

(APPLAUSE)

You know, every problem we face can be solved because we're Americans. We are problem-solvers. We are the people who are constantly creating the future. We believe that tomorrow not only can be, but will be better than today. And we have to keep faith with these young men and women to make sure that they have the opportunity to pursue their own dreams.

So this election could not be more important. And there are some real differences that have to be sorted out by the voters of Texas.

One of the biggest differences between me and my opponent is that I believe with all my heart that we must have universal health care, that we must do everything possible, finally, to realize the dream of Democratic presidents going back to Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Now is the time when we will achieve this goal. We cannot give up on it; we cannot back down from it. Senator Obama won't come forward with a universal health care plan, but I have, I will, and with your help we will achieve universal health care in America.

(APPLAUSE)

Another difference is that I want to stop the foreclosures of peoples' homes. I want to give people a chance to work out a way to stay in their homes.

The home is the most important refuge that any of us have, isn't it? And too many people are being forced out of their homes across Texas because of abusive mortgage practices, predatory lending.

And it's not just affecting the people who lose their homes; it's affecting the people who live next door or down the street, because a vacant home lowers property values for everyone.

So I have been saying let's have a moratorium. Let's freeze interest rates. This is a very big deal, because we can't fix the economy if our home market doesn't start working again.

(APPLAUSE)

And so I was somewhat amused today when President Bush and his secretary of the treasury said they were actually going to do some of what I've been urging them to do for several months. Let's try to save people's homes.

I am a problem-solver. I believe that we need a president, starting on day one, who's going to roll up his or her sleeves and get to work.

(APPLAUSE)

Because I want you to imagine for a minute what is waiting for our next president in the Oval Office in the White House. You know, on January 20, 2009, our next president will be sworn in. And waiting on that desk in the Oval Office are two wars -- two wars -- an economy in trouble, a health care system that is not taking care of people, an energy reliance on unstable regimes, and all of the problems that comes from that.

So many of these challenges are going to be just sitting there, waiting for the next president. And some people say, "Well, there's going to be a lot of work to do." Well, there is going to be a lot of work to do, but are we up to doing that work and taking our country back?

(APPLAUSE)

Now, I am so excited to be making this campaign, but I can't do it without all of you. I need you here in El Paso and across Texas to stand up for me, because...

(APPLAUSE)

... because if we stand up together, if we work together, if we fight together, we will take back America, and we will make history together.

Thank you all, and God bless you.

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan]

John McCain's Remarks on Feb. 12 Primaries

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:55:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

Transcript
John McCain's Remarks on Feb. 12 Primaries

The Candidates React -- McCain

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) addresses his supporters from Alexandria, Va. after Tuesday's Potomac primary election results filter in.

CQ Transcripts Wire
Tuesday, February 12, 2008; 10:22 PM

MCCAIN: I brought a couple of friends up from Florida that wanted to have some nice weather.

(LAUGHTER)

The reason why they came -- and that is Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart...

(APPLAUSE)

The great governor of the state of Florida who says everyone here tonight is welcome for free at DisneyLand -- or DisneyWorld...

(LAUGHTER)

A free trip to DisneyWorld -- Governor Charlie Crist.

(APPLAUSE)

My dear friend, former governor, former senator, great man who will continue to contribute to the greatness of this nation, George Allen, and his wonderful wife.

(APPLAUSE)

My sister, Sandy, her husband, Henry, and my son, Doug, are here also.

Thank you for being here.

(APPLAUSE)

And, of course, I would just also like to mention someone you all know who began serving this country in World War II and then in Korea, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Great Senator and Great Comrade Senator John Warner.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to commend my friend, Governor Huckabee, whose spirited campaign, many gifts as a communicator and advocate and passionate supporters are a credit -- they are a credit to him and our party.

Can we hear it for Governor Mike Huckabee?

(APPLAUSE)

And, my friends, I've got to say: He certainly keeps things interesting...

(LAUGHTER)

Maybe a little too interesting at times tonight, I must confess. But I have even more reason to appreciate just how formidable a campaigner he is.

And thank you, my friends, for your support and all your hard work. We have come a long way in this campaign, and we have had our ups and downs. But luck -- as product of opportunity and industry -- would have it, we are approaching the end of the first half of this election on quite an upswing.

(APPLAUSE)

Without your faith and commitment, we would not be here, and I am immensely grateful to you.

But now, my friends, comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for president. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them.

(APPLAUSE)

They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger.

They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us.

They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of, "Trust me, I know better."

(APPLAUSE)

They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals; a world that can be made safer and more peaceful by placating our implacable foes and breaking faith with allies and the millions of people in this world for whom America, and the global progress of our ideals, has long been "the last, best hope of earth."

We will offer different ideas, based in a better understanding of the challenges we face and the resolve to confront them with confidence in the strength and ideals of free people.

(APPLAUSE)

We believe that Americans, not our detractors and certainly not our enemies, are on the right side of history. We trust in the strength, industry and goodness of the American people. We don't believe that government has all the answers. We believe that government must respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don't believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. We believe that what government is expected to do, what we cannot do for ourselves individually, it must be done with competence, resolve and wisdom.

The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs.

(APPLAUSE)

They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies.

They don't send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous, proud and free.

(APPLAUSE)

They don't send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America's strength and prosperity; that don't help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don't help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won't keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it.

They don't send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours; to do it better and with less of their money.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, the work we face in our time is great, but our opportunities greater still. In a time of war, and the terrible sacrifices it entails, the promise of a better future is not always clear.

But I promise you, my friends, we face no enemy, no matter how cruel, and no challenge, no matter how daunting, greater than the courage, patriotism and determination of Americans.

My friends, we are the makers of history, not its victims.

(APPLAUSE)

Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in our country.

(APPLAUSE)

My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

(APPLAUSE)

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy.

(LAUGHTER)

But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.

In that confrontation, I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity.

On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me.

(APPLAUSE)

I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world.

I intend to do that by fighting for the principles and policies I believe best serve the interests of the American people: for a government that takes and spends less of your money and competently discharges its responsibilities; that shows a proper respect for our rights and values; that provides a strong and capable defense; that encourages the enterprise and ingenuity of individuals, businesses and families, who know best how to advance America's economy, and secure the dreams that have made us the greatest nation in history.

As I have done my entire career, I will make my case to every American who will listen. I will not confine myself to the comfort of speaking only to those who agree with me. I will make my case to all the people. I will listen to those who disagree. I will attempt to persuade them. I will debate. And I will learn from them. But I will fight every moment of every day for what I believe is right for this country, and I will not yield.

(APPLAUSE)

And, my friends, I promise you, I am fired up and ready to go.

Thank you, and God bless you.

END

[End Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

LA 1-31 Debate: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:01:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan transmission.]

from CNN:

This is the transcript from Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sponsored by CNN, The Los Angles Times and Politico.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Let's begin with Senator Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILLINOIS: Wolf, thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

First of all, first of all, I want to acknowledge a candidate who left the race this week, John Edwards, who did such an outstanding job...

(APPLAUSE)

... elevating the issues of poverty and the plight of working families all across the country. And we wish him and Elizabeth well. He's going to be a voice for this party and for this country for many years to come.

I also want to note something that you noted at the beginning, which is that, when we started off, we had eight candidates on this stage. We now are down to two after 17 debates.

And, you know, it is a testimony to the Democratic Party and it is a testimony to this country that we have the opportunity to make history, because I think one of us two will end up being the next president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And I also want to note that I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign; I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over.

(APPLAUSE)

She has done -- she's run a -- we're running a competitive race, but it's because we both love this country, and we believe deeply in the issues that are at stake.

I believe we're at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war; our planet is in peril. Families all across the country are struggling with everything from back-breaking health care costs to trying to stay in their homes.

And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?

I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

OBAMA: And just to finish up, Wolf. And I think that, as we move forward in this debate, understand we are both Democrats and we understand the issues at stake. We want change from George Bush.

But we also have to have change that brings the country together, pushes back against the special interests in Washington, and levels with the American people about the difficult changes that we make. If we do that, I am confident that we can solve any problem and we can fulfill the destiny that America wants to see, not just next year, but in many years to come.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Clinton?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, D-NEW YORK: Well, on January 20, 2009, the next president of the United States will be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol. I, as a Democrat, fervently hope you are looking at that next president. Either Barack or I will raise our hand and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

CLINTON: And then, when the celebrations are over, the next president will walk into the Oval Office, and waiting there will be a stack of problems, problems inherited from a failed administration: a war to end in Iraq and a war to resolve in Afghanistan; an economy that is not working for the vast majority of Americans, but well for the wealthy and the well-connected; tens of millions of people either without health insurance at all or with insurance that doesn't amount to much, because it won't pay what your doctor or your hospital need...

(APPLAUSE)

... an energy crisis that we fail to act on at our peril; global warming, which the United States must lead in trying to contend with and reverse; and then all of the problems that we know about and the ones we can't yet predict.

It is imperative that we have a president, starting on day one, who can begin to solve our problems, tackle these challenges, and seize the opportunities that I think await.

I'm very grateful for the extraordinary service of John and Elizabeth Edwards.

CLINTON: And among the many contributions that they have made, both by their personal example of courage and leadership, is their reminder that in this land of such plenty and blessings, there are still 37 million Americans who are living below the poverty line and many others barely hanging on above.

So what we have to do tonight is to have a discussion about what each of us believes are the priorities and the goals for America. I think it's imperative we have a problem-solver, that we roll up our sleeves.

I'm offering that kind of approach, because I think that Americans are ready once again to know that there isn't anything we can't do if we put our minds to it.

So let's have that conversation.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

The first question will go to Doyle.

DOYLE MCMANUS, L.A. TIMES: Senator Clinton, your two campaigns have been going on for more than a year now and it's clear that the two of you have had different experiences in your lives. You have different styles.

But when most voters look at the two of you, they don't see a lot of daylight between you on policy.

So what I'd like to ask is: what do you consider the most important policy distinction between the two of you?

CLINTON: Well, I want to start by saying that whatever differences there are among us, between us now, it's hard to forget between -- we keep talking about all those who aren't here.

But the differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the differences that we have with Republicans, and I want to say that first and foremost, because it's really...

(APPLAUSE)

... a stark difference. But we do have differences and let me mention a couple. First, on health care. I believe absolutely passionately that we must have universal health care. It is a moral responsibility and a right for our country, and...

(APPLAUSE)

... and I have put forth a plan similar to what Senator Edwards had before he left the race that would move us to universal health care.

Secondly, I think it's imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.

I think when it comes to how we approach foreign affairs, in particular, I believe that we've got to be realistic and optimistic, but we start with realism in the sense that we do have serious threats, we do have those who are, unfortunately and tragically, plotting against us, posing dangers to us and our friends and our allies.

And I think that we've got to have a full diplomatic effort, but I don't think the president should put the prestige of the presidency on the line in the first year to have meetings with out preconditions with five of the worst dictators in the world.

So we have differences both at home and around the world, but, again, I would emphasize that what really is important here, because the Republicans were in California debating yesterday, they are more of the same.

Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same. We will change our country.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: We heard Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, define some of the differences on policy issues she sees between the two of you.

What do you see as the most significant policy differences between the two of you?

OBAMA: Well, I actually think that a couple of the ones that Hillary mentioned are genuine policy differences that are worthy of debate.

Let's take health care. About 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance.

We both want to emphasize prevention, because we've got to do something about ever escalating costs and we don't want children, who I meet all the time, going to emergency rooms for treatable illnesses like asthma.

It is true we've got a policy difference, because my view is that the reason people don't have health care, and I meet them all the time, in South Carolina, a mother whose child has cerebral palsy and could not get insurance for and started crying during a town hall meeting, and Hillary, I'm sure, has had the same experiences.

What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.

Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.

OBAMA: I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.

On the mortgage crisis...

(APPLAUSE)

On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It's a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.

I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.

I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.

So, some of the people that we want to protect could end up being hurt by such a plan.

Now, keep in mind, the one thing I suspect that Senator Clinton and I agree on. Part of the reason we are in this mortgage mess is because there's been complete lack of oversight on the part of the Bush administration.

(APPLAUSE)

The mortgage lending industry spent $185 billion -- $185 million lobbying to prevent provisions that go against predatory lending, for example, that I introduced.

Which brings me to another difference. I believe that it is very important for us to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

I think that a lot of issues that both Senator Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year -- some of the toughest since Watergate -- and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign. That's why I don't take federal PAC and federal lobbyist money. That is a difference.

And the last point I'll make is on Iraq. Senator Clinton brought this up.

I was opposed to Iraq from the start.

(APPLAUSE)

And that -- and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.

It is true that I want to elevate diplomacy so that it is part of our arsenal to serve the American people's interests and to keep us safe.

And I have disagreed with Senator Clinton on, for example, meeting with Iran. I think, and the national intelligence estimate, the last report suggested that if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior. And we can do so in a way that does not ultimately cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hurt our reputation around the world.

BLITZER: Those are three important issues...

(APPLAUSE)

... that you both have defined where there are some differences -- health care, the housing crisis, national security, Iraq, Iran. We're going to go through all of those issues over the course of this debate.

But let's start with health care, because this is a critical issue affecting millions and millions of Americans. And, Jeanne, you have a question on that.

JEANNE CUMMINGS, POLITICO: You both mentioned that health care is a priority for your party, but the truth is that most Democrats really do want full coverage, everybody covered.

Now, Senator Obama, this is a question for you. Under your plan, which is voluntary, it creates incentives for people to buy, but still is voluntary. There would be around -- about 15 million people who would still not be covered.

Now, why is your plan superior to hers?

OBAMA: Well, understand who we're talking about here. Every expert who looks at it says anybody who wants health care will be able to get health care under my plan. There won't be anybody out there who wants health care who will not be able to get it. That's point number one.

So the estimate is -- this is where the 15 million figure comes in -- is that there are 15 million people who don't want health care. That's the argument.

Now, first of all, I dispute that there are 15 million people out there who don't want it. I believe that there are people who can't afford it, and if we provide them enough subsidies, they will purchase it. Number one.

Number two, I mandate coverage for all children.

Number three, I say that young people, who are the most likely to be healthy but think they are invulnerable -- and decide I don't need health care -- what I'm saying is that insurance companies and my plan as well will allow people up to 25 years old to be covered under their parents' plan.

So, as a consequence, I don't believe that there will be 15 million out there.

OBAMA: Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.

And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?

You know, those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Clinton, this is a substantive difference on health care between the two of you. Go ahead and respond.

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying that this is the passionate cause of my public service.

I started trying to expand health care many years ago, first to children, then to rural areas in Arkansas, and obviously tackled it during my husband's administration. And the reason why I have designed a plan that, number one, tells people, if you have health insurance and you are happy with it, nothing changes, is because we want to maximize choice for people.

So, if you are satisfied, you're not one of the people who will necessarily, at this time, take advantage of what I'm offering. But if you are uninsured or underinsured, we will open the congressional health plan to you.

And contrary to...

(APPLAUSE)

Contrary to the description that Barack just gave, we actually will make it affordable for everyone, because my plan lowers costs aggressively, which is important for us all; improves quality for everyone, which is essential. And the way it covers all of those who wish to participate in the congressional plan is that it will provide subsidies, and it will also cap premiums, something that is really important, because we want to make sure that it is affordable for all.

So, when you draw the distinction that, "Well, it's not affordable, therefore people will have to be made to get it," well, the fact is, it has been designed to be affordable with health care tax credits.

And it's also important to recognize that right now, there are people who could afford health care, and they are not all young, they're people who just don't feel they have to accept that responsibility. There are many states which give families the option of keeping children up until 25 on their policies, but their rates of uninsurance are still very high.

We cannot get to universal health care, which I believe is both a core Democratic value and imperative for our country, if we don't do one of three things. Either you can have a single payer system, or -- which, I know, a lot of people favor, but for many reasons, is difficult to achieve. Or, you can mandate employers. Well, that's also very controversial. Or, you can do what I am proposing, which is to have shared responsibility.

Now, in Barack's plan, he very clearly says he will mandate that parents get health insurance for their children. So it's not that he is against mandatory provisions, it's that he doesn't think it would be politically acceptable to require that for everyone.

I just disagree with that. I think we as Democrats have to be willing to fight for universal health care.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've concluded, when I was looking at this -- because I got the same kind of advice, which was, it's controversial, you'll run into all of this buzz saw, and I said, been there, done that. But if you don't start by saying, you're going to achieve universal health care, you will be nibbled to death.

And I think it's imperative that, as we move forward in this debate and into the campaign, that we recognize what both John Edwards and I did, that you have to bite this bullet. You have to say, yes, we are going to try to get universal health care. What I have designed makes it affordable, provides premium caps so it's never

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Obama, let me just fine-tune the question, because I know you want to respond.

On this issue of mandates, those who don't, whether it's 10 million or 15 million, those who could afford it but don't wind up buying health insurance for one reason or another, they wind up getting sick, they go to an emergency room, all of us wind up paying for their health care. That's the biggest criticism that's been leveled at your plan.

OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

But understand that, number one, Hillary says that she's got enough subsidies. Well, we priced out both our plan and Senator Clinton's plan, and some of the subsidies are not going to be sufficient. Point number one.

OBAMA: Point number two is that I am actually not interested in just capping premiums. I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it.

I can't tell you how many folks I meet who have premiums that are so high that essentially they don't have health insurance, they have house insurance. What they do is...

(APPLAUSE)

... they have a $10,000 deductible, or what have you, to try to reduce costs. They never go to a doctor. And that ends up something that we pay for, so I'm trying to reduce premiums for all families.

But the last point I want to make has to do with how we're going to actually get this plan done. You know, Ted Kennedy said that he is confident that we will get universal health care with me as president, and he's been working on it longer than I think about than anybody.

But he's gone through 12 of these plans, and each time they have failed. And part of the reason, I think, that they have failed is we have not been able to bring Democrats, Republicans together to get it done.

(APPLAUSE)

That's what I did in Illinois, to provide insurance for people who did not have it. That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.

(APPLAUSE)

Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who -- Senator Clinton is right. They will resist anything that we try to do. My plan, her plan, they will try to resist.

And the antidote to that is making sure that the American people understand what is at stake. I am absolutely committed to making sure that anybody in America who needs health care is going to get it.

BLITZER: I just want to be precise, and I'll let Senator Clinton respond. But you say broadcast on C-SPAN these deliberations. Is that a swipe at Senator Clinton because...

OBAMA: No, it's not a swipe. This is something that I've been talking about consistently. What I want to do is increase transparency and accountability to offset the power of the special interests and the lobbyists.

(APPLAUSE)

If a drug company -- if the drug companies or a member of Congress who's carrying water for the drug companies wants to argue that we should not negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs, then I want them to make that argument in front of the American people.

And I will have experts who explain that, in fact, it is legitimate for drug companies to make profits, but they are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, we remember in '93, when you were formulating your health care plan, it was done in secret.

CLINTON: Well, it was an effort to try to begin this conversation, which we're now continuing. It has been a difficult conversation. There have been a lot of efforts.

And I'm proud that one of the efforts I was involved in 10 years ago resulted in the Children's Health Insurance Program. We now have a million children in California...

(APPLAUSE)

... who every month get health insurance because of that bipartisan effort. We obviously are running into the presidential veto and not being able to expand it.

But this issue is so important, and I just want to underscore three really critical points.

First of all, I have said in my plan that we have to regulate the health insurance industry differently. We have to say to them that they can no longer deny coverage to anyone and they have to cover everyone, including every pre-existing condition.

(APPLAUSE)

And they have to compete on cost and quality, instead of the way they compete now, which is to try to cherry-pick people, and only insure the healthy, and make it so costly for people with diabetes or cancer or some other chronic condition.

Secondly, we've got to make it clear to the drug companies that they do deserve to be part of the solution, because we all benefit from the life-saving remedies they come up with, but we pay for it many times over.

It is American taxpayers who pay for the research. It is American taxpayers who pay for a lot of the clinical studies. That's why, while we're looking at getting to universal health care, we also have to give Medicare the right to negotiate with drug companies to get the price down, to begin to rein in those costs across the board.

(APPLAUSE)

And, finally, it is so important that, as Democrats, we carry the banner of universal health care. The health insurance industry is very clever and extremely well-funded.

I know this. I had $300 million of incoming advertising and attacks during our efforts back in '93 and '94. And one of the reasons why I've designed the plan that I have put forward now is because I learned a lot about what people want, what people are willing to accept, and how we get the political process to work.

CLINTON: And, certainly, it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose, because what happens is we have to have a coalition.

And I think the plan that I have proposed is if you take business, which pays the costs and wants to get those costs down, take labor that has to negotiate over health care instead of wages, take doctors, nurses, hospitals who want to get back into the business of taking care of people instead of working for insurance companies, I think we will have a coalition that can withstand the health insurance...

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: ... and the drug companies.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

CLINTON: And that's what I intend to do.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. The next question, a related question, from Doyle.

MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.

Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.

How are you going to counter that charge?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion...

(APPLAUSE)

... worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.

If John McCain, for example, is the nominee, I respect that John McCain, in the first two rounds of Bush tax cuts, said it is irresponsible that we have never before cut taxes at the same time as we're going into war.

And somewhere along the line, the straight talk express lost some wheels and now he is in favor of extending Bush tax cuts that went to some of the wealthiest Americans who don't need them and we're not even asking for them.

So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention.

So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent -- or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money.

We can conservatively save...

(APPLAUSE)

... $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it.

Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.

Now...

(APPLAUSE)

So my plan is paid for. But one thing that I think we're going to have to do as Democrats when we go after the Republicans is -- the question is not tax cuts, tax hikes. The question is who are the tax cuts for, who are the tax hikes imposed upon.

What we have had right now is a situation where we've cut taxes for people who don't need them. Warren Buffett has said, "You know, I made $46 million last year. It was a bad year for me. But I can still afford to pay more than my secretary, who has a higher tax rate than I do."

That is not fair and I want to change that.

We've got $1 trillion worth of corporate tax loopholes and tax havens and I've said I will close those and I will give tax cuts to people making $75,000 or less by offsetting their payroll tax. Senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, we want to eliminate taxes for them.

So the question is can we restore a sense of balance to our economy and make sure that those of us who are blessed and fortunate and have thrived in this economy, in this global economy, that we can afford to pay a little bit more so that that child in east Los Angeles who is in a crumbling school, with teachers that are having to dig into their own pockets for school supplies, that they are having a chance at the American dream, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm happy to have that argument.

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, your health care plan, it is estimated, will cost $110 billion annually. You want to tax the rich to pay for that, is that what you're saying?

CLINTON: Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year. That would raise about $55 billion and I would put that into the subsidies for the health care tax credit, so that people would be able to afford the health care that we are offering.

The other $55 billion would come from the modernization and the efficiencies that I believe we can obtain. We spend more money than anybody in the world on health care and there is no end in sight.

CLINTON: Yet, we don't get the best results. We don't have the longest life span. We don't have the best infant mortality rates.

We could do so much better. And here are some of the ideas that I have put on the table.

Number one, the Bush administration has given enormous tax giveaways to HMOs and drug companies under the Medicare prescription Part D program, under the HMO program in Medicare. I would rein those in. They are not being earned. They do not produce the results that are supposedly being touted by the Bush administration.

I would also move for electronic medical records, something that I have worked on for nearly five years on a bipartisan basis. Started with Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. We passed my legislation through the Senate a year ago. Didn't get it through the Republican House. Now we're going to try again in the Democratic Congress.

If we had electronic medical records, according to RAND Corporation -- hardly a bastion of liberal thinking...

(LAUGHTER)

... they have said we would save $77 billion a year. That money can be put into prevention. It could be put into chronic care management. It can be put into making sure that our health care system has enough access so that if you are in a rural community somewhere in California or somewhere in Tennessee or somewhere in Georgia, you'll have access to health care. If you are in an inner- city area and you see your hospital, like the Drew Medical Center, closed on you, then you are going to have a place once again where you can get health care in the immediate area.

So we can begin to be more effective and more sensible about how we cover everybody, and use the money from the top-end tax cults and from modernizing the system.

BLITZER: Jeanne has a question on a different subject...

(APPLAUSE)

... but I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: And look...

BLITZER: And you are willing to go into...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely.

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd -- it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd -- potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more.

But as I said, you know, we have, I believe, a moral obligation to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get health care in this country.

And one last point I want to make. We will have to make some upfront costs. That's why in either of our plans, you know, if we want to invest in electronic medical records, then we have got to go to rural hospitals who might not be able to afford it and say, we're going to help you buy the computer software and the machinery to make sure that this works.

But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: But Wolf, it's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period.

(APPLAUSE)

And they will keep doing really well.

BLITZER: All right, Jeanne?

CUMMINGS: On immigration. The Republicans have had a pretty fierce debate over immigration. And it's now pretty clear that that's going to be an issue for you all, as well, not just in the general, but it's bubbled up in some of the primaries. And it's a divisive issue for you all, as it is for the Republicans. And that was pretty evident when we got a question through Politico.

This is from Kim Millman (ph) from Burnsville, Minnesota. And she says, "there's been no acknowledgement by any of the presidential candidates of the negative economic impact of immigration on the African-American community. How do you propose to address the high unemployment rates and the declining wages in the African-American community that are related to the flood of immigrant labor?"

Senator Obama, you want to go first on that? And it's for both of you.

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all say that I have worked on the streets of Chicago as an organizer with people who have been laid off from steel plants, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and, you know, all of them are feeling economically insecure right now, and they have been for many years. Before the latest round of immigrants showed up, you had huge unemployment rates among African-American youth.

And, so, I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in, I do not subscribe to.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is where we do have a very real difference with the other party.

OBAMA: I believe that we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

Now, there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.

I also believe that we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation, hiring folks who cannot complain about worker conditions, who aren't getting the minimum wage sometimes, or aren't getting overtime. We have to crack down on them. I also believe we have to give a pathway to citizenship after they have paid a fine and learned English, to those who are already here, because if we don't, they will continue to undermine U.S. wages.

But let's understand more broadly that the economic problems that African-Americans are experiencing, whites are experiences, blacks and Latinos are experiencing in this country are all rooted in the fact that we have had an economy out of balance. We've had tax cuts that went up instead of down. We have had a lack of investment in basic infrastructure in this country. Our education system is chronically underfunded.

(APPLAUSE)

And so, there are a whole host of reasons why we have not been generating the kinds of jobs that we are generating. We should not use immigration as a tactic to divide. Instead, we should pull the country together to get this economy back on track.

That's what I intend to do as president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Clinton, we're going to stay on this subject, but Doyle has a follow-up.

MCMANUS: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama has said that he favors allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses, and you oppose that idea.

Why?

CLINTON: Well, let me start with the original question from Kim, because I think it deserves an answer.

I believe that in many parts of our country, because of employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages, there are job losses. And I think we should be honest about that.

(APPLAUSE)

There are people who have been pushed out of jobs and factories and meat processing plants, and all kinds of settings. And I meet them.

You know, I was in Atlanta last night, and an African-American man said to me, "I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation." So, I know that what we have to do is to bring our country together to have a comprehensive immigration reform solution.

(APPLAUSE)

That is the answer. And it is important that we make clear to Kim and people who are worried about this that that is actually in the best interests of those who are concerned about losing their jobs or already have.

Because if we can tighten our borders, if we can crack down on employer who exploit workers, both those who are undocumented and those who are here as citizens, or legal, if we can do more to help local communities cope with the cost that they often have to contend with, if we do more to help our friends to the south create more jobs for their own people, and if we take what we know to be the realities that we confront -- 12 to 14 million people here, what will we do with them?

Well, I hear the voices from the other side of the aisle. I hear voices on TV and radio. And they are living in some other universe, talking about deporting people, rounding them up.

I don't agree with that, and I don't think it's practical. And therefore, what we've got to do is to say, come out of the shadows. We will register everyone. We will check, because if you have committed a crime in this country or the country you came from, then you will not be able to stay, you will have to be deported.

But for the vast majority of people who are here, we will give you a path to legalization if you meet the following condition: pay a fine because you entered illegally, be willing to pay back taxes over time, try to learn English -- and we have to help you do that, because we've cut back on so many of those services -- and then you wait in line.

That not only is, I think, the best way to approach the problem of our 12 million to 14 million who are here, but that also says to Kim, Kim, this is the best answer, as well, because once we have those conditions met, and people agree, then, they will not be in a labor market that undercuts anybody else's wages.

BLITZER: Senator...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And therefore, it's imperative we approach it this way, only after people have agreed to these conditions, Doyle, and that they have been willing to say, yes, they will meet those conditions, do I think we ought to talk about privileges like drives' licenses? Because otherwise, I think you will further undermine the labor market for people like the ones Kim is referring to.

CLINTON: We need to solve this problem, not exacerbate it. And that's what intend to do as president.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. All right, we have a follow-up.

Senator Obama, in an interview with CNN this week, you said this. You said, quote, "I stood up for a humane and intelligent immigration policy in a way that, frankly, none of my other opponents did." What did you mean by that?

OBAMA: Well, what I meant was that, when this issue came up -- not driver's licenses, but comprehensive immigration reform generally -- I worked with Ted Kennedy. I worked with Dick Durbin. I worked with John McCain, although he may not admit it now...

(LAUGHTER)

... to move this issue forward aggressively. And it's a hard political issue. Let's be honest. This is not an issue that polls well. But I think it is the right thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

And I think we have to show leadership on the issue. And it is important for us, I believe, to recognize that the problems that workers are experiencing generally are not primarily caused by immigration. There is...

BLITZER: Are you suggesting that Senator Clinton's policy was not, in your words, "humane"?

OBAMA: That is -- what I said was that we have to stand up for these issues when it's tough, and that's what I've done.

I did it when I was in the state legislature, sponsoring the Illinois version of the DREAM Act, so that children who were brought here through no fault of their own are able to go to college, because we actually want well-educated kids in our country...

(APPLAUSE)

... who are able to -- who are able to succeed and become part of this economy and part of the American dream.

BLITZER: Was she lacking on that front?

OBAMA: Wolf, you keep on trying to push on this issue.

BLITZER: I'm just trying to find out what you mean.

OBAMA: There are those who were opposed to this issue, and there have been those who have flipped on the issue and have run away from the issue. This wasn't directed particularly at Senator Clinton. But the fact of the matter is I have stood up consistently on this issue.

On the driver's license issue, I don't actually want -- I don't believe that we're going to have to deal with this if we have comprehensive immigration reform, because, as I said before, people don't come here to drive. They come here to work.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we have signed up them -- if we have registered them, if they have paid a fine, if they are learning English, if they are going to the back of the line, if we fix our legal immigration system, then I believe we will not have this problem of undocumented workers in this country, because people will be able to actually go on a pathway to citizenship.

That, I think, is the right approach for African-Americans; I think it's the right approach for Latinos; I think it's a right approach for white workers here in the United States.

BLITZER: I want to let Senator Clinton respond. But were you missing in action when Senator Obama and Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy started formulating comprehensive immigration reform?

CLINTON: Well, actually, I co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004 before Barack came to the Senate.

(APPLAUSE)

So I've been on record on behalf of this for quite some time.

And representing New York, the homeland with the Statue of Liberty, bringing all of our immigrants to our shores, has been not only an extraordinary privilege, but given me the opportunity to speak out on these issues.

When the House of Representatives passed the most mean-spirited provision that said, if you were to give any help whatsoever to someone here illegally, you would commit a crime, I stood up and said that would have criminalized the Good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself.

I have been on record on this against this kind of demagoguery, this mean-spiritedness.

And, you know, it is something that I take very personally, because I have not only worked on behalf of immigrants; I have been working to make conditions better for many years.

(APPLAUSE)

I was so honored to get the farm workers endorsement last week, because for so many years I have stood with farm workers who do some of the hardest work there is anywhere in our country.

So we may be looking at the immigration reform issue as a political issue, and it certainly has been turned into one by those who I think are undermining the values of America.

It is a serious question. We have to fix this broken system. But let's do it in a practical, realistic approach. Let's bring people together. And I think, as president, I can.

You know, I've been going to town halls all over America, and I see the people out there, thousands of them who come to hear me, and they're nervous about immigration, and for the reasons that the economy isn't working for people.

The average American family has lost $1,000 in income. They're looking for some explanation as to why this is happening. And they edge or a real amount of anxiety in their voice.

And then I ask them, well, what would you do?

CLINTON: If you want to round up into four people, how many tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officials would that take?"

BLITZER: All right.

CLINTON: And how much authority would they have to be given to knock on every door of every business and every home? I don't think Americans would stand for that.

BLITZER: Senator, Senator...

CLINTON: So we have to get realistic and practical about this.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Senator, why not, then, if you're that passionate about it, let them get driver's licenses?

CLINTON: Well, we disagree on this. I do not think that it is either appropriate to give a driver's license to someone who is here undocumented, putting them, frankly, at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally, and I believe it is a diversion from what should be the focus at creating a political coalition with the courage to stand up and change the immigration system.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: The only point I would make is Senator Clinton gave a number of different answers over the course of six weeks on this issue, and that did appear political.

Now, at this point, she's got a clearer position, but it took a whole and...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well...

OBAMA: I'm just being -- just in fairness. Initially, in a debate, you said you were for it. Then you said you were against it. And the only reason I bring that up is to underscore the fact that this is a difficult political issue.

From my perspective, I agree with Bill Richardson that there is a public safety concern here and that we're better off, because I don't want a bunch of hit-and-run drivers, because they're worried about being deported and so they don't report an accident. That is a judgment all.

(APPLAUSE)

But I do think it is important to recognize that this can be tough and the question is who is going to tackle this problem and solve it.

Many of the solutions that Senator Clinton just talked about are solutions that I agree with, that I've been working on for many years, and my suspicion is whatever our differences, we're going to have big differences with the Republicans, but I think a practical, common sense solution to the problem is what the American people are looking for.

CLINTON: Well, I just have to correct the record for one second, because, obviously, we do agree about the need to have comprehensive immigration reform.

And if I recall, about a week after I said that I would try to support my governor, although I didn't agree with it personally, you

So this is a difficult issue and both of us have to recognize...

(APPLAUSE)

... that it is not something that we easily come to, because we share a lot of the same values.

OBAMA: I agree.

CLINTON: We want to -- we want to be fair to people. We want to respect the dignity of every human being, every person who is here. But we are trying to work our way through to get to where we need to be and that is to have a united Democratic Party, with fair-minded Republicans who will join us to fix this broken immigration system.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. We're going to talk a lot more about this. We're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about. You can follow all of the action, by the way, on cnnpolitics.com and there's a lively dialogue going on there right now, cnnpolitics.com.

We'll take a quick break. We'll pick up with two issues, experience and character, and then move on to a lot more right after.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OBAMA: ... Americans disagree.

(APPLAUSE)

And think that we need to move forward with new leadership. So that's why we are having this contest.

You know, I have spent my entire adult life trying to bring about change in this country. I started off as a community organizer, working on the streets of Chicago, providing job training and after- school programs and economic development for neighborhoods that have been devastated by steel plants that had closed.

I worked as a civil rights attorney, turning down lucrative corporate jobs to provide justice for those who had been denied on the job on at the ballot box.

(APPLAUSE)

I worked as a state legislator for years, providing health care to people who did not have it, reforming a death penalty system that was broken, providing tax relief to those who needed it.

And in the United States Senate, I worked on everything from nuclear proliferation to issues of alternative energy.

And in each instance, what I found is that the leadership that's needed is the ability to bring people together, who otherwise don't see anything in common. The ability to overcome the special interests. And I passed both in Washington in Illinois comprehensive ethics reform that opened up government so that the American people could be involved. And talking straight to the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and putting in the hard work of negotiations to get stuff done.

So I respect Senator Clinton's record. I think it's a terrific record. But I also believe that the skills that I have are the ones that are needed right now to move the country forward.

CLINTON: And I really spent a great deal of my early adulthood, you know, bringing people together to help solve the problems of those who were without a voice and were certainly powerless.

I was honored to be appointed by President Carter to the Legal Services Corporation, which I chaired, and we grew that corporation from 100 million to 300 million. It is the primary vehicle by which people are given access to our courts when they have civil problems that need to be taken care of.

You know, I've run projects that provided aid for prisoners in prisons. I helped to reform the education system in Arkansas and expand rural health care. And I've had a lot of varied experiences, both in the private sector, as well as the public, and the not-for- profit sector.

And certainly during the eight years that I was privileged to be in the White House, I had a great deal of responsibility that was given to me to not only work on domestic issues, like health care -- and when we weren't successful on universal health care, I just turned around and said, well, we're going to get the Children's Health Insurance Program. And I'm so proud we do, because now six million children around the country every month get health care. And I took on the drug companies to make sure that they would test drugs to see if they were safe and effective for our kids.

And began to change the adoption and foster care system. Here in California, because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we have three times more children being adopted out of foster care.

(APPLAUSE)

And certainly the work that I was able to do around the world, going to more than 82 countries, negotiating with governments like Macedonia to open their border again, to let Kosovar refugees in. Speaking on behalf of women's rights as human rights in Beijing, to send a message across the world that this is critical of who we are as Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

And to go to the Senate and to begin to work across the party lines with people who honestly never thought they would work with me. But I believe public service is a trust. And I get up every day trying to make change in people's lives.

And today we have 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done. Really positive change in people's lives, in real ways, that I am very proud of.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Jeanne Cummings of Politico, go ahead.

CUMMINGS: Well, we've got a question on this that's come in on politico.com, and it echoes, I think, a message that you all might be fighting up against if Mitt Romney turns out to be your opponent come the fall. We've talked about McCain, now we have Romney's strengths to address.

Now, Howard Meyerson (ph) of Pasadena, California, says he views the country as a very large business, and neither one of you have ever run a business. So, why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?

CLINTON: Well, I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business. It is a trust.

(APPLAUSE)

It is the most complicated organization. But it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country.

And with all due respect, we have a president who basically ran as the CEO, MBA president, and look what we got. I am not too happy about the results.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Let me -- let me just also point out that, you know, Mitt Romney hasn't gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

And so, I'm happy to take a look at my management style during the course of this last year and his. I think they compare fairly well.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Go ahead, Doyle.

MCMANUS: I want to switch to a different theme.

Senator Clinton, this week, as you know, Senator Obama was endorsed by Senator Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy. And they both argued that the country is ready for a new generation of leaders, and they said Barack Obama, like John F. Kennedy in 1960, is that kind of leader.

How do you respond to that?

CLINTON: Well, I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family. And I'm proud to have three of Senator Robert Kennedy's children, Bobby and Kathleen and Kerry, supporting me. But what I this is...

(APPLAUSE)

What I think is exciting is that the way we are looking at the Democratic field, now down to the two of us is, is we're going to get big change. We're going to have change. I think having the first woman president would be a huge change for America and the world.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: But, of course, despite the enthusiasm of our supporters or our endorsers -- and we're both proud of everyone who has come to be part of our campaign -- this is about the two of us.

You have to, as voters, determine who you think can be the best president, to tackle all those problems on day one, waiting in the Oval Office, who can be the best nominee for the Democratic Party to be able to withstand whatever they decide to do on the other side of the aisle, and come out victorious.

But, ultimately, this is really about the American people. It's about your lives. It's about your jobs, your health care, whether you can afford to send your children to college, whether you'll be able to withstand the pressure of the rising interest rates on a home foreclosure that might come your way, and whether we're going to once again be proud of our country, and our leadership, and our moral authority in the world.

And so I think that, as we look at these upcoming contests -- 22 of them now on Tuesday -- really, every voter should be looking and examining what they want out of the next president.

What are the criteria that you have for determining who you will vote for, what you think our country needs, what you and your family are really looking for? And then you evaluate the two of us, because no one else will be on the ballot.

This is a very exciting and humbling experience, I think I can say for both of us.

BLITZER: All right. Senator...

CLINTON: Neither one of us would have either predicted -- you know, not very long ago -- we would be sitting here. And it is a great tribute to the Democratic Party and to America.

(APPLAUSE)

But now we have to decide who would be the best president.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Obama, I want you to respond, but also in the context of this. A lot of Democrats remember the eight years of the Clinton administration, a period of relative peace and prosperity, and they remember it fondly.

Are they right? Should they be remembering those eight years with pleasure?

OBAMA: Well, I think there's no doubt that there were good things that happened during those eight years of the Clinton administration. I think that's undeniable.

Look, we're all Democrats. And, particularly, when looked through the lens of the last eight years with George Bush, they look even better.

(LAUGHTER)

So I don't want to diminish some of the accomplishments that occurred during those eight years. And I absolutely agree with Senator Clinton, that ultimately each of us have to be judged on our own merits.

All of us have endorsers, and ultimately you've got to take a look and see: Who do you want in that White House?

I do think that there was something that happened, and we've been seeing it all across the country. We saw it at the event with Senator Kennedy. We are bringing in a whole generation of new voters...

(APPLAUSE)

... which I think is exciting. And part of the task, I believe, of leadership is the hard nuts-and-bolts of getting legislation passed and managing the bureaucracy, but part of it is also being able to call on the American people to reach higher, to say we shouldn't settle for an economy that does very well for some, but leaves millions of people behind.

We should not accept a school in South Carolina that was built in the 1800s, where kids are having to learn in trailers, and every time the railroad goes by the tracks, the building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching.

We should not accept a foreign policy that has seen our respect diminish around the world and has not made us more safe.

(APPLAUSE)

So the question is -- part of the question is: Who can work the levers of power more effectively? Part of the question is also: Who can inspire the American people to get re-engaged in their government again, push back the special interests, reduce the influence of lobbyists?

And that is something that I have worked on all my life and we are seeing in this campaign. And one of the things I'm thrilled with -- and this is good news for Democrats...

BLITZER: All right.

OBAMA: ... every single election that we've had so far in this contest you've seen the number of people participating in the Democratic primary double.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that's not all due to me. Senator Clinton is attracting enthusiasm and support, as well. But I can say, for example, in Iowa, about 60 percent of those new voters voted for me.

And that, I think, changes the electoral map in such a way where we're going to have more people ready to move forward on the agendas that we all agree with. That's part of the leadership I want to provide as president.

BLITZER: We have a follow-up question from Jeanne.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Well, Senator Obama mentioned the generational issue. And when we look at returns and exit polls, there is something going on there. And we've got a question along those lines from Karen Roper (ph) from Pickens, South Carolina.

CUMMINGS: She asks to you: "Senator Clinton, that you have claimed that your presidency would bring change to America. I'm 38 years old and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ticket.

"How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?"

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at the time.

But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. We come forward to the American public and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine.

We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself.

And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged or disadvantaged. I'm very proud of my husband's administration. I think that there were a lot of good things that happened and those good things really changed people's lives.

The trajectory of change during those eight years went from deficits and debt to a balanced budget and a surplus, all those 22 million new jobs and the...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the hopefulness that people brought with them. And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right, Senators, stand by. We're going to take another quick break. We have a lot more to go through. Remember, you can go to cnnpolitics.com and you can monitor what's going on. There's a lively discussion going on at cnnpolitics.com right now.

We'll take a short break. Much more of this Democratic presidential debate right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're at the Kodak Theatre here in Los Angeles. Thousands of people are outside, Hillary Clinton supporters, Barack Obama supporters. We're continuing this presidential debate right now.

The next question goes to Doyle McManus.

MCMANUS: A question about the issue of Iraq.

Senator Clinton, you've both called for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, but Senator Obama says he wants all combat troops out within 16 months of his inauguration and you haven't offered a specific end date.

Why shouldn't voters worry that your position could turn into an open-ended commitment?

CLINTON: Well, because, Doyle, I've been very clear in saying that I will begin to withdraw troops in 60 days. I believe that it will take me one to two brigades a month, depending on how many troops we have there, and that nearly all of them should be out within a year.

It is imperative, though, that we actually plan and execute this right. And you may remember last spring, I got into quite a back-and- forth with the Pentagon, because I was concerned they were not planning for withdrawal, because that was contrary to their strategy, or their stated position.

And I began to press them to let us know, and they were very resistant, and gave only cursory information to us.

So I've said that I will ask the Joint Chiefs and the secretary of defense and my security advisers the very first day I'm president, to begin to draw up such a plan so that we can withdraw.

But I just want to be very clear with people, that it's not only bringing our young men and women and our equipment out, which is dangerous. They have got to go down those same roads where they have been subjected to bombing and so much loss of life and injury. We have to think about what we're going to do with the more than 100,000 Americans civilians who are there, working for the embassy, working for businesses, working for charities.

And I also believe we've got to figure out what to do with the Iraqis who sided with us. You know, a lot of the drivers and translators saved so many of your young men and women's lives, and I don't think we can walk out on them without having some plan as to how to take care of those who are targeted.

At the same time, we have got to tell the Iraqi government there is no -- there is no more time. They are out of time. They have got to make the tough decisions they have avoided making. They have got to take responsibility for their own country.

(APPLAUSE)

And, you know, I think both Barack and I have tried in these debates -- and sometimes been pushed by some of our opponents -- to be as responsible as we can be, because we know that this president, based on what he said in the State of the Union, intends to leave at least 130,000, if not more, troops in Iraq as he exits. It's the most irresponsible abdication of what should be a presidential commitment to end what he started.

So, we will inherit it. And therefore, I will do everything I can to get as many of our troops out as quickly as possible, taking into account all of these contingencies that we're going to have to contend with once we are in charge and once we can get into the Pentagon to figure out what's really there and what's going on.

BLITZER: But you can't make a commitment, though, that 16 months after your inauguration will be enough time?

CLINTON: I certainly hope it will be. And I've said I hope to have nearly all of them out within a year.

BLITZER: Go ahead.

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So I have said very clearly: I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

When John McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that, I think, indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting potentially our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening.

OBAMA: And if we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

OBAMA: But the -- but I do think it is important for us to set a date. And the reason I think it is important is because if we are going to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are.

It can't be muddy, it can't be fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process. And I also think we've got to be very clear about what our mission is. And there may be a difference here between Senator Clinton and myself in terms of the four structures that we would leave behind.

Both of us have said that we would make sure that our embassies and our civilians are protected. Both of us have said that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million who have been displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously.

We both have said that we need to have a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq. But the one thing that I think is very important is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should have troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence.

If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that I think it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

And that's one of the reasons why I think I will be -- just to finish up this point, I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain, or any other Republican -- because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies -- because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.

That's the kind of leadership I'm going to provide as president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And of course...

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you.

CLINTON: Really?

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: We're having -- we're having such a good time.

OBAMA: I wouldn't call it a swipe.

CLINTON: We're having such a good time. We are. We are. We're having a wonderful time.

OBAMA: Yes, absolutely.

CLINTON: And I am so -- I am so proud to have the support of leaders like Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is here with us tonight, who was one of the -- who was one of the original conveners of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Because it is imperative that as we move forward, with what will be a very difficult process -- there are no good options here.

We have to untangle ourselves and navigate through some very treacherous terrain. And as we do so, it is absolutely clear to me that we have to send several messages at once.

Yes, we are withdrawing, and I personally believe that is the best message to send to the Iraqis. That they need to know that they have to get serious, because so far they have been under the illusion that the Bush administration and the Republicans who have more of the same will be there indefinitely.

And I also think it's important to send that message to the region, because I think that Iran, Syria, the other countries in the neighborhood, are going to find themselves in a very difficult position as we withdraw. You know, be careful what you wish for.

They will be dragged into what is sectarian divisiveness with many different factions among the three main groups. Therefore, we need to start diplomatic efforts immediately, getting the Iranians, the Syrians, and others to the table. It's in their interest, it's in our interest, and it certainly is in the Iraqis' interest. few debates ago -- we've had so many of them -- to join with me on legislation which he has agreed to do that's very important to prevent President Bush from committing our country to an ongoing presence in Iraq. That is something he is trying to push.

(APPLAUSE)

And we are pushing legislation to prevent him from doing that.

He has taken the view that I find absolutely indefensible, that he doesn't have to bring any such agreement about permanent bases, about ongoing occupation. And if Senator McCain is the nominee, 100 years as stretching forward, he doesn't have to bring that to the United States Congress. He only has to get the approval of the Iraqi parliament.

CLINTON: Well, we are saying absolutely no. And we're going to do everything we can to prevent him from binding any of us, going into the future, in a way that will undermine America's interests. So that's a critical issue.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: We have a follow-up question on this subject from Jeanne Cummings.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Senator Clinton, this one is for you. Judgment has been an issue that's been raised as part of this debate about Iraq. It's been raised by Senator Obama on a number of occasions.

And as this debate has gone on, more than half of the Politico readers have voted for this question, and it is, in effect, a judgment question. It comes from Howard Schumann (ph) from Phippsburg, Maine.

And he asks, "Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin amendment which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?"

CLINTON: Well, Howard, that's an important question. And the reason is because, although I believe strongly that we needed to put inspectors in, that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give President Bush the authority, put those inspectors in, let them do their work, figure out what is there and what isn't there.

And I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin. He's my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.

I did vote with Senator Byrd to limit the authority that was being given to President Bush to one year, and that also was not approved.

You know, I've said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given.

He abused that authority; he misused that authority. I warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today.

But I think now we have to look at how we go forward. There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy, and some are more committed than others, with Senator McCain's recent comments.

He's now accusing me of surrendering because I believe we should withdraw starting within 60 days of my becoming president. Well, that is a debate I welcome, because I think the Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation that we are confronting. And we have to continue to press that case.

It will be important, however, that our nominee be able to present both a reasoned argument against continuing our presence in Iraq and the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander-in- chief. That has to cross that threshold in the mind of every American voter.

The Republicans will try to put either one of us into the same box that, if we oppose this president's Iraq policy, somehow we cannot fully represent the interests of the United States, be commander-in- chief. I reject that out of hand, and I actually welcome that debate with whomever they nominate.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator? Look, I want you to respond, Senator, but also in the context of what we've heard from General David Petraeus, that there has been some progress made lately.

The number of U.S. casualties has gone down. There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught.

What do you say when you'll hear that argument?

OBAMA: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably.

But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point.

(APPLAUSE)

And I've said this before. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.

And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives.

OBAMA: Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.

So understand that this has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.

I am happy to have that argument. I also think it is going to be important, though, for the Democrat -- you know, Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy.

(APPLAUSE)

It was not just a problem of execution. It was not just a problem of execution.

I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.

And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond. Senator Clinton, you always say, if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York, in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten frontlines in the war against terror, that just, you know, just struck me so forcefully.

We have so many problems that we are going to have to untangle. And it will take everyone -- it will take a tremendous amount of effort.

But the one thing I'm convinced of is that, if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together an effective strategy to go after the terrorists -- because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore at our peril -- then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that's what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

BLITZER: So what I -- what I...

CLINTON: We need a president who will be sensitive to the implications of the use of force and understand that force should be a last resort, not a first resort.

BLITZER: So, what I hear you saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?

CLINTON: No, that's not what you heard me say.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

Good try, Wolf. Good try. You know...

BLITZER: Was she naive, Senator Obama? deserve to answer.

BLITZER: I thought you weren't going to answer.

CLINTON: You know, I think that, you know, that is a good try, Wolf.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator?

OBAMA: I don't want to -- I don't want to belabor this, because I know we're running out of time and I'm sure you guys want to move on to some other stuff, but I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

I think were very clear about that. That's the -- if you look at the headlines.

The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think, fairly, has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one.

(APPLAUSE)

And that the judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. You know, it's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world.

I mean, the terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real -- and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale.

That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

We're going to take a quick break and we're going to continue this. We have one more break to go through.

A lot more coming up, including questions involving character.

And remember, you can go to cnnpolitics.com and watch this online discussion that's being waged right now.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OBAMA: ... and, as a parent, yes, I am concerned about what's coming over the airwaves. Now, right now, my daughters mostly are on Nickelodeon, but they know how to work that remote.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, the primary responsibility is for parents. And I reject the notion of censorship as an approach to dealing with this problem.

(APPLAUSE)

I do think that it is important for us to make sure that we are giving parents the tools that they need in order to monitor what their children are watching. And, obviously, the problem we have now is not just what's coming over the airwaves, but what's coming over the Internet.

And so for us to develop technologies and tools and invest in those technologies and tools, to make sure that we are, in fact, giving parents power -- empowering parents I think is important.

The one other thing I will say is -- I don't mean to be insulting here -- but I do think that it is important for those in the industry to show some thought about who they are marketing some of these programs that are being produced to.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'm concerned about sex, but I'm also concerned, you know, some of the violent, slasher, horror films that come out, you see a trailer, and I'm thinking, "I don't want my 6-year-old or 9-year-old seeing that trailer while she's watching 'American Idol.'"

And sometimes you see that kind of stuff coming up. I think it is appropriate, in a cooperative way, to work with the industry to try to deal with that problem. And I intend to work in that fashion when I'm president of the United States of America.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

All right, we've got another question from Jeanne.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Well, since we've dealt with the kids, let's deal with the spouses for a second.

Senator Clinton...

CLINTON: He has a spouse, too.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Thankfully Michelle is not on stage. I'm sure she could tell some stories, as well.

CUMMINGS: Senator Clinton, your husband has set off several firestorms in the last few weeks in early primary states with the way that he has criticized Senator Obama.

CUMMINGS: Greg Craig, who was one of your husband's top lawyers campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Well, one thing I think is fair to say, both Barack and I have very passionate spouses...

OBAMA: We do, no doubt.

CLINTON: ... who promote and defend us at every turn.

You know, but the fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have made it very clear that I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues that I'm concerned about, the kind of future that I want for our country, the work that I have done for all of these years. And that is what the campaign is about.

And of course, I'm thrilled to have my husband and my daughter, who is here tonight, you know, representing me and traveling around the country...

(APPLAUSE)

... speaking with people, but at the end of the day, it's my name that is on the ballot, and it will be my responsibility as president and commander in chief, after consulting broadly with a lot of people who have something to contribute to difficult decisions, I will have to make the call. And I am fully prepared to do that.

And I know that as we go forward in this campaign, it's a choice between the two of us. And we are proud of our spouses, we're proud of our families, we're proud of everybody supporting us. But at the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House, and it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: This will be the last question. It will go to both of you, to Senator Obama first.

The more I speak to Democrats out there -- not only the Democrats here at the Kodak Theatre, but all over the country -- they take a look at the two of you and they see potentially a dream ticket. A dream ticket for the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

There may have been some nasty words exchanged or angry words or whatever, but the question is this: Would you consider an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket going down the road?

OBAMA: Well, obviously there's a big difference between those two.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

But, look, let me say this. And I said this at the top. I respect Senator Clinton. I think her service to this country has been extraordinary. And I'm glad that we've been walking on this road together and that we are still on that road.

We've got a lot more road to travel. And so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents, et cetera. I think it would be premature and presumptuous.

I can say this about -- about who I want not just as vice president but as a cabinet member. Part of what I would like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government.

(APPLAUSE)

And that means having people of the greatest excellence and competence. It means people with integrity. It means people with independence, who are willing to say no to me so, so that, you know, no more yes-men or women in the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

Because I'm not going to be right on every single issue.

But you know, it is really important, I think, for us also to give the American people this sense, as they are struggling with their mortgages and struggling with their health care and trying to figure out how to get their kids in a school that will teach them and prepare them and equip them for this century, that they get a sense that government's on their side, that government is listening to them, that it's carrying their voices into the White House.

And that's not what's happened over the last seven years. And whether it's my cabinet or it is the lowest federal civil servant out there, I want them to understand they are working for the American people, to help the American people achieve their dreams.

That's the reason I'm running for president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: So, is the answer yes -- it sounds like a yes, that she would be on your short list.

OBAMA: I -- you know, I'm sure Hillary would be on anybody's short list. So.

BLITZER: All right. What about, Senator Clinton, what do you think about a Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket?

CLINTON: Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: That means it's a yes, right?

CLINTON: This has been an extraordinary campaign, and I think both of us have been overwhelmed by the response that we have engendered, the kind of enthusiasm and intensity that people feel about each of us. And so, clearly, we are both dedicated to doing the best we can to win the nomination, but there is no doubt we will have a unified Democratic Party.

(APPLAUSE)

We will go into the November election prepared to win. And -- and I want to just add that, you know, on Monday night, I'm going to have a national town hall, an interactive town hall. It will be carried on the Hallmark Channel and on my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, because I know you had tens of thousands of questions.

OBAMA: What about my Web site?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Yes. I want your folks to participate, too.

OBAMA: I'm just kidding.

CLINTON: And it's going to be across the country.

Monday night at 9:00 Eastern, 6:00 here on the West Coast.

BLITZER: All right. answered, please, log on, turn on, and continue to be part of this really, really exciting election for both of us.

BLITZER: Here is the bottom line -- we do the plugs here. You guys can do the plugs out on the campaign trail.

That has to end our conversation this evening.

I want to thank both of you for coming very much.

OBAMA: Thank you.

CLINTON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)
advertisement

BLITZER: Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton.

END

[End Voice of Blogistan transmission.]

Romney's Speech At CPAC, Ending His Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:51:00 +0000

[Begin Transmission Voice of Blogistan.]

from TIME Magazine

Transcript of Romney’s Speech Withdrawing From the Race

Governor Romney’s Address to the Conservative Political Action Committee – February 7, 2008

I want to begin by saying thank you. It’s great to be with you again. And I look forward to joining with you many more times in the future.

Last year, CPAC gave me the sendoff I needed. I was in single digits in the polls and I was facing household Republican names. As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, less than Senator McCain’s 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. 11 states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he’s doing quite a bit better with his number of delegates.

To all of you, thank you for caring enough about the future of America to show up, stand up and speak up for conservative principles.

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future. I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower. And to me, that is unthinkable. Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. “First,” he said, “I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.” The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America!

And that is why we must rise to the occasion, as we have always done before, to confront the challenges ahead. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the attack on the American culture.

Over the years, my business has taken me to many countries. I have been struck by the enormous differences in the wealth and well-being of people of different nations. I have read a number of scholarly explanations for the disparities. I found the most convincing was that written by David Landes, a professor emeritus from Harvard University. I presume he’s a liberal–I guess that’s redundant. His work traces the coming and going of great civilizations throughout history. After hundreds of pages of analysis, he concludes with this:
If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference.

What is it about American culture that has led us to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world? We believe in hard work and education. We love opportunity: almost all of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants who came here for opportunity—opportunity is in our DNA. Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves—a “Purpose Driven Life.” And we sacrifice everything we have, even our lives, for our families, our freedoms and our country. The values and beliefs of the free American people are the source of our nation’s strength and they always will be!

The threat to our culture comes from within. The 1960’s welfare programs created a culture of poverty. Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven’t given up. At every turn, they try to substitute government largesse for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and to remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is a culture-killing drug—we have got to fight it like the poison it is!

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography—even celebration of it—and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children. How much harder it is for these children to succeed in school—and in life. A nation built on the principles of the founding fathers cannot long stand when its children are raised without fathers in the home.

The development of a child is enhanced by having a mother and father. Such a family is the ideal for the future of the child and for the strength of a nation. I wonder how it is that unelected judges, like some in my state of Massachusetts, are so unaware of this reality, so oblivious to the millennia of recorded history. It is time for the people of America to fortify marriage through constitutional amendment, so that liberal judges cannot continue to attack it!

Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Some reason that culture is merely an accessory to America’s vitality; we know that it is the source of our strength. And we are not dissuaded by the snickers and knowing glances when we stand up for family values, and morality, and culture. We will always be honored to stand on principle and to stand for principle.

The attack on our culture is not our sole challenge. We face economic competition unlike anything we have ever known before. China and Asia are emerging from centuries of poverty. Their people are plentiful, innovative, and ambitious. If we do not change course, Asia or China will pass us by as the economic superpower, just as we passed England and France during the last century. The prosperity and security of our children and grandchildren depend on us.

Our prosperity and security also depend on finally acting to become energy secure. Oil producing states like Russia and Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran are siphoning over $400 billion per year from our economy—that’s almost what we spend annually for defense. It is past time for us to invest in energy technology, nuclear power, clean coal, liquid coal, renewable sources and energy efficiency. America must never be held hostage by the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Ahmendinejad.

And our economy is also burdened by the inexorable ramping of government spending. Don’t focus on the pork alone—even though it is indeed irritating and shameful. Look at the entitlements. `They make up 60% of federal spending today. By the end of the next President’s second term, they will total 70%. Any conservative plan for the future has to include entitlement reform that solves the problem, not just acknowledges it.

Most politicians don’t seem to understand the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families. They act as if money just happens–that it’s just there. But every dollar represents a good or service produced in the private sector. Depress the private sector and you depress the well-being of Americans.

That’s exactly what happens with high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government. Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector. Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

It’s high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!

And finally, let’s consider the greatest challenge facing America—and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad. In one wing of the world of Islam, there is a conviction that all governments should be destroyed and replaced by a religious caliphate. These Jihadists will battle any form of democracy—to them, democracy is blasphemous for it says that citizens, not God shape the law. They find the idea of human equality to be offensive. They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.

To battle this threat, we have sent the most courageous and brave soldiers in the world. But their numbers have been depleted by the Clinton years when troops were reduced by 500,000, when 80 ships were retired from the Navy, and when our human intelligence was slashed by 25%. We were told that we were getting a peace dividend. We got the dividend, but we didn’t get the peace. In the face of evil in radical Jihad and given the inevitable military ambitions of China, we must act to rebuild our military might. Raise military spending to 4% of our GDP, purchase the most modern armament, re-shape our fighting forces for the asymmetric demands we now face, and give the veterans the care they deserve!

Soon, the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it is Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to win the Presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the constitution. Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.

I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face evil extremism!!

It is the common task of each generation—and the burden of liberty—to preserve this country, expand its freedoms and renew its spirit so that its noble past is prologue to its glorious future.

To this task… accepting this burden… we are all dedicated, and I firmly believe, by the providence of the Almighty, that we will succeed beyond our fondest hope. America must remain, as it has always been, the hope of the earth.

Thank you, and God bless America.

[End Transmission Voice of Blogistan.]

Presidential Debate: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:01:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan transmission.]

mano-a-(wo)mano

from CNN:

This is the transcript from Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sponsored by CNN, The Los Angles Times and Politico.

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Let's begin with Senator Obama.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILLINOIS: Wolf, thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you.

First of all, first of all, I want to acknowledge a candidate who left the race this week, John Edwards, who did such an outstanding job...

(APPLAUSE)

... elevating the issues of poverty and the plight of working families all across the country. And we wish him and Elizabeth well. He's going to be a voice for this party and for this country for many years to come.

I also want to note something that you noted at the beginning, which is that, when we started off, we had eight candidates on this stage. We now are down to two after 17 debates.

And, you know, it is a testimony to the Democratic Party and it is a testimony to this country that we have the opportunity to make history, because I think one of us two will end up being the next president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

And I also want to note that I was friends with Hillary Clinton before we started this campaign; I will be friends with Hillary Clinton after this campaign is over.

(APPLAUSE)

She has done -- she's run a -- we're running a competitive race, but it's because we both love this country, and we believe deeply in the issues that are at stake.

I believe we're at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war; our planet is in peril. Families all across the country are struggling with everything from back-breaking health care costs to trying to stay in their homes.

And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?

I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

OBAMA: And just to finish up, Wolf. And I think that, as we move forward in this debate, understand we are both Democrats and we understand the issues at stake. We want change from George Bush.

But we also have to have change that brings the country together, pushes back against the special interests in Washington, and levels with the American people about the difficult changes that we make. If we do that, I am confident that we can solve any problem and we can fulfill the destiny that America wants to see, not just next year, but in many years to come.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Clinton?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, D-NEW YORK: Well, on January 20, 2009, the next president of the United States will be sworn in on the steps of the Capitol. I, as a Democrat, fervently hope you are looking at that next president. Either Barack or I will raise our hand and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

CLINTON: And then, when the celebrations are over, the next president will walk into the Oval Office, and waiting there will be a stack of problems, problems inherited from a failed administration: a war to end in Iraq and a war to resolve in Afghanistan; an economy that is not working for the vast majority of Americans, but well for the wealthy and the well-connected; tens of millions of people either without health insurance at all or with insurance that doesn't amount to much, because it won't pay what your doctor or your hospital need...

(APPLAUSE)

... an energy crisis that we fail to act on at our peril; global warming, which the United States must lead in trying to contend with and reverse; and then all of the problems that we know about and the ones we can't yet predict.

It is imperative that we have a president, starting on day one, who can begin to solve our problems, tackle these challenges, and seize the opportunities that I think await.

I'm very grateful for the extraordinary service of John and Elizabeth Edwards.

CLINTON: And among the many contributions that they have made, both by their personal example of courage and leadership, is their reminder that in this land of such plenty and blessings, there are still 37 million Americans who are living below the poverty line and many others barely hanging on above.

So what we have to do tonight is to have a discussion about what each of us believes are the priorities and the goals for America. I think it's imperative we have a problem-solver, that we roll up our sleeves.

I'm offering that kind of approach, because I think that Americans are ready once again to know that there isn't anything we can't do if we put our minds to it.

So let's have that conversation.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

The first question will go to Doyle.

DOYLE MCMANUS, L.A. TIMES: Senator Clinton, your two campaigns have been going on for more than a year now and it's clear that the two of you have had different experiences in your lives. You have different styles.

But when most voters look at the two of you, they don't see a lot of daylight between you on policy.

So what I'd like to ask is: what do you consider the most important policy distinction between the two of you?

CLINTON: Well, I want to start by saying that whatever differences there are among us, between us now, it's hard to forget between -- we keep talking about all those who aren't here.

But the differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the differences that we have with Republicans, and I want to say that first and foremost, because it's really...

(APPLAUSE)

... a stark difference. But we do have differences and let me mention a couple. First, on health care. I believe absolutely passionately that we must have universal health care. It is a moral responsibility and a right for our country, and...

(APPLAUSE)

... and I have put forth a plan similar to what Senator Edwards had before he left the race that would move us to universal health care.

Secondly, I think it's imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.

I think when it comes to how we approach foreign affairs, in particular, I believe that we've got to be realistic and optimistic, but we start with realism in the sense that we do have serious threats, we do have those who are, unfortunately and tragically, plotting against us, posing dangers to us and our friends and our allies.

And I think that we've got to have a full diplomatic effort, but I don't think the president should put the prestige of the presidency on the line in the first year to have meetings with out preconditions with five of the worst dictators in the world.

So we have differences both at home and around the world, but, again, I would emphasize that what really is important here, because the Republicans were in California debating yesterday, they are more of the same.

Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same. We will change our country.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: We heard Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, define some of the differences on policy issues she sees between the two of you.

What do you see as the most significant policy differences between the two of you?

OBAMA: Well, I actually think that a couple of the ones that Hillary mentioned are genuine policy differences that are worthy of debate.

Let's take health care. About 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance.

We both want to emphasize prevention, because we've got to do something about ever escalating costs and we don't want children, who I meet all the time, going to emergency rooms for treatable illnesses like asthma.

It is true we've got a policy difference, because my view is that the reason people don't have health care, and I meet them all the time, in South Carolina, a mother whose child has cerebral palsy and could not get insurance for and started crying during a town hall meeting, and Hillary, I'm sure, has had the same experiences.

What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.

Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.

OBAMA: I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.

On the mortgage crisis...

(APPLAUSE)

On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It's a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.

I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.

I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.

So, some of the people that we want to protect could end up being hurt by such a plan.

Now, keep in mind, the one thing I suspect that Senator Clinton and I agree on. Part of the reason we are in this mortgage mess is because there's been complete lack of oversight on the part of the Bush administration.

(APPLAUSE)

The mortgage lending industry spent $185 billion -- $185 million lobbying to prevent provisions that go against predatory lending, for example, that I introduced.

Which brings me to another difference. I believe that it is very important for us to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

I think that a lot of issues that both Senator Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year -- some of the toughest since Watergate -- and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign. That's why I don't take federal PAC and federal lobbyist money. That is a difference.

And the last point I'll make is on Iraq. Senator Clinton brought this up.

I was opposed to Iraq from the start.

(APPLAUSE)

And that -- and I say that not just to look backwards, but also to look forwards, because I think what the next president has to show is the kind of judgment that will ensure that we are using our military power wisely.

It is true that I want to elevate diplomacy so that it is part of our arsenal to serve the American people's interests and to keep us safe.

And I have disagreed with Senator Clinton on, for example, meeting with Iran. I think, and the national intelligence estimate, the last report suggested that if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior. And we can do so in a way that does not ultimately cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hurt our reputation around the world.

BLITZER: Those are three important issues...

(APPLAUSE)

... that you both have defined where there are some differences -- health care, the housing crisis, national security, Iraq, Iran. We're going to go through all of those issues over the course of this debate.

But let's start with health care, because this is a critical issue affecting millions and millions of Americans. And, Jeanne, you have a question on that.

JEANNE CUMMINGS, POLITICO: You both mentioned that health care is a priority for your party, but the truth is that most Democrats really do want full coverage, everybody covered.

Now, Senator Obama, this is a question for you. Under your plan, which is voluntary, it creates incentives for people to buy, but still is voluntary. There would be around -- about 15 million people who would still not be covered.

Now, why is your plan superior to hers?

OBAMA: Well, understand who we're talking about here. Every expert who looks at it says anybody who wants health care will be able to get health care under my plan. There won't be anybody out there who wants health care who will not be able to get it. That's point number one.

So the estimate is -- this is where the 15 million figure comes in -- is that there are 15 million people who don't want health care. That's the argument.

Now, first of all, I dispute that there are 15 million people out there who don't want it. I believe that there are people who can't afford it, and if we provide them enough subsidies, they will purchase it. Number one.

Number two, I mandate coverage for all children.

Number three, I say that young people, who are the most likely to be healthy but think they are invulnerable -- and decide I don't need health care -- what I'm saying is that insurance companies and my plan as well will allow people up to 25 years old to be covered under their parents' plan.

So, as a consequence, I don't believe that there will be 15 million out there.

OBAMA: Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.

And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?

You know, those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Clinton, this is a substantive difference on health care between the two of you. Go ahead and respond.

CLINTON: Well, let me start by saying that this is the passionate cause of my public service.

I started trying to expand health care many years ago, first to children, then to rural areas in Arkansas, and obviously tackled it during my husband's administration. And the reason why I have designed a plan that, number one, tells people, if you have health insurance and you are happy with it, nothing changes, is because we want to maximize choice for people.

So, if you are satisfied, you're not one of the people who will necessarily, at this time, take advantage of what I'm offering. But if you are uninsured or underinsured, we will open the congressional health plan to you.

And contrary to...

(APPLAUSE)

Contrary to the description that Barack just gave, we actually will make it affordable for everyone, because my plan lowers costs aggressively, which is important for us all; improves quality for everyone, which is essential. And the way it covers all of those who wish to participate in the congressional plan is that it will provide subsidies, and it will also cap premiums, something that is really important, because we want to make sure that it is affordable for all.

So, when you draw the distinction that, "Well, it's not affordable, therefore people will have to be made to get it," well, the fact is, it has been designed to be affordable with health care tax credits.

And it's also important to recognize that right now, there are people who could afford health care, and they are not all young, they're people who just don't feel they have to accept that responsibility. There are many states which give families the option of keeping children up until 25 on their policies, but their rates of uninsurance are still very high.

We cannot get to universal health care, which I believe is both a core Democratic value and imperative for our country, if we don't do one of three things. Either you can have a single payer system, or -- which, I know, a lot of people favor, but for many reasons, is difficult to achieve. Or, you can mandate employers. Well, that's also very controversial. Or, you can do what I am proposing, which is to have shared responsibility.

Now, in Barack's plan, he very clearly says he will mandate that parents get health insurance for their children. So it's not that he is against mandatory provisions, it's that he doesn't think it would be politically acceptable to require that for everyone.

I just disagree with that. I think we as Democrats have to be willing to fight for universal health care.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've concluded, when I was looking at this -- because I got the same kind of advice, which was, it's controversial, you'll run into all of this buzz saw, and I said, been there, done that. But if you don't start by saying, you're going to achieve universal health care, you will be nibbled to death.

And I think it's imperative that, as we move forward in this debate and into the campaign, that we recognize what both John Edwards and I did, that you have to bite this bullet. You have to say, yes, we are going to try to get universal health care. What I have designed makes it affordable, provides premium caps so it's never

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Obama, let me just fine-tune the question, because I know you want to respond.

On this issue of mandates, those who don't, whether it's 10 million or 15 million, those who could afford it but don't wind up buying health insurance for one reason or another, they wind up getting sick, they go to an emergency room, all of us wind up paying for their health care. That's the biggest criticism that's been leveled at your plan.

OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

But understand that, number one, Hillary says that she's got enough subsidies. Well, we priced out both our plan and Senator Clinton's plan, and some of the subsidies are not going to be sufficient. Point number one.

OBAMA: Point number two is that I am actually not interested in just capping premiums. I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it.

I can't tell you how many folks I meet who have premiums that are so high that essentially they don't have health insurance, they have house insurance. What they do is...

(APPLAUSE)

... they have a $10,000 deductible, or what have you, to try to reduce costs. They never go to a doctor. And that ends up something that we pay for, so I'm trying to reduce premiums for all families.

But the last point I want to make has to do with how we're going to actually get this plan done. You know, Ted Kennedy said that he is confident that we will get universal health care with me as president, and he's been working on it longer than I think about than anybody.

But he's gone through 12 of these plans, and each time they have failed. And part of the reason, I think, that they have failed is we have not been able to bring Democrats, Republicans together to get it done.

(APPLAUSE)

That's what I did in Illinois, to provide insurance for people who did not have it. That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are.

(APPLAUSE)

Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists who -- Senator Clinton is right. They will resist anything that we try to do. My plan, her plan, they will try to resist.

And the antidote to that is making sure that the American people understand what is at stake. I am absolutely committed to making sure that anybody in America who needs health care is going to get it.

BLITZER: I just want to be precise, and I'll let Senator Clinton respond. But you say broadcast on C-SPAN these deliberations. Is that a swipe at Senator Clinton because...

OBAMA: No, it's not a swipe. This is something that I've been talking about consistently. What I want to do is increase transparency and accountability to offset the power of the special interests and the lobbyists.

(APPLAUSE)

If a drug company -- if the drug companies or a member of Congress who's carrying water for the drug companies wants to argue that we should not negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs, then I want them to make that argument in front of the American people.

And I will have experts who explain that, in fact, it is legitimate for drug companies to make profits, but they are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, we remember in '93, when you were formulating your health care plan, it was done in secret.

CLINTON: Well, it was an effort to try to begin this conversation, which we're now continuing. It has been a difficult conversation. There have been a lot of efforts.

And I'm proud that one of the efforts I was involved in 10 years ago resulted in the Children's Health Insurance Program. We now have a million children in California...

(APPLAUSE)

... who every month get health insurance because of that bipartisan effort. We obviously are running into the presidential veto and not being able to expand it.

But this issue is so important, and I just want to underscore three really critical points.

First of all, I have said in my plan that we have to regulate the health insurance industry differently. We have to say to them that they can no longer deny coverage to anyone and they have to cover everyone, including every pre-existing condition.

(APPLAUSE)

And they have to compete on cost and quality, instead of the way they compete now, which is to try to cherry-pick people, and only insure the healthy, and make it so costly for people with diabetes or cancer or some other chronic condition.

Secondly, we've got to make it clear to the drug companies that they do deserve to be part of the solution, because we all benefit from the life-saving remedies they come up with, but we pay for it many times over.

It is American taxpayers who pay for the research. It is American taxpayers who pay for a lot of the clinical studies. That's why, while we're looking at getting to universal health care, we also have to give Medicare the right to negotiate with drug companies to get the price down, to begin to rein in those costs across the board.

(APPLAUSE)

And, finally, it is so important that, as Democrats, we carry the banner of universal health care. The health insurance industry is very clever and extremely well-funded.

I know this. I had $300 million of incoming advertising and attacks during our efforts back in '93 and '94. And one of the reasons why I've designed the plan that I have put forward now is because I learned a lot about what people want, what people are willing to accept, and how we get the political process to work.

CLINTON: And, certainly, it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose, because what happens is we have to have a coalition.

And I think the plan that I have proposed is if you take business, which pays the costs and wants to get those costs down, take labor that has to negotiate over health care instead of wages, take doctors, nurses, hospitals who want to get back into the business of taking care of people instead of working for insurance companies, I think we will have a coalition that can withstand the health insurance...

BLITZER: Thank you.

CLINTON: ... and the drug companies.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

CLINTON: And that's what I intend to do.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. The next question, a related question, from Doyle.

MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.

Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.

How are you going to counter that charge?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion...

(APPLAUSE)

... worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.

If John McCain, for example, is the nominee, I respect that John McCain, in the first two rounds of Bush tax cuts, said it is irresponsible that we have never before cut taxes at the same time as we're going into war.

And somewhere along the line, the straight talk express lost some wheels and now he is in favor of extending Bush tax cuts that went to some of the wealthiest Americans who don't need them and we're not even asking for them.

So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention.

So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent -- or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money.

We can conservatively save...

(APPLAUSE)

... $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it.

Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.

Now...

(APPLAUSE)

So my plan is paid for. But one thing that I think we're going to have to do as Democrats when we go after the Republicans is -- the question is not tax cuts, tax hikes. The question is who are the tax cuts for, who are the tax hikes imposed upon.

What we have had right now is a situation where we've cut taxes for people who don't need them. Warren Buffett has said, "You know, I made $46 million last year. It was a bad year for me. But I can still afford to pay more than my secretary, who has a higher tax rate than I do."

That is not fair and I want to change that.

We've got $1 trillion worth of corporate tax loopholes and tax havens and I've said I will close those and I will give tax cuts to people making $75,000 or less by offsetting their payroll tax. Senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, we want to eliminate taxes for them.

So the question is can we restore a sense of balance to our economy and make sure that those of us who are blessed and fortunate and have thrived in this economy, in this global economy, that we can afford to pay a little bit more so that that child in east Los Angeles who is in a crumbling school, with teachers that are having to dig into their own pockets for school supplies, that they are having a chance at the American dream, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm happy to have that argument.

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, your health care plan, it is estimated, will cost $110 billion annually. You want to tax the rich to pay for that, is that what you're saying?

CLINTON: Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year. That would raise about $55 billion and I would put that into the subsidies for the health care tax credit, so that people would be able to afford the health care that we are offering.

The other $55 billion would come from the modernization and the efficiencies that I believe we can obtain. We spend more money than anybody in the world on health care and there is no end in sight.

CLINTON: Yet, we don't get the best results. We don't have the longest life span. We don't have the best infant mortality rates.

We could do so much better. And here are some of the ideas that I have put on the table.

Number one, the Bush administration has given enormous tax giveaways to HMOs and drug companies under the Medicare prescription Part D program, under the HMO program in Medicare. I would rein those in. They are not being earned. They do not produce the results that are supposedly being touted by the Bush administration.

I would also move for electronic medical records, something that I have worked on for nearly five years on a bipartisan basis. Started with Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. We passed my legislation through the Senate a year ago. Didn't get it through the Republican House. Now we're going to try again in the Democratic Congress.

If we had electronic medical records, according to RAND Corporation -- hardly a bastion of liberal thinking...

(LAUGHTER)

... they have said we would save $77 billion a year. That money can be put into prevention. It could be put into chronic care management. It can be put into making sure that our health care system has enough access so that if you are in a rural community somewhere in California or somewhere in Tennessee or somewhere in Georgia, you'll have access to health care. If you are in an inner- city area and you see your hospital, like the Drew Medical Center, closed on you, then you are going to have a place once again where you can get health care in the immediate area.

So we can begin to be more effective and more sensible about how we cover everybody, and use the money from the top-end tax cults and from modernizing the system.

BLITZER: Jeanne has a question on a different subject...

(APPLAUSE)

... but I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: And look...

BLITZER: And you are willing to go into...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely. Absolutely.

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd -- it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd -- potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more.

But as I said, you know, we have, I believe, a moral obligation to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to get health care in this country.

And one last point I want to make. We will have to make some upfront costs. That's why in either of our plans, you know, if we want to invest in electronic medical records, then we have got to go to rural hospitals who might not be able to afford it and say, we're going to help you buy the computer software and the machinery to make sure that this works.

But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

CLINTON: But Wolf, it's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period.

(APPLAUSE)

And they will keep doing really well.

BLITZER: All right, Jeanne?

CUMMINGS: On immigration. The Republicans have had a pretty fierce debate over immigration. And it's now pretty clear that that's going to be an issue for you all, as well, not just in the general, but it's bubbled up in some of the primaries. And it's a divisive issue for you all, as it is for the Republicans. And that was pretty evident when we got a question through Politico.

This is from Kim Millman (ph) from Burnsville, Minnesota. And she says, "there's been no acknowledgement by any of the presidential candidates of the negative economic impact of immigration on the African-American community. How do you propose to address the high unemployment rates and the declining wages in the African-American community that are related to the flood of immigrant labor?"

Senator Obama, you want to go first on that? And it's for both of you.

OBAMA: Well, let me first of all say that I have worked on the streets of Chicago as an organizer with people who have been laid off from steel plants, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and, you know, all of them are feeling economically insecure right now, and they have been for many years. Before the latest round of immigrants showed up, you had huge unemployment rates among African-American youth.

And, so, I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in, I do not subscribe to.

(APPLAUSE)

And this is where we do have a very real difference with the other party.

OBAMA: I believe that we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.

Now, there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.

I also believe that we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation, hiring folks who cannot complain about worker conditions, who aren't getting the minimum wage sometimes, or aren't getting overtime. We have to crack down on them. I also believe we have to give a pathway to citizenship after they have paid a fine and learned English, to those who are already here, because if we don't, they will continue to undermine U.S. wages.

But let's understand more broadly that the economic problems that African-Americans are experiencing, whites are experiences, blacks and Latinos are experiencing in this country are all rooted in the fact that we have had an economy out of balance. We've had tax cuts that went up instead of down. We have had a lack of investment in basic infrastructure in this country. Our education system is chronically underfunded.

(APPLAUSE)

And so, there are a whole host of reasons why we have not been generating the kinds of jobs that we are generating. We should not use immigration as a tactic to divide. Instead, we should pull the country together to get this economy back on track.

That's what I intend to do as president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Clinton, we're going to stay on this subject, but Doyle has a follow-up.

MCMANUS: Senator Clinton, Senator Obama has said that he favors allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses, and you oppose that idea.

Why?

CLINTON: Well, let me start with the original question from Kim, because I think it deserves an answer.

I believe that in many parts of our country, because of employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages, there are job losses. And I think we should be honest about that.

(APPLAUSE)

There are people who have been pushed out of jobs and factories and meat processing plants, and all kinds of settings. And I meet them.

You know, I was in Atlanta last night, and an African-American man said to me, "I used to have a lot of construction jobs, and now it just seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation." So, I know that what we have to do is to bring our country together to have a comprehensive immigration reform solution.

(APPLAUSE)

That is the answer. And it is important that we make clear to Kim and people who are worried about this that that is actually in the best interests of those who are concerned about losing their jobs or already have.

Because if we can tighten our borders, if we can crack down on employer who exploit workers, both those who are undocumented and those who are here as citizens, or legal, if we can do more to help local communities cope with the cost that they often have to contend with, if we do more to help our friends to the south create more jobs for their own people, and if we take what we know to be the realities that we confront -- 12 to 14 million people here, what will we do with them?

Well, I hear the voices from the other side of the aisle. I hear voices on TV and radio. And they are living in some other universe, talking about deporting people, rounding them up.

I don't agree with that, and I don't think it's practical. And therefore, what we've got to do is to say, come out of the shadows. We will register everyone. We will check, because if you have committed a crime in this country or the country you came from, then you will not be able to stay, you will have to be deported.

But for the vast majority of people who are here, we will give you a path to legalization if you meet the following condition: pay a fine because you entered illegally, be willing to pay back taxes over time, try to learn English -- and we have to help you do that, because we've cut back on so many of those services -- and then you wait in line.

That not only is, I think, the best way to approach the problem of our 12 million to 14 million who are here, but that also says to Kim, Kim, this is the best answer, as well, because once we have those conditions met, and people agree, then, they will not be in a labor market that undercuts anybody else's wages.

BLITZER: Senator...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And therefore, it's imperative we approach it this way, only after people have agreed to these conditions, Doyle, and that they have been willing to say, yes, they will meet those conditions, do I think we ought to talk about privileges like drives' licenses? Because otherwise, I think you will further undermine the labor market for people like the ones Kim is referring to.

CLINTON: We need to solve this problem, not exacerbate it. And that's what intend to do as president.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. All right, we have a follow-up.

Senator Obama, in an interview with CNN this week, you said this. You said, quote, "I stood up for a humane and intelligent immigration policy in a way that, frankly, none of my other opponents did." What did you mean by that?

OBAMA: Well, what I meant was that, when this issue came up -- not driver's licenses, but comprehensive immigration reform generally -- I worked with Ted Kennedy. I worked with Dick Durbin. I worked with John McCain, although he may not admit it now...

(LAUGHTER)

... to move this issue forward aggressively. And it's a hard political issue. Let's be honest. This is not an issue that polls well. But I think it is the right thing to do.

(APPLAUSE)

And I think we have to show leadership on the issue. And it is important for us, I believe, to recognize that the problems that workers are experiencing generally are not primarily caused by immigration. There is...

BLITZER: Are you suggesting that Senator Clinton's policy was not, in your words, "humane"?

OBAMA: That is -- what I said was that we have to stand up for these issues when it's tough, and that's what I've done.

I did it when I was in the state legislature, sponsoring the Illinois version of the DREAM Act, so that children who were brought here through no fault of their own are able to go to college, because we actually want well-educated kids in our country...

(APPLAUSE)

... who are able to -- who are able to succeed and become part of this economy and part of the American dream.

BLITZER: Was she lacking on that front?

OBAMA: Wolf, you keep on trying to push on this issue.

BLITZER: I'm just trying to find out what you mean.

OBAMA: There are those who were opposed to this issue, and there have been those who have flipped on the issue and have run away from the issue. This wasn't directed particularly at Senator Clinton. But the fact of the matter is I have stood up consistently on this issue.

On the driver's license issue, I don't actually want -- I don't believe that we're going to have to deal with this if we have comprehensive immigration reform, because, as I said before, people don't come here to drive. They come here to work.

(APPLAUSE)

And if we have signed up them -- if we have registered them, if they have paid a fine, if they are learning English, if they are going to the back of the line, if we fix our legal immigration system, then I believe we will not have this problem of undocumented workers in this country, because people will be able to actually go on a pathway to citizenship.

That, I think, is the right approach for African-Americans; I think it's the right approach for Latinos; I think it's a right approach for white workers here in the United States.

BLITZER: I want to let Senator Clinton respond. But were you missing in action when Senator Obama and Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy started formulating comprehensive immigration reform?

CLINTON: Well, actually, I co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004 before Barack came to the Senate.

(APPLAUSE)

So I've been on record on behalf of this for quite some time.

And representing New York, the homeland with the Statue of Liberty, bringing all of our immigrants to our shores, has been not only an extraordinary privilege, but given me the opportunity to speak out on these issues.

When the House of Representatives passed the most mean-spirited provision that said, if you were to give any help whatsoever to someone here illegally, you would commit a crime, I stood up and said that would have criminalized the Good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself.

I have been on record on this against this kind of demagoguery, this mean-spiritedness.

And, you know, it is something that I take very personally, because I have not only worked on behalf of immigrants; I have been working to make conditions better for many years.

(APPLAUSE)

I was so honored to get the farm workers endorsement last week, because for so many years I have stood with farm workers who do some of the hardest work there is anywhere in our country.

So we may be looking at the immigration reform issue as a political issue, and it certainly has been turned into one by those who I think are undermining the values of America.

It is a serious question. We have to fix this broken system. But let's do it in a practical, realistic approach. Let's bring people together. And I think, as president, I can.

You know, I've been going to town halls all over America, and I see the people out there, thousands of them who come to hear me, and they're nervous about immigration, and for the reasons that the economy isn't working for people.

The average American family has lost $1,000 in income. They're looking for some explanation as to why this is happening. And they edge or a real amount of anxiety in their voice.

And then I ask them, well, what would you do?

CLINTON: If you want to round up into four people, how many tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officials would that take?"

BLITZER: All right.

CLINTON: And how much authority would they have to be given to knock on every door of every business and every home? I don't think Americans would stand for that.

BLITZER: Senator, Senator...

CLINTON: So we have to get realistic and practical about this.

BLITZER: Very quickly, Senator, why not, then, if you're that passionate about it, let them get driver's licenses?

CLINTON: Well, we disagree on this. I do not think that it is either appropriate to give a driver's license to someone who is here undocumented, putting them, frankly, at risk, because that is clear evidence that they are not here legally, and I believe it is a diversion from what should be the focus at creating a political coalition with the courage to stand up and change the immigration system.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: The only point I would make is Senator Clinton gave a number of different answers over the course of six weeks on this issue, and that did appear political.

Now, at this point, she's got a clearer position, but it took a whole and...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well...

OBAMA: I'm just being -- just in fairness. Initially, in a debate, you said you were for it. Then you said you were against it. And the only reason I bring that up is to underscore the fact that this is a difficult political issue.

From my perspective, I agree with Bill Richardson that there is a public safety concern here and that we're better off, because I don't want a bunch of hit-and-run drivers, because they're worried about being deported and so they don't report an accident. That is a judgment all.

(APPLAUSE)

But I do think it is important to recognize that this can be tough and the question is who is going to tackle this problem and solve it.

Many of the solutions that Senator Clinton just talked about are solutions that I agree with, that I've been working on for many years, and my suspicion is whatever our differences, we're going to have big differences with the Republicans, but I think a practical, common sense solution to the problem is what the American people are looking for.

CLINTON: Well, I just have to correct the record for one second, because, obviously, we do agree about the need to have comprehensive immigration reform.

And if I recall, about a week after I said that I would try to support my governor, although I didn't agree with it personally, you

So this is a difficult issue and both of us have to recognize...

(APPLAUSE)

... that it is not something that we easily come to, because we share a lot of the same values.

OBAMA: I agree.

CLINTON: We want to -- we want to be fair to people. We want to respect the dignity of every human being, every person who is here. But we are trying to work our way through to get to where we need to be and that is to have a united Democratic Party, with fair-minded Republicans who will join us to fix this broken immigration system.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right. We're going to talk a lot more about this. We're going to take a quick break. We have a lot more to talk about. You can follow all of the action, by the way, on cnnpolitics.com and there's a lively dialogue going on there right now, cnnpolitics.com.

We'll take a quick break. We'll pick up with two issues, experience and character, and then move on to a lot more right after.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OBAMA: ... Americans disagree.

(APPLAUSE)

And think that we need to move forward with new leadership. So that's why we are having this contest.

You know, I have spent my entire adult life trying to bring about change in this country. I started off as a community organizer, working on the streets of Chicago, providing job training and after- school programs and economic development for neighborhoods that have been devastated by steel plants that had closed.

I worked as a civil rights attorney, turning down lucrative corporate jobs to provide justice for those who had been denied on the job on at the ballot box.

(APPLAUSE)

I worked as a state legislator for years, providing health care to people who did not have it, reforming a death penalty system that was broken, providing tax relief to those who needed it.

And in the United States Senate, I worked on everything from nuclear proliferation to issues of alternative energy.

And in each instance, what I found is that the leadership that's needed is the ability to bring people together, who otherwise don't see anything in common. The ability to overcome the special interests. And I passed both in Washington in Illinois comprehensive ethics reform that opened up government so that the American people could be involved. And talking straight to the American people about how we're going to solve these problems, and putting in the hard work of negotiations to get stuff done.

So I respect Senator Clinton's record. I think it's a terrific record. But I also believe that the skills that I have are the ones that are needed right now to move the country forward.

CLINTON: And I really spent a great deal of my early adulthood, you know, bringing people together to help solve the problems of those who were without a voice and were certainly powerless.

I was honored to be appointed by President Carter to the Legal Services Corporation, which I chaired, and we grew that corporation from 100 million to 300 million. It is the primary vehicle by which people are given access to our courts when they have civil problems that need to be taken care of.

You know, I've run projects that provided aid for prisoners in prisons. I helped to reform the education system in Arkansas and expand rural health care. And I've had a lot of varied experiences, both in the private sector, as well as the public, and the not-for- profit sector.

And certainly during the eight years that I was privileged to be in the White House, I had a great deal of responsibility that was given to me to not only work on domestic issues, like health care -- and when we weren't successful on universal health care, I just turned around and said, well, we're going to get the Children's Health Insurance Program. And I'm so proud we do, because now six million children around the country every month get health care. And I took on the drug companies to make sure that they would test drugs to see if they were safe and effective for our kids.

And began to change the adoption and foster care system. Here in California, because of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, we have three times more children being adopted out of foster care.

(APPLAUSE)

And certainly the work that I was able to do around the world, going to more than 82 countries, negotiating with governments like Macedonia to open their border again, to let Kosovar refugees in. Speaking on behalf of women's rights as human rights in Beijing, to send a message across the world that this is critical of who we are as Americans.

(APPLAUSE)

And to go to the Senate and to begin to work across the party lines with people who honestly never thought they would work with me. But I believe public service is a trust. And I get up every day trying to make change in people's lives.

And today we have 20,000 National Guard and Reserve members in California who have access to health care because I teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to get that done. Really positive change in people's lives, in real ways, that I am very proud of.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Jeanne Cummings of Politico, go ahead.

CUMMINGS: Well, we've got a question on this that's come in on politico.com, and it echoes, I think, a message that you all might be fighting up against if Mitt Romney turns out to be your opponent come the fall. We've talked about McCain, now we have Romney's strengths to address.

Now, Howard Meyerson (ph) of Pasadena, California, says he views the country as a very large business, and neither one of you have ever run a business. So, why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?

CLINTON: Well, I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business. It is a trust.

(APPLAUSE)

It is the most complicated organization. But it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country.

And with all due respect, we have a president who basically ran as the CEO, MBA president, and look what we got. I am not too happy about the results.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Let me -- let me just also point out that, you know, Mitt Romney hasn't gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

And so, I'm happy to take a look at my management style during the course of this last year and his. I think they compare fairly well.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Go ahead, Doyle.

MCMANUS: I want to switch to a different theme.

Senator Clinton, this week, as you know, Senator Obama was endorsed by Senator Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy. And they both argued that the country is ready for a new generation of leaders, and they said Barack Obama, like John F. Kennedy in 1960, is that kind of leader.

How do you respond to that?

CLINTON: Well, I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family. And I'm proud to have three of Senator Robert Kennedy's children, Bobby and Kathleen and Kerry, supporting me. But what I this is...

(APPLAUSE)

What I think is exciting is that the way we are looking at the Democratic field, now down to the two of us is, is we're going to get big change. We're going to have change. I think having the first woman president would be a huge change for America and the world.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: But, of course, despite the enthusiasm of our supporters or our endorsers -- and we're both proud of everyone who has come to be part of our campaign -- this is about the two of us.

You have to, as voters, determine who you think can be the best president, to tackle all those problems on day one, waiting in the Oval Office, who can be the best nominee for the Democratic Party to be able to withstand whatever they decide to do on the other side of the aisle, and come out victorious.

But, ultimately, this is really about the American people. It's about your lives. It's about your jobs, your health care, whether you can afford to send your children to college, whether you'll be able to withstand the pressure of the rising interest rates on a home foreclosure that might come your way, and whether we're going to once again be proud of our country, and our leadership, and our moral authority in the world.

And so I think that, as we look at these upcoming contests -- 22 of them now on Tuesday -- really, every voter should be looking and examining what they want out of the next president.

What are the criteria that you have for determining who you will vote for, what you think our country needs, what you and your family are really looking for? And then you evaluate the two of us, because no one else will be on the ballot.

This is a very exciting and humbling experience, I think I can say for both of us.

BLITZER: All right. Senator...

CLINTON: Neither one of us would have either predicted -- you know, not very long ago -- we would be sitting here. And it is a great tribute to the Democratic Party and to America.

(APPLAUSE)

But now we have to decide who would be the best president.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator Obama, I want you to respond, but also in the context of this. A lot of Democrats remember the eight years of the Clinton administration, a period of relative peace and prosperity, and they remember it fondly.

Are they right? Should they be remembering those eight years with pleasure?

OBAMA: Well, I think there's no doubt that there were good things that happened during those eight years of the Clinton administration. I think that's undeniable.

Look, we're all Democrats. And, particularly, when looked through the lens of the last eight years with George Bush, they look even better.

(LAUGHTER)

So I don't want to diminish some of the accomplishments that occurred during those eight years. And I absolutely agree with Senator Clinton, that ultimately each of us have to be judged on our own merits.

All of us have endorsers, and ultimately you've got to take a look and see: Who do you want in that White House?

I do think that there was something that happened, and we've been seeing it all across the country. We saw it at the event with Senator Kennedy. We are bringing in a whole generation of new voters...

(APPLAUSE)

... which I think is exciting. And part of the task, I believe, of leadership is the hard nuts-and-bolts of getting legislation passed and managing the bureaucracy, but part of it is also being able to call on the American people to reach higher, to say we shouldn't settle for an economy that does very well for some, but leaves millions of people behind.

We should not accept a school in South Carolina that was built in the 1800s, where kids are having to learn in trailers, and every time the railroad goes by the tracks, the building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching.

We should not accept a foreign policy that has seen our respect diminish around the world and has not made us more safe.

(APPLAUSE)

So the question is -- part of the question is: Who can work the levers of power more effectively? Part of the question is also: Who can inspire the American people to get re-engaged in their government again, push back the special interests, reduce the influence of lobbyists?

And that is something that I have worked on all my life and we are seeing in this campaign. And one of the things I'm thrilled with -- and this is good news for Democrats...

BLITZER: All right.

OBAMA: ... every single election that we've had so far in this contest you've seen the number of people participating in the Democratic primary double.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, that's not all due to me. Senator Clinton is attracting enthusiasm and support, as well. But I can say, for example, in Iowa, about 60 percent of those new voters voted for me.

And that, I think, changes the electoral map in such a way where we're going to have more people ready to move forward on the agendas that we all agree with. That's part of the leadership I want to provide as president.

BLITZER: We have a follow-up question from Jeanne.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Well, Senator Obama mentioned the generational issue. And when we look at returns and exit polls, there is something going on there. And we've got a question along those lines from Karen Roper (ph) from Pickens, South Carolina.

CUMMINGS: She asks to you: "Senator Clinton, that you have claimed that your presidency would bring change to America. I'm 38 years old and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ticket.

"How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?"

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at the time.

But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. We come forward to the American public and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine.

We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself.

And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged or disadvantaged. I'm very proud of my husband's administration. I think that there were a lot of good things that happened and those good things really changed people's lives.

The trajectory of change during those eight years went from deficits and debt to a balanced budget and a surplus, all those 22 million new jobs and the...

(APPLAUSE)

... and the hopefulness that people brought with them. And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right, Senators, stand by. We're going to take another quick break. We have a lot more to go through. Remember, you can go to cnnpolitics.com and you can monitor what's going on. There's a lively discussion going on at cnnpolitics.com right now.

We'll take a short break. Much more of this Democratic presidential debate right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're at the Kodak Theatre here in Los Angeles. Thousands of people are outside, Hillary Clinton supporters, Barack Obama supporters. We're continuing this presidential debate right now.

The next question goes to Doyle McManus.

MCMANUS: A question about the issue of Iraq.

Senator Clinton, you've both called for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, but Senator Obama says he wants all combat troops out within 16 months of his inauguration and you haven't offered a specific end date.

Why shouldn't voters worry that your position could turn into an open-ended commitment?

CLINTON: Well, because, Doyle, I've been very clear in saying that I will begin to withdraw troops in 60 days. I believe that it will take me one to two brigades a month, depending on how many troops we have there, and that nearly all of them should be out within a year.

It is imperative, though, that we actually plan and execute this right. And you may remember last spring, I got into quite a back-and- forth with the Pentagon, because I was concerned they were not planning for withdrawal, because that was contrary to their strategy, or their stated position.

And I began to press them to let us know, and they were very resistant, and gave only cursory information to us.

So I've said that I will ask the Joint Chiefs and the secretary of defense and my security advisers the very first day I'm president, to begin to draw up such a plan so that we can withdraw.

But I just want to be very clear with people, that it's not only bringing our young men and women and our equipment out, which is dangerous. They have got to go down those same roads where they have been subjected to bombing and so much loss of life and injury. We have to think about what we're going to do with the more than 100,000 Americans civilians who are there, working for the embassy, working for businesses, working for charities.

And I also believe we've got to figure out what to do with the Iraqis who sided with us. You know, a lot of the drivers and translators saved so many of your young men and women's lives, and I don't think we can walk out on them without having some plan as to how to take care of those who are targeted.

At the same time, we have got to tell the Iraqi government there is no -- there is no more time. They are out of time. They have got to make the tough decisions they have avoided making. They have got to take responsibility for their own country.

(APPLAUSE)

And, you know, I think both Barack and I have tried in these debates -- and sometimes been pushed by some of our opponents -- to be as responsible as we can be, because we know that this president, based on what he said in the State of the Union, intends to leave at least 130,000, if not more, troops in Iraq as he exits. It's the most irresponsible abdication of what should be a presidential commitment to end what he started.

So, we will inherit it. And therefore, I will do everything I can to get as many of our troops out as quickly as possible, taking into account all of these contingencies that we're going to have to contend with once we are in charge and once we can get into the Pentagon to figure out what's really there and what's going on.

BLITZER: But you can't make a commitment, though, that 16 months after your inauguration will be enough time?

CLINTON: I certainly hope it will be. And I've said I hope to have nearly all of them out within a year.

BLITZER: Go ahead.

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it is important for us to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So I have said very clearly: I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

When John McCain suggests that we might be there 100 years, that, I think, indicates a profound lack of understanding that we've got a whole host of global threats out there, including Iraq, but we've got a big problem right now in Afghanistan. Pakistan is of great concern. We are neglecting potentially our foreign policy with respect to Latin America. China is strengthening.

OBAMA: And if we neglect our economy by spending $200 billion every year in this war that has not made us more safe, that is undermining our long-term security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

OBAMA: But the -- but I do think it is important for us to set a date. And the reason I think it is important is because if we are going to send a signal to the Iraqis that we are serious, and prompt the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate, they have to have clarity about how serious we are.

It can't be muddy, it can't be fuzzy. They've got to know that we are serious about this process. And I also think we've got to be very clear about what our mission is. And there may be a difference here between Senator Clinton and myself in terms of the four structures that we would leave behind.

Both of us have said that we would make sure that our embassies and our civilians are protected. Both of us have said that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million who have been displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, and we have not taken those responsibilities seriously.

We both have said that we need to have a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq. But the one thing that I think is very important is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should have troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence.

If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that I think it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

And that's one of the reasons why I think I will be -- just to finish up this point, I think I will be the Democrat who will be most effective in going up against a John McCain, or any other Republican -- because they all want basically a continuation of George Bush's policies -- because I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war, thought it was a bad idea. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.

That's the kind of leadership I'm going to provide as president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: And of course...

BLITZER: Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you.

CLINTON: Really?

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: We're having -- we're having such a good time.

OBAMA: I wouldn't call it a swipe.

CLINTON: We're having such a good time. We are. We are. We're having a wonderful time.

OBAMA: Yes, absolutely.

CLINTON: And I am so -- I am so proud to have the support of leaders like Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is here with us tonight, who was one of the -- who was one of the original conveners of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Because it is imperative that as we move forward, with what will be a very difficult process -- there are no good options here.

We have to untangle ourselves and navigate through some very treacherous terrain. And as we do so, it is absolutely clear to me that we have to send several messages at once.

Yes, we are withdrawing, and I personally believe that is the best message to send to the Iraqis. That they need to know that they have to get serious, because so far they have been under the illusion that the Bush administration and the Republicans who have more of the same will be there indefinitely.

And I also think it's important to send that message to the region, because I think that Iran, Syria, the other countries in the neighborhood, are going to find themselves in a very difficult position as we withdraw. You know, be careful what you wish for.

They will be dragged into what is sectarian divisiveness with many different factions among the three main groups. Therefore, we need to start diplomatic efforts immediately, getting the Iranians, the Syrians, and others to the table. It's in their interest, it's in our interest, and it certainly is in the Iraqis' interest. few debates ago -- we've had so many of them -- to join with me on legislation which he has agreed to do that's very important to prevent President Bush from committing our country to an ongoing presence in Iraq. That is something he is trying to push.

(APPLAUSE)

And we are pushing legislation to prevent him from doing that.

He has taken the view that I find absolutely indefensible, that he doesn't have to bring any such agreement about permanent bases, about ongoing occupation. And if Senator McCain is the nominee, 100 years as stretching forward, he doesn't have to bring that to the United States Congress. He only has to get the approval of the Iraqi parliament.

CLINTON: Well, we are saying absolutely no. And we're going to do everything we can to prevent him from binding any of us, going into the future, in a way that will undermine America's interests. So that's a critical issue.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: We have a follow-up question on this subject from Jeanne Cummings.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Senator Clinton, this one is for you. Judgment has been an issue that's been raised as part of this debate about Iraq. It's been raised by Senator Obama on a number of occasions.

And as this debate has gone on, more than half of the Politico readers have voted for this question, and it is, in effect, a judgment question. It comes from Howard Schumann (ph) from Phippsburg, Maine.

And he asks, "Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin amendment which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?"

CLINTON: Well, Howard, that's an important question. And the reason is because, although I believe strongly that we needed to put inspectors in, that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give President Bush the authority, put those inspectors in, let them do their work, figure out what is there and what isn't there.

And I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin. He's my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it.

I did vote with Senator Byrd to limit the authority that was being given to President Bush to one year, and that also was not approved.

You know, I've said many times if I had known then what I know now, I never would have given President Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given.

He abused that authority; he misused that authority. I warned at the time it was not authority for a preemptive war. Nevertheless, he went ahead and waged one, which has led to the position we find ourselves in today.

But I think now we have to look at how we go forward. There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy, and some are more committed than others, with Senator McCain's recent comments.

He's now accusing me of surrendering because I believe we should withdraw starting within 60 days of my becoming president. Well, that is a debate I welcome, because I think the Democrats have a much better grasp of the reality of the situation that we are confronting. And we have to continue to press that case.

It will be important, however, that our nominee be able to present both a reasoned argument against continuing our presence in Iraq and the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander-in- chief. That has to cross that threshold in the mind of every American voter.

The Republicans will try to put either one of us into the same box that, if we oppose this president's Iraq policy, somehow we cannot fully represent the interests of the United States, be commander-in- chief. I reject that out of hand, and I actually welcome that debate with whomever they nominate.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator? Look, I want you to respond, Senator, but also in the context of what we've heard from General David Petraeus, that there has been some progress made lately.

The number of U.S. casualties has gone down. There has been some stability in parts of Iraq where there was turmoil before and that any quick, overly quick withdrawal could undermine all of that and all of that progress would be for naught.

What do you say when you'll hear that argument?

OBAMA: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don't want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous.

I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably.

But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point.

(APPLAUSE)

And I've said this before. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. And now, two years later, we're back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.

And in the meantime, we have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives.

OBAMA: Thousands more have been maimed and injured as a consequence and are going to have difficulty putting their lives back together again.

So understand that this has undermined our security. In the meantime, Afghanistan has slid into more chaos than existed before we went into Iraq.

I am happy to have that argument. I also think it is going to be important, though, for the Democrat -- you know, Senator Clinton mentioned the issue of gravitas and judgment. I think it is much easier for us to have the argument, when we have a nominee who says, I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy.

(APPLAUSE)

It was not just a problem of execution. It was not just a problem of execution.

I mean, they screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways. And I think even Senator McCain has acknowledged that.

The question is: Can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission, from the start?

And we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war, that we are making absolutely certain that it is because there is an imminent threat, that American interests are going to be protected, that we have a plan to succeed and to exit, that we are going to train our troops properly and equip them properly and put them on proper rotations and treat them properly when they come home.

And that is an argument that I think we are going to have an easer time making if they can't turn around and say: But hold on a second; you supported this.

And that's part of the reason why I think that I would be the strongest nominee on this argument of national security.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond. Senator Clinton, you always say, if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time -- and certainly, I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what if any threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences.

And if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hoped would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said, let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would have never diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York, in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten frontlines in the war against terror, that just, you know, just struck me so forcefully.

We have so many problems that we are going to have to untangle. And it will take everyone -- it will take a tremendous amount of effort.

But the one thing I'm convinced of is that, if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together an effective strategy to go after the terrorists -- because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore at our peril -- then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that's what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

BLITZER: So what I -- what I...

CLINTON: We need a president who will be sensitive to the implications of the use of force and understand that force should be a last resort, not a first resort.

BLITZER: So, what I hear you saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?

CLINTON: No, that's not what you heard me say.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

Good try, Wolf. Good try. You know...

BLITZER: Was she naive, Senator Obama? deserve to answer.

BLITZER: I thought you weren't going to answer.

CLINTON: You know, I think that, you know, that is a good try, Wolf.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Senator?

OBAMA: I don't want to -- I don't want to belabor this, because I know we're running out of time and I'm sure you guys want to move on to some other stuff, but I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.

(APPLAUSE)

I think were very clear about that. That's the -- if you look at the headlines.

The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think, fairly, has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one.

(APPLAUSE)

And that the judgment that I've presented on this issue, and some other issues is relevant to how we're going to make decisions in the future. You know, it's not a function just of looking backwards, it's a function of looking forwards and how are we going to be making a series of decisions in a very dangerous world.

I mean, the terrorist threat is real. And precisely because it's real -- and we've got finite resources. We don't have the capacity to just send our troops in anywhere we decide, without good intelligence, without a clear rationale.

That's the kind of leadership that I think we need from the next president of the United States. That's what I intend to provide.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: All right.

We're going to take a quick break and we're going to continue this. We have one more break to go through.

A lot more coming up, including questions involving character.

And remember, you can go to cnnpolitics.com and watch this online discussion that's being waged right now.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OBAMA: ... and, as a parent, yes, I am concerned about what's coming over the airwaves. Now, right now, my daughters mostly are on Nickelodeon, but they know how to work that remote.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, the primary responsibility is for parents. And I reject the notion of censorship as an approach to dealing with this problem.

(APPLAUSE)

I do think that it is important for us to make sure that we are giving parents the tools that they need in order to monitor what their children are watching. And, obviously, the problem we have now is not just what's coming over the airwaves, but what's coming over the Internet.

And so for us to develop technologies and tools and invest in those technologies and tools, to make sure that we are, in fact, giving parents power -- empowering parents I think is important.

The one other thing I will say is -- I don't mean to be insulting here -- but I do think that it is important for those in the industry to show some thought about who they are marketing some of these programs that are being produced to.

(APPLAUSE)

And I'm concerned about sex, but I'm also concerned, you know, some of the violent, slasher, horror films that come out, you see a trailer, and I'm thinking, "I don't want my 6-year-old or 9-year-old seeing that trailer while she's watching 'American Idol.'"

And sometimes you see that kind of stuff coming up. I think it is appropriate, in a cooperative way, to work with the industry to try to deal with that problem. And I intend to work in that fashion when I'm president of the United States of America.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

(APPLAUSE)

All right, we've got another question from Jeanne.

Go ahead, Jeanne.

CUMMINGS: Well, since we've dealt with the kids, let's deal with the spouses for a second.

Senator Clinton...

CLINTON: He has a spouse, too.

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Thankfully Michelle is not on stage. I'm sure she could tell some stories, as well.

CUMMINGS: Senator Clinton, your husband has set off several firestorms in the last few weeks in early primary states with the way that he has criticized Senator Obama.

CUMMINGS: Greg Craig, who was one of your husband's top lawyers campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: Well, one thing I think is fair to say, both Barack and I have very passionate spouses...

OBAMA: We do, no doubt.

CLINTON: ... who promote and defend us at every turn.

You know, but the fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have made it very clear that I want the campaign to stay focused on the issues that I'm concerned about, the kind of future that I want for our country, the work that I have done for all of these years. And that is what the campaign is about.

And of course, I'm thrilled to have my husband and my daughter, who is here tonight, you know, representing me and traveling around the country...

(APPLAUSE)

... speaking with people, but at the end of the day, it's my name that is on the ballot, and it will be my responsibility as president and commander in chief, after consulting broadly with a lot of people who have something to contribute to difficult decisions, I will have to make the call. And I am fully prepared to do that.

And I know that as we go forward in this campaign, it's a choice between the two of us. And we are proud of our spouses, we're proud of our families, we're proud of everybody supporting us. But at the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House, and it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: This will be the last question. It will go to both of you, to Senator Obama first.

The more I speak to Democrats out there -- not only the Democrats here at the Kodak Theatre, but all over the country -- they take a look at the two of you and they see potentially a dream ticket. A dream ticket for the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

There may have been some nasty words exchanged or angry words or whatever, but the question is this: Would you consider an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket going down the road?

OBAMA: Well, obviously there's a big difference between those two.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

But, look, let me say this. And I said this at the top. I respect Senator Clinton. I think her service to this country has been extraordinary. And I'm glad that we've been walking on this road together and that we are still on that road.

We've got a lot more road to travel. And so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents, et cetera. I think it would be premature and presumptuous.

I can say this about -- about who I want not just as vice president but as a cabinet member. Part of what I would like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government.

(APPLAUSE)

And that means having people of the greatest excellence and competence. It means people with integrity. It means people with independence, who are willing to say no to me so, so that, you know, no more yes-men or women in the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

Because I'm not going to be right on every single issue.

But you know, it is really important, I think, for us also to give the American people this sense, as they are struggling with their mortgages and struggling with their health care and trying to figure out how to get their kids in a school that will teach them and prepare them and equip them for this century, that they get a sense that government's on their side, that government is listening to them, that it's carrying their voices into the White House.

And that's not what's happened over the last seven years. And whether it's my cabinet or it is the lowest federal civil servant out there, I want them to understand they are working for the American people, to help the American people achieve their dreams.

That's the reason I'm running for president of the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: So, is the answer yes -- it sounds like a yes, that she would be on your short list.

OBAMA: I -- you know, I'm sure Hillary would be on anybody's short list. So.

BLITZER: All right. What about, Senator Clinton, what do you think about a Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton ticket?

CLINTON: Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: That means it's a yes, right?

CLINTON: This has been an extraordinary campaign, and I think both of us have been overwhelmed by the response that we have engendered, the kind of enthusiasm and intensity that people feel about each of us. And so, clearly, we are both dedicated to doing the best we can to win the nomination, but there is no doubt we will have a unified Democratic Party.

(APPLAUSE)

We will go into the November election prepared to win. And -- and I want to just add that, you know, on Monday night, I'm going to have a national town hall, an interactive town hall. It will be carried on the Hallmark Channel and on my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, because I know you had tens of thousands of questions.

OBAMA: What about my Web site?

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Yes. I want your folks to participate, too.

OBAMA: I'm just kidding.

CLINTON: And it's going to be across the country.

Monday night at 9:00 Eastern, 6:00 here on the West Coast.

BLITZER: All right. answered, please, log on, turn on, and continue to be part of this really, really exciting election for both of us.

BLITZER: Here is the bottom line -- we do the plugs here. You guys can do the plugs out on the campaign trail.

That has to end our conversation this evening.

I want to thank both of you for coming very much.

OBAMA: Thank you.

CLINTON: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)
advertisement

BLITZER: Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton.

END

[Begin Voice of Blogistan transmission.]

GOP Debate Ronald Ray-Gun Lie-berry (sic)

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:39:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

This is the transcript of the GOP debate at the Reagan Library Wednesday January 30.

The candidates debate Wednesday at The Reagan Library in California.

(CNN) -- ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: The first question is actually a question that will go to all of you, but I'll start with Governor Romney. During a 1980 debate, he suggested Americans determine who to vote for by asking themselves, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

So tonight, in terms of the economy, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Well, if you're voting for George Bush, you'd be very interested in knowing the answer to that. If you're voting for Mitt Romney, you'd like to know, "Are you better off in Massachusetts after four years of my term in office?" And the answer would be decidedly yes.

I came into a state which was very much in a deep ditch. It was losing money every month. We had a $3 billion budget gap. We had people losing jobs every single month. During my predecessor's term, we'd lost 160,000 jobs.

We kept losing jobs for a couple of years. We got it turned around, began adding jobs back. We won some huge contracts to bring in some new employers into the state. Some of them haven't even built their facilities yet.

We solved our budget problem, $3 billion budget gap, without raising taxes. We were able to do that in a way that I think surprised folks.

COOPER: Let me just interrupt. The question was: Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago? And as you know, there are a lot of Americans out right now who are very interested in the answer. They're not feeling particularly good about their home sales -- the value of their homes dropping down or the unemployment rate rising.

How do you feel America is doing?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I'm pleased with what I do while I was -- as governor and happy to talk about that record.

COOPER: Are you running for governor or are you running for president, though?

ROMNEY: But I'm not running on President Bush's record. President Bush can talk about his record.

Washington is badly broken. I think we recognize that. Washington has not dealt with the problems that we have in this nation. It hasn't reduced our burdens on our middle class, hasn't solved the Social Security problems, hasn't dealt with the health care crisis that we have in this country, hasn't improved our schools as much as we'd like to get them improved.

Nevertheless, this president did pull us out of a deep recession. He put in place two tax cuts which did get the country out of a recession and helped rebuild the country. Now we see ourselves headed apparently towards one again. We hope not.

ROMNEY: Whether there's a recession technically or not, one thing we know -- middle-income families are feeling squeezed and people are losing homes and people are having a hard time paying for their gasoline and they're having a hard time paying for heating oil in places that that's a big part of their life.

And as a result, we've got people that feel there needs to be a change in Washington and that's something I represent.

COOPER: Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?

FORMER SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created.

But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down, but more importantly, the economy particularly in some parts of the country, state of Michigan, Governor Romney and I campaigned, not to my success, I might add, and other parts of the country are probably better off.

But I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the housing, subprime housing problem. We need to, obviously, have this package go through the Congress as quickly as possible.

We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so. I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax that sits out there and challenges 25 million American families.

COOPER: It sounds like that we're not better off is what you're saying.

MCCAIN: Pardon me?

COOPER: It sounds like you're saying we're not better off.

MCCAIN: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera.

What I'm trying to emphasize, Anderson, that we are in a very serious challenge right now, with a lot of Americans very uncertain about their future, and we've got to give them some comfort.

We've got to give them some stimulus. We've got to give them some tax relief. We've got to stop this outrageous squandering spending that causes us to have to borrow money from China, and we've got to get our fiscal house in order.

I think we went on a spending spree that, frankly, betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending.

COOPER: Let me just give the question now to Senator -- I'm going to ask everyone.

So, Governor Huckabee, if you can, briefly: Are we better off than we were eight years ago?

FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't think we are. And the real issue, though, let's not blame President Bush for all of this. We've got a Congress who sat around on their hands and done nothing but spend a lot of money and they're spending, leaving us $9 trillion in debt that we're passing on to our grandchildren.

I don't blame the president solely for that. So I think if we're asking is George Bush responsible for all this, no. But are we better off? Well, let's look at some factors.

Right now, home sales are -- new home starts, anyway, are down 40 percent. That's going to have a cascading impact on everybody who sells lumber, who is in the building trades.

If you talk to people who are driving trucks across America today, their fuel prices are significantly higher than they were a year ago. They're hurting because they're not making a lot more money to haul something, but they're spending a lot more money to get it done.

And all over our economy, with unemployment up to five percent across the nation, that means there are a lot of families today that don't have a paycheck and if you don't have a paycheck, then it's hard to put groceries on the table and it's hard to pay the rent.

And I think what Americans are looking for is somebody to just honest with them and straight with them and tell them that, no, it's not better and it's not going to get better unless we have some serious leadership in Washington that says that we're going to have to start having policies that touch the people not just at the top, but the people at the bottom.

And they feel like they're invisible to a lot of people in government today.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, 61 percent of Americans think there is a recession already -- 61 percent of Americans say there's already a recession.

Are we better off than we were eight years ago?

TEXAS REP. RON PAUL: No, no, we're not better off. We're worse off, but it's partially this administration's fault and it's the Congress. But it also involves an economic system that we've had for a long time and a monetary system that we've had and a foreign policy that's coming to an end and we have to admit this.

The Republicans were elected in 1994 to change direction of the country, because people sensed there was something wrong, we were going the wrong direction, but we didn't do anything.

In the year 2000, we did, also. We were elected in the year 2000 to have a humble foreign policy and not police the world, and yet what are we doing now? We're bogged down in another war. We're bankrupting our country and we have an empire that we're trying to defend which costs us $1 trillion a year.

And the standard of living is going down today. It's going down and the middle class is hurting because of the monetary policy.

PAUL: When you destroy a currency, the middle class gets wiped out. Poor countries don't even have middle classes. We used to have one, and they're on the ropes right now.

But it has to do with a fiscal policy, monetary policy, and foreign policy of way too much spending, but it took a lot of years for us to get here. The people in this country have been begging for a change in direction, and they haven't had it. It's time we gave it to them.

COOPER: We've got a lot to get to on the economy. To begin with, let's go to Janet Hook of the L.A. Times.

JANET HOOK, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Governor Romney, you've spent the last several days warning voters that John McCain as president would follow, quote, "a liberal, Democratic course." But, by most measures, doesn't he have a pretty mainstream conservative record?

ROMNEY: I'm sure on many issues he does, and he's a good Republican. I wouldn't question those credentials at all. But there are a number of pieces of legislation where his views are out of the mainstream, at least in my view, of conservative Republican thought.

So, for instance, he's opposed to drilling in ANWR, I believe. If I'm correct -- correct me, Senator. He voted twice against the Bush tax cuts. Only two Republicans did that.

He is a co-author of McCain-Feingold, which I think took a whack at the First Amendment and I do believe, as well, hurt our party pretty significantly. And I think it's made money have an even greater influence in politics today, not less influence.

He also was one of the co-authors of McCain-Kennedy, the first bill, by the way, not that bad. About 5 percent or 10 percent of the people, by our calculation, got a form of amnesty. Most people went home.

Under the final version of McCain-Kennedy, everybody who was here illegally, other than those who committed crimes, was eligible to receive a Z-visa. For $3,000, they got to stay here for the rest of their life. That's not a Republican thought.

And then now McCain-Lieberman, which is a unilateral -- meaning U.S.-only imposed -- cap-and-trade program, which puts a burden, as much as 50 cents a gallon, on gasoline in this country. It basically says Americans are going to pay for the cost of global warming, not the Chinese and Indians and forth.

So those views are outside the mainstream of Republican conservative thought. And I guess I'd also note that, if you get endorsed by the New York Times, you're probably not a conservative.

COOPER: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Let me note that I was endorsed by your two hometown newspapers who know you best, including the very conservative Boston Herald...

ROMNEY: I'd say the same thing.

MCCAIN: ... who know you well better than anybody. So I'll guarantee the Arizona Republic will be endorsing me, my friend.

Let me just say I'm proud of my conservative record. It's one of reaching across the aisle to get things done for Americans, obviously, whether it be McCain-Lieberman that established the 9/11 commission, and then the legislation that implemented that, or whether it be working across the aisle in the Armed Services Committee to provide the men and women with what they need to defend this nation.

And I'm proud of that record. And I heard Governor Romney describe his record. As I understand it, his record was that he raised taxes by $730 million. He called them "fees." I'm sure the people that had to pay it, whether they called them bananas, they still had to pay $730 million extra.

His job creation was the third worst in the country, as far as people of Massachusetts with a $245 million debt because of the big government-mandated health care system.

And while the rest of the country was losing 7 percent of the manufacturing jobs while he was governor, 14 percent of the manufacturing jobs left the state of Massachusetts.

So I am proud of my record, and I am proud of reaching across the aisle and getting things done. That's what the American people want us to do.

And the legislation and the activities I've done, particularly in this America's defense, particularly in the fact that I've been involved in every major national security challenge this nation has faced.

And, by the way, I think it would be hard for people like Jack Kemp, and Tom Ridge, former head of the Department of Homeland Security, and Phil Gramm, and all of the long list of conservatives that support me, both governors, conservative governors, and, in fact, your former lieutenant governor, who is spending a lot of time on the campaign trail with us.

But the point is that I'm proud of the people that have surrounded me and are supporting me. And whether they come from one part of the spectrum or the other, strong conservatives are ones who are supporting me, and I'm proud of their support. And I'll rely on people to judge me by the company that I keep.

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: OK, I got a little work to do here. Let me help you with the facts here, Senator.

First of all, my lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, endorsed me, and is supporting me, and is working all over the state for me. My predecessor in office, Governor Swift, Governor Swift is supporting you.

ROMNEY: When you say that our state ranked number three in job creation, the study you're relying upon is a study that included her term in office. And during her term in office, 141,000 jobs were lost.

During my term in office, we added jobs. And from the lowest point we added 60,000 new jobs. So that study, unfortunately, included the wrong data.

With regards to fees, we raised fees $240 million. Not $730 million. Facts are stubborn things. We audited our fee increase, because, of course, we cared.

Now, why did we raise fees $240 million? We had a $3 billion budget shortfall, we decided we were not going to raise taxes, and we found that some fees hadn't been raised in as many as 20 years. These were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver's license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald's or a Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign to raise money for our state in a way that was consistent with the what the market had done over the ensuing years.

And let's see -- with regards to my health care plan, you know, a lot of people talk about health care. I'm the only one that got the job done.

I got health insurance for all our citizens. We had 460,000 people without insurance. We got 300 of them -- 300,000 of them signed up for insurance now. I'm proud of what we accomplished.

The bill that I submitted to the legislature didn't cost $1 more than what we were already spending. However, the legislature and now the new Democratic governor have added some bells and whistles, and they're willing to pay for them.

I wouldn't do that if I were governor. I would veto the items they put in place there, but they're entitled to make changes if they want to.

They're still running a balanced budget. I wouldn't have added the money they did. And by the way, no debt was left. I left a rainy day fund of over $2 billion.

Facts are stubborn things. I'm proud of my record.

COOPER: Governor Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh says if you or Senator McCain were nominated, would be the nominee, you would "destroy the Republican Party."

Your reaction?

HUCKABEE: You know, I wish Rush loved me as much as I love Rush. I think he's a great voice for conservatism. It doesn't mean he's infallible. And on this he's very wrong.

And I want to make sure everybody understands, this isn't a two- man race. There's another guy who would like to stay down here on the far right of the stage.

You want to talk conservative credentials? Let me get in on that.

I created the first-ever broad-based tax cuts in the 160-year history of my state when I became governor with a 90 percent Democrat legislature. I also balanced the budget every one of the 10 and a half years. I'm the only person that's sitting here today that has consistently supported a human life amendment that's been part of our Republican platform since 1980, and also supports the marriage amendment to our Constitution, two conservative hallmarks.

I believe in less government. I believe in lower taxes, not higher.

I think it's important to streamline the federal government like we streamlined some services in Arkansas. Simple things like getting a driver's car tag, because it used to take a couple of days and about seven pieces of paper. We streamlined it so it could be done on the Internet in 4 and a half minutes.

We consolidated state agencies. We cut 11 percent out of the budget.

One of the things that Rush Limbaugh once praised me for was creating what I called the No -- Tax Me More Fund. And the way that worked was that we had a lot of people in our legislature that wanted us to raise taxes. And I said we don't need to raise taxes, we need to cut our spending.

And so I created a fund called the Tax Me More Fund and said there's nothing in the law that says that you can't just pay more if you want to. And I had envelopes printed, and I said, anybody who wants to pay more taxes, just fill it up with whatever will make you feel better and send it right in. And it proved that a whole lot of people didn't really want to pay more taxes after all, because after about a year and a half, there was only about $1,200 in the account, $1,000 of which had been given by a liberal legislator.

So if we're going to talk conservatism, I'd like to be in on the discussion.

COOPER: Let's talk more about that.

Jim VandeHei from Politico.

jJIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO: The first question from the readers, Governor Romney, is from Jonathan Rubin (ph) in Fairfax, Virginia.

"As governor of Massachusetts, Senator McCain just pointed out you raised hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue through so-called fees and loophole closings. You passed a health care bill forcing individuals to buy insurance on the threat of a fine. How do you reconcile that policy with your claim to be the authentic conservative?"

ROMNEY: Well, let's talk about each.

I mentioned fees, and I think it's appropriate if the state is providing a service to someone that's not a requirement to have a car or a driver's license, but instead, let's say, we're going to be taking out an oil tank from your back yard because it's leaking into the ground and the state's going to provide that service. But to charge a fee sufficient to do so makes a lot of sense.

And so the fees ought to be adjusted from time to time to compose the amount of what the cost is of providing that service. And if there hasn't been a fee raised in a couple of decades, you probably have some inflation in there you ought to adjust for.

ROMNEY: But then, secondly, with regards to my health care plan, let me describe what I think is the ultimate conservative approach.

In this country, you have today about 47 million people that don't have health insurance. We went out and tried to find out why they don't. We found out that about half of them could afford to buy insurance if it were reasonably priced. They could afford to buy it, but they weren't buying it. it? If we get sick, we can go to the hospital and get care for free."

And we said: You know what? If somebody could afford insurance, they should either buy the insurance or pay their own way. They don't have to buy insurance if they don't want to, but pay their own way. But they shouldn't be allowed to just show up at the hospital and say, somebody else should pay for me.

And so we said: No more free riders. It was like bringing "workfare" to welfare. We said: If you can afford insurance, then either have the insurance or get a health savings account. Pay your own way, but no more free ride.

And that was what the mandate did. It said, you have got to come with either the insurance or a health savings account or the like.

I think it's the conservative approach, to make sure that people who can afford care are getting it at their expense, not at the expense of the taxpayers and government. That I consider to be a step towards socialism.

COOPER: Our next question is from Janet Hook of the L.A. Times.

HOOK: This is for Senator McCain.

Senator McCain, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed that California be allowed to implement much tougher environmental regulations on emission requirements than apply to the rest of the country. This is an initiative that conservatives generally oppose, and the Bush administration rejected California's request.

Do you side with the governor or with the Bush administration?

MCCAIN: Well, there's some physical danger. I have to agree...

(LAUGHTER)

... with the governor.

Look, I'm a federalist. And I believe the states should decide to enormous degrees what happens within those states, including off their coasts. The people of California have decided they don't want oil drilling off their coasts. The people of Louisiana have decided that they do.

I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states across America to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

Now, suppose that the governor and I are wrong, and there's no such thing as climate change. And we adopt these green technologies, of which America and the innovative skills we have and the entrepreneurship and the free market which is embodied by Senator Lieberman's and mine cap-and-trade proposal is enacted, and there's no such thing as climate change. Then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world.

But suppose we do nothing. Suppose we do nothing, and we don't eliminate this $400 billion dependence we have on foreign oil. Some of that money goes to terrorist organizations and also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Then what kind of a world have we given our children?

The state of California and the state of Arizona, we Westerners care very much about our environment and we want to act. And it's no secret that I have disagreed with the Bush administration in not being more active in addressing the issue of climate change, whether it be through cap-and-trade, through tax incentives for R&D for green technologies and many other measures that I think need to be taken.

We are feeling here in California pollution from China. It is a global issue, and we have to address it globally. And I would not agree to any global agreement without India and China being part of it.

But I want to assure you that we have an obligation to try to stem these greenhouse gas emissions. And one of the ways is through the use of nuclear power. The French generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power.

I think that -- by the way, we now have a pro-American president in France, which shows if you live long enough, anything is possible in this world.

But the point is, young Americans care. Californians care. People all over this country care. And we have to address this issue.

We can do it. The greatness and strength of America is in our innovative capability and our ability to develop these green technologies.

General Electric, the world's largest corporation, is committed to green technologies. We can do it.

And to somehow believe that it will cost more money if we unleash the innovative and entrepreneurship of America I think does not have confidence in the ability of Americans to address this issue.

COOPER: Governor Romney, what did you think of Senator McCain's response? And just to remind you, the original question is do you side with Governor Schwarzenegger or with the Bush administration on this issue?

ROMNEY: Well, I side with states to be able to make their own regulations with regards to emissions within their own states.

ROMNEY: But let's talk about our policies with regards to greenhouse gases and global warming.

I think we all agree that America should become energy independent. The consequences of us continuing to buy over $1 billion of oil a day from people who oftentimes use this money against us is bad for our economy; it's bad for our foreign policy; and all that energy being used is probably bad for our environment.

It's probably warming our environment. And we want that to stop. So a unilateral action to get ourselves off of foreign oil makes all the sense in the world.

Nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuel, all the renewables, liquefied coal, where you sequester the carbon dioxide, those things make all the sense in the world.

But when you put in place a new cap or a mandate, and particularly if you don't have any safety valve as to how much the cost of that cap might be, you would impose on the American people, if you do it unilaterally, without involving all the world, you'd impose on the American people a huge new effective tax: 20 percent on utilities, 50 cents a gallon for gasoline -- that's according to the energy information agency -- would be imposed on us.

And here's what happens. I've lived in the business world. I've lived in the real economy for 25 years of my life. What happens if you do that? You put a big burden on energy in this country as the energy-intensive industries say, "We're going to move our new facilities from America to China, where they don't have those agreements."

And you end up polluting and putting just as much CO-2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That's why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis.

They don't call it "America warming." They call it "global warming." That's why you've got to have a president that understands the real economy.

COOPER: Just so I'm clear, you said you side with the states. That means you side with Governor Schwarzenegger on this one?

ROMNEY: I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I don't always agree with the decisions they make.

COOPER: Governor Huckabee?

HUCKABEE: Well, I was a governor 10 1/2 years. I was chairman of the National Governors Association, which means that my fellow governors selected me to chair the organization of all 50 governors.

Let me tell you why I believe that Governor Schwarzenegger ought to be able to carry out the plan, because, if he's right, every other state is going to copy him. And if he's wrong, every other state is going to recruit the jobs that he lost in California to their own states.

The genius of our system has always been that, if you have states acting as laboratories of good government, rather than mess it up for all 50 states, you get the chance to find out, does it work? And if it does, we all copy it, and then we make a little change, and we claim it for our own.

If it doesn't work, we do everything we can to make sure that the jobs that maybe he loses we get in our own state. It's the genius of our founding fathers when they had the idea of federalism. Thomas Jefferson was right, and Alexander Hamilton was wrong. That debate we thought was settled.

But we've got a federal government that wants to give us unfunded mandates at the state level and doesn't want us to experiment with ideas in good government that might solve a lot of the problems that our country faces.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, do you agree with Governor Schwarzenegger on this one?

PAUL: Yes, I think California should do what they want, and we all recognize that. But one thing that hasn't been emphasized here that should be emphasized when we're dealing with the environment and gas house -- you know, greenhouse gases is property rights.

We neglected during the industrial revolution property rights, and governments and big corporations got together and colluded. And that's what has to be reversed. You have to emphasize the property rights.

But I would like to take one minute, since I didn't get a chance to answer this discussion on conservative versus liberal.

COOPER: We're going to have -- I promise you we're going to have -- you're going to have another opportunity to do that. I promise you, coming up in like two minutes or two questions.

I just want to go right now to Janet Hook for a question to Governor Huckabee.

HOOK: Let's turn for a minute to the troubled economy we're trying to deal with. Governor Huckabee, President Bush and some of your opponents on the stage here believe that giving income tax rebates is the best way to stimulate the economy.

You've disagreed and suggested that spending federal highway money to widen I-95 from Bangor to Miami would do more to help the nation's economy. Now, how is that idea different from the big- government projects that we usually associate with Democrats?

HUCKABEE: Well, if we end up with the rebates, we're going to borrow the $150 billion from China. And when we turn it into rebates, most people are going to go out and buy some consumables like a pair of shoes that they probably don't even need, but they're going to buy them, and they're most likely an import from China. My point is, whose economy are we stimulating when we do that?

The Heritage Foundation did a pretty interesting study on past rebates and found that it does not really stimulate the economy in the way that we hope that it will.

My point was that if you really want an economic stimulus package, look at what infrastructure investment does. And we've got a crumbling infrastructure. I don't have to tell the people of California that their traffic is clogged. And the reason that we have a problem is that because we're not addressing it.

Every billion dollars we spend on highway construction results in 47,500 jobs. But the fact is the average American is sitting in traffic 38 hours a year.

HUCKABEE: That's a full work week, not on vacation, not spent with their kids, stuck in traffic, just sitting there behind the wheel, pointing fingers, usually one at a time, at other motorists and very upset with what's going on around them in this traffic.

The point is we are burning a lot of fuel up in the air, polluting the environment. We're wasting time. Parents never get home to their kids' soccer games and recitals. And the real said thing is we have bridges falling down on people in the United States of America.

Now, my point is, and it's not necessarily just I-95 from Bangor to Miami, I said that when I was in Florida. Today we might look at a western highway that would go down the California coast.

But my point is that infrastructure in this country has been neglected, whether it's our airports, our bridges, our roads, and I don't think there's a governor in this state that wouldn't tell you that you'll create more jobs and you'll build it with American workers, American concrete and American steel.

That's stimulus.

COOPER: Let's ask the other governor on the stage. Governor Romney, what do you think about that?

ROMNEY: There's no question but that investment in infrastructure makes enormous sense for our country. It's good for business, it's good for the economy, and as the governor that watched the completion -- well, almost the completion of the big dig, I think that was -- I don't know how many governors watched that $15 billion project.

They do create a lot of good jobs and they help our economy. They're great things. But, unfortunately, a road project isn't going to stimulate the economy to the timeframe we have right now at the tipping point. And that's...

COOPER: Was the big dig good, by the way?

ROMNEY: As someone once said, at least badly, of course. So someone has remarked that it's the biggest car was in America and most expensive, too.

It's solved a problem, but it cost way too much money to do. It was very badly managed.

But that being said, an economic stimulus plan has to put money in the hands of consumers and businesses and homeowners now and the reason we're asking Congress to move within 30 days is we want to get that out there now so the economy doesn't tip down.

Building a road project, you have to get designs, you have eminent domain, you get the engineers to approve it. It takes years and years and years to get a road project. So it's a wonderful idea, but it's not related to the short-term economic stimulus.

COOPER: Congressman Paul?

PAUL: Well, you know, the governor says that you have to borrow for a handout of a check from the Chinese. Where are you going to get the money to build the highway?

Same old thing. We have a foreign policy where we blow up bridges overseas and then we tax the people to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas and our bridges are falling down and our infrastructure is falling down.

So, yes, this money should be spent back here at home. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China. You can't keep printing the money.

We have to cut some spending. That's what nobody here talks about. Where do you cut spending if you want to spend some money? We need lower taxes, less regulations, and we need to free up the market.

We can't expect the government to do everything. We have to faith and confidence that the market works, but you can't do any of that unless you look at the monetary system.

COOPER: Next question to Senator McCain from Jim Vandehei.

VANDEHEI: We're staying on the economy here. As you well know, foreclosures last year were up 75 percent. A lot of people are losing homes. A lot of people who have adjustable rate mortgages are about to have them adjust up.

Amanda Oro (ph) from Casey, Illinois wants to know if you have a plan to help people with bad credit get lower interest rates so they can keep those homes and avoid foreclosure.

MCCAIN: Yes, and it's tough and it's tough here in California, it's tough in Arizona, it's tough particularly all over, but it's very tough particularly in the high growth states.

And I think the efforts that have been made so far are laudable. We may have to go further, but the fact that the FHA and the other organizations of government under Secretary Paulson's direction, and I think he is doing a good job of sitting down and fixing at least a significant number of these problems.

I think that we've got to return to the principal that you don't lend money that can't pay it back. I think that there's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished. I think there's got to be a huge amount more of transparency as to how this whole thing came about so we can prevent it from happening again.

When a town on Norway is somehow affected by the housing situation in the United States of America, we've gotten ourselves into a very interesting dilemma.

If necessary, we're going to have to take additional actions and particularly in cleaning up a mortgage. A mortgage should be one page and there should be big letters at the bottom that says, "I understand this document."

We ought to adjust the mortgages so people who were eligible for better terms, but were somehow convinced to accept the mortgages which were more onerous on them. We need to fix the rating systems, which clearly were erroneous in their ratings, which led people to believe that there were these institutions which were stable, which clearly were not.

MCCAIN: So I think what we've done so far is good. I think we may have to take further steps if this subprime lending situation continues to be serious.

And finally, could I just mention on the issue of rebates, fine, because part of this is psychological. Part of the problem we have, of course, in any recession is psychological. And I'm still optimistic that nothing is inevitable.

I still rely on the innovation and the talent of the United States of America. But we've got to make the tax cuts permanent. We need to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

We need to give people a depreciation in one year for their business and investment. We need to encourage research and development and tax credits that are associated with it.

And we've got to stop spending. We've got to stop -- one place where Ron Paul and I are in total agreement, spending is out of control. And I'm tired of borrowing money from China.

COOPER: Let's pick up on that with Janet Hook from the Los Angeles Times.

Janet?

HOOK: Senator McCain, you're talking about making the tax cuts permanent. And as Governor Romney pointed out before, you opposed the Bush tax cuts the first time around.

Now, more recently you've been saying that the reason why you opposed the tax cuts at first was because they weren't offset by spending cuts. But back when you actually voted against the tax cuts in Congress, you said you opposed them because they favored the wealthy too much.

So which is it? And if they were too skewed to the wealthy at first, are they still too skewed to the wealthy?

MCCAIN: Actually, I think lower and middle income Americans need more help. Obviously, I think that's the case today. That's one reason why we're giving them rebates.

I was part of the Reagan revolution. I was there with Jack Kemp and Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman and all these other fighters that wanted to change a terrible economic situation in America with 10 percent unemployment and 20 percent interest rates. I was proud to be a foot soldier, support those tax cuts, and they had spending restraints associated with it.

I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important and very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending. And I disagreed when spending got out of control. And I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint.

And guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, over spending. Our base became disenchanted.

If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we'd be talking about additional tax cuts today. I'm proud of my record. I'm proud of my record as a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution, and now I'm prepared to lead in restraining spending.

COOPER: Governor Romney, what do you think of Senator McCain's response?

ROMNEY: I appreciate his response and appreciate the fact he was part of the Reagan revolution. I think that the Bush revolution and the downturn that we faced when he came in office suggested that we needed a tax cut.

There's no question in my mind that Ronald Reagan would have said sign it and vote for it. And Senator McCain was one of two that did not. And again, the justification at the time was because it represents a tax cut for the rich.

I believe in getting rates down. I think that builds our economy.

When we talk about spending, however, I hope people in the country understand that most people in Washington, most politicians, generally want to talk about the $2 and $3 and $4 relative items. And they want to talk about the big one.

Right now, federal spending is about 60 percent for entitlements -- Social security, Medicare and Medicaid. And that's growing like crazy. It will be 70 percent entitlements, plus interest, by the time of the next president's second term.

And then the military is about 20 percent today. No one is talking about cutting the military, we ought to grow it.

So people talk about the 20 percent and how we have to go after that 20 percent. There's not enough in the 20 percent to go after if we don't go after the entitlement problem.

And you listen to all the folks running for president, no one wants to talk about it. But we have to talk about it.

We have to put together a plan that says we're going to rein in the excessive growth in those areas, promising to meet the obligations we made to seniors. We're not going to change the deal on seniors, but we're going to have to change the deal for 20 and 30 and 40-year- olds, or we're going to bankrupt our country.

COOPER: Let's talk about another issue which a lot of Americans watching tonight, immigration.

And Jim VandeHei has a question.

VANDEHEI: Obviously, we're here in California, where one-third of the population is Hispanic, Latino. Immigration has been a huge issue in this campaign from the beginning.

Governor Huckabee, Brian Berry (ph) of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, wants to know, "In order to curb illegal immigration, do you support making changes in the law that would give citizenship only to children who are born to parents who are legally in this country at the time the child is born?"

HUCKABEE: I think the Supreme Court has already ruled on that. The real issue is, that doesn't fix the problem.

HUCKABEE: What we've got to do is to have a secure border fence, something I have proposed that we do within 18 months of taking office.

If we don't have a secure fence and have just this open door that people can come in and out at will, we're never going to deal with this issue effectively and responsibly.

And today, many Americans are angry not that people want to come here -- and I've repeatedly said and I'm going to say it again -- people in this country I think are grateful to God they're in a land that people are trying to break into and not one they're trying to break out of.

So it's not that we're building a fence so we can keep our people in or keep people out, but that people who do come here would have to come legally.

And touching the issue of those born here is not the challenge. It's two things. It's first making sure that that fence is built, I think within 18 months. And the second thing is that we have a process where the people who are here would have to go to the back of the line and start over.

And it's not to be cruel. I want to make sure you understand. It's to make that everybody who is living in our boundaries has their head up and lives in the light, not the darkness, and doesn't run and hide every time they see a police car.

We owe it not just to the people who have waited in line a long time. We owe it to the people who do want to live here and work here, but create a system that is legal, that makes sense, and that actually protects our borders but protects the dignity and worth of every person.

VANDEHEI: Governor Romney, I interviewed you in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago and we talked a little bit about illegal immigration. You've taken a very hard stance against illegal immigration. You said at the time that you felt that there's, for a lot of illegal immigrants who are here, under your plan, we could deport many of them within 90 days. How could that happen? How could we do it that quickly?

ROMNEY: I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, but perhaps not. Let me tell you what my plan is.

VANDEHEI: At the time -- I can just give you the quote if you like. You said that "many of those could be deported immediately," but that would allow slower deportation process for those with thought as quickly as 90 days.

ROMNEY: My plan is this, which is for those that have come here illegally and are here illegally today, no amnesty.

Now, how do people return home? Under the ideal setting, at least in my view, you say to those who have just come in recently, we're going to send you back home immediately, we're not going to let you stay here. You just go back home.

For those that have been here, let's say, five years, and have kids in school, you allow kids to complete the school year, you allow people to make their arrangements, and allow them to return back home.

Those that have been here a long time, with kids that have responsibilities here and so forth, you let stay enough time to organize their affairs and go home.

But the key is this: These individuals are free to get in line with everyone else that wants to become a permanent resident or citizen. But no special pathway, no special deal that says because you're here illegally, you get to stay here for the rest of your life.

And that's what I found to be so offensive with the Z visa, which was in the McCain-Kennedy bill. It said to all illegal aliens, unless you're a criminal, you're all allowed to stay here for $3,000 for the rest of your life. And that's a mistake.

In my view, let us have a fixed period of time -- 90 days for some, depending on their circumstances, others longer, to the end of the school year -- even longer potentially. Do it in a humane and compassionate way, but say to those who have come here legally, you must return home, you must get in line with everybody else that wants to come here.

There are millions throughout the world who want to come to this country legally. It's a wonderful privilege. But those that have come here illegally should not be given a better deal.

I was just at the swearing in of some 700 citizens just a day or two ago in Tampa, Florida, and it was a thrilling thing to see these folks coming out, shaking their hands. People who come here legally are a great source of vitality and strength for our country.

COOPER: Let's follow up...

ROMNEY: But illegal immigration, that's got to end.

COOPER: Janet Hook with the L.A. Times with a follow-up question.

(APPLAUSE)

HOOK: Senator McCain, let me just take the issue to you, because you obviously have been very involved in it. During this campaign, you, like your rivals, have been putting the first priority, heaviest emphasis on border security. But your original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were already here.

What I'm wondering is -- and you seem to be downplaying that part. At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

MCCAIN: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate...

HOOK: But if it did?

MCCAIN: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.

But, look, we're all in agreement as to what we need to do. Everybody knows it. We can fight some more about it, about who wanted this or who wanted that. But the fact is, we all know the American people want the border secured first.

MCCAIN: We will secure the borders first when I am president of the United States. I know how to do that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary.

I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. And then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, probably as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And that will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.

There's 2 million people who are here who have committed crimes. They have to be rounded up and deported.

And we're all basically in agreement there are humanitarian situations. It varies with how long they've been here, et cetera, et cetera.

We are all committed to carrying out the mandate of the American people, which is a national security issue, which is securing the borders. That was part of the original proposal, but the American people didn't trust or have confidence in us that we would do it.

So we now know we have to secure the borders first, and that is what needs to be done. That's what I'll do as president of the United States.

COOPER: So I just want to confirm that you would not vote for your bill as it originally was?

MCCAIN: My bill will not be voted on; it will not be voted on. I will sit and work with Democrats and Republicans and with all people. And we will have the principals securing the borders first.

And then, if you want me to go through the description all over again, I would be glad to. We will secure the borders first. That's the responsibility and the priority of the American people.

COOPER: Actually, we're going to be taking a short break. But before we do, one other question.

This one goes to Governor Huckabee. On July 6, 1981, which is actually Nancy Reagan's birthday, Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. And the Reagan Library has graciously allowed us to actually have the original Reagan diary right here on the desk. I'm a little too nervous to actually even touch it, but that is the Ronald Reagan's original diary.

And in it, he wrote by his hand, he said, "Called Judge O'Connor in Arizona and told her she was my nominee for Supreme Court. Already the flak is starting, and from my own supporters. Right-to-life people say she's pro-abortion. She declares abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she'll make a good justice."

That's Ronald Reagan's words from his own book. Governor Huckabee, was she the right choice?

HUCKABEE: History will have to determine that, and I'm not going to come to the Reagan Library and say anything about Ronald Reagan's decisions. I'm not that stupid. If I was, I'd have no business being president.

I think we need to talk about why the issue of right-to-life is important. For many of us, this is not a political issue; this is an issue of principle and conviction. And it goes to the heart of who we are as a country.

If we value each other as human beings and believe that everybody has equal worth, and that that intrinsic value is not affected by net worth, or ancestry, or last name, or job description, or ability, or disability, then the issue of the sanctity of human life is far bigger than just being anti-abortion.

It's about being pro-life and exercising that deep conviction held by our founding fathers that all of us are equal and no one is more equal than another, recognizing that once we ever decide that some people are more equal or less equal than others, then we start moving that line, and it may include us some day.

And that's why for many of us -- and me included. Let me be very clear: I'm pro-life. I value every human being. And I would always make every decision always on the side of life every time I could, without equivocation.

COOPER: Yes or no, Congressman Paul, was Sandra Day O'Connor the right choice?

PAUL: I wouldn't have appointed her, because I would have looked for somebody that I would have seen as a much stricter constitutionalist.

COOPER: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I'm proud of Sandra Day O'Connor as a fellow Arizonan. And my heart goes out to her family in that situation that they have today. And I'm proud of her.

The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm not going to second-guess President Reagan.

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: I would approve justices -- I would have favored justices like Roberts and Alito, Scalia and Thomas. I like justices that follow the Constitution, do not make law from the bench. I would have much rather had a justice of that nature.

COOPER: We're going to pause for a quick commercial break. The debate continues when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: And welcome back to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, our continuing debate.

We have about a little bit more than 30 minutes left to go. A lot of questions to get to, so let's get started.

This first one to Governor Romney.

Peggy Noonan, President Bush's former -- excuse me, President Reagan's former speechwriter, recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal, and I quote, "George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart, and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration, and other issues."

Is the Republican Party better off than it was eight years ago?

ROMNEY: I don't think we would say it's better off than it was eight years ago, to be truthful. I think the eight years that you've seen -- and I don't blame that on President Bush. I blame that on Washington.

I look at what he tried to do. He took on some tough issues. He took on Social Security, for instance, put forward a plan to reform Social Security, and the other side of the aisle said, "What, me, worry? "We've got no problem." And they were unwilling to become engaged and take that on.

He was hit by something which completely took his agenda off course, and that was the Iraq conflict and the attack of 9/11, and Afghanistan. All these things came together.

He did something for our party that was important to do, which is to show that when someone attacks America, there will be consequences. And he kept us safe these last six years. And...

(APPLAUSE)

And that's a very important legacy that he left for the Republican Party in a positive way. And I watched with horror as I watched the Democratic candidates for president all having a competition. get out?" It was very clear in the answer of all three candidates getting out was more important than winning, and they're wrong. And I'm pleased that this president has stood for strength.

There are places, however, that I think you look and say we have weakened ourselves. One is with regards to spending.

We have overspent in Washington. Even discretionary funds have gone up well above inflation. I count the inflation less 1 percent, but that was a problem.

We did not deal with entitlements. He tried. He did not get the support he needed.

He did fight for better schools. I think No Child Left Behind takes the ball forward, not backward.

COOPER: OK.

ROMNEY: So we made some progress. But we're in the house that Reagan built. It's important that we, as Republicans, stay in the house that Reagan built. If we want to take the White House again, social, economic and foreign policy conservatives have to come together.

COOPER: Let's talk about foreign policy. You're all going to be able to weigh in on the question of Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's go right now to Janet for the first question.

HOOK: Yes. I'd like to start with Governor Romney.

Obviously, Iraq is still a major issue in this campaign, and over the last few days there's been a real back-and-forth going on here. Senator McCain has said over and over again that you supported a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

Is that true?

ROMNEY: Absolutely, unequivocal -- if I can get that word out -- unequivocably, absolutely no. I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for exit from Iraq.

ROMNEY: And it's offensive to me that someone would suggest that I have.

And I have noted that everyone from Time magazine to Bill Bennett over there to actually CNN's own analysts, he said it was a lie and it's absolutely wrong.

I do not support that, never have. We've had -- we've -- and Senator McCain pointed to an interview I had back in April with ABC, when I said that our president and their prime minister should have timetables and milestones.

We have timetables and milestones for progress that we're making together. But I never suggested a date specific to withdraw and, were to give you a date specific for withdrawal, would you, Senator, veto it?" I said I'd veto it.

I'm opposed to setting a specific date for withdrawal. By the way, we've had, since that time, 10-12 debates. Senator McCain never raised that question in any of those debates.

If he ever wondered what my position was, he could have raised it. I instead have pointed out time and time again, and let me make it absolutely clear again tonight, I will not pull our troops out until we have brought success in Iraq, and that means, for me, that we do not have safe havens for al Qaeda or Hezbollah or anyone else, that our troops have secured the population from that kind of threat, that they will not have safe havens from which they could launch attacks against us.

And if there's any misunderstanding, those words should make it perfectly clear, as have every single debate that I've attended...

COOPER: Senator...

ROMNEY: ... 15 debates. I do not propose nor have I ever proposed a public or secret date for withdrawal. It's just simply wrong.

And by the way, raising it a few days before the Florida primary, when there was very little time for me to correct the record, when the date of withdrawal," sort of falls in the kind of dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found to be reprehensible.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator McCain, tough words.

MCCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. Before that, we have to understand that we lost the 2006 election and the Democrats thought that they had a mandate. They thought they had a mandate to get us out of Iraq.

And I was prepared to sacrifice whatever was necessary in order to stand up for what I believed in.

Now, in December of 2006, after the election, Governor Romney was won't weigh in. I'm a governor."

At the time, he didn't want to weigh in because he was a governor, I was out there on the front lines with my friends saying, "We not only can't withdraw, but we've got to have additional troops over there in order for us to have a chance to succeed."

Then in April, April was a very interesting year (sic) in 2007. That's when Harry Reid said the war is lost and we've got to get out. And the buzzword was "timetables, timetables."

Governor, the right answer to that question was "no," not what you said, and that was we don't want to have them lay in the weeds until we leave and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, "timetables."

"Timetables" was the buzzword for the...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote, Senator?

MCCAIN: ... withdrawal. That...

ROMNEY: Why don't you use the whole quote? Why do you insist on...

MCCAIN: I'm using the whole quote, where you said "I won't"...

ROMNEY: ... not using the actual quote? That's not what I said.

MCCAIN: The actual quote is, "We don't want them to lay in the weeds until we leave." That is the actual quote and I'm sure...

ROMNEY: What does that mean?

MCCAIN: ... fact-checkers --

ROMNEY: What is the meaning?

MCCAIN: It means a timetable until we leave.

ROMNEY: Listen, Senator, let's...

COOPER: Let me jump in, because the quote that I have...

ROMNEY: Is it not fair -- is it not fair to have the person who's being accused of having a position he doesn't have be the expert on what his position is?

How is it that you're the expert on my position, when my position has been very clear?

(APPLAUSE)

I'll tell you, this is...

MCCAIN: I'm the expert. I'm the expert on this. When you said...

ROMNEY: This is the kind -- this is the kind -- this is...

MCCAIN: ... "I won't weigh in. I'm a governor." You couldn't weigh in because you were a governor...

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: ... back when we were having the fight over it.

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: The fact is...

ROMNEY: That's a separate point.

MCCAIN: ... that I have fought for this surge. I have said we need to have this succeed. I know the situation in Iraq and I am proud to have supported this president and supported the fact that we are succeeding in Iraq today.

ROMNEY: There's...

MCCAIN: If we had done -- if we had waited and laid in the weeds until we leave, then al Qaeda would have won and we would be facing a disastrous situation in the...

COOPER: There's two separate issues being discussed...

MCCAIN: ... today.

COOPER: ... and I just want to clarify both of them. First of all...

MCCAIN: These are...

COOPER: ... Senator McCain...

MCCAIN: ... quotes that I am giving you that are direct quotes.

COOPER: So, Senator McCain, the quote is from Governor Romney on GMA that you've been quoting. The actual quote is, "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones"...

MCCAIN: Timetables and milestones.

COOPER: ... "that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone."

MCCAIN: You don't have to...

COOPER: He does not say he is supporting a withdrawal.

MCCAIN: ... wait until the enemy lays in the weeds until we leave. That means that we were leaving.

COOPER: It's open to interpretation.

MCCAIN: If we weren't leaving, how could the enemy lay in the weeds?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Senator, if you have question on this, if you have a question on this, you can just ask it.

MCCAIN: I'm sorry you did not have -- could not weigh in as governor on the surge when it was the critical issue. And I'm sorry...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: ... so let me just allow you to respond to the issue of the going to be gone, laying in the weeds question.

MCCAIN: Timetables was the buzzword for those that wanted to get out.

COOPER: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: And you're saying, point blank, you did not want to get out then. What did you mean by that statement?

ROMNEY: That we have a series of timetables and milestones for working on the progress that they're making, the progress we're making, the rule of law, what their soldiers are doing, what our soldiers are doing.

COOPER: OK.

ROMNEY: How many troops they're able to recruit, how well the following question, "do you have a specific time, would you support Congress if they gave you a specific time?" I said "absolutely not."

COOPER: Let me -- OK, on the...

ROMNEY: By the way, this has been around. If this was a question, it could have been raised in April or May.

COOPER: On the second issue...

ROMNEY: But it was raised...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: I want to give you an opportunity...

MCCAIN: It was raised many times. I raised it many times, as to whether you have the experience and the judgment to lead this country in the war against radical Islamic extremism. I've raised that many times.

ROMNEY: Senator McCain...

MCCAIN: And I will continue to raise it.

COOPER: I want to give you, Governor Romney...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: ... a chance to respond to the other accusation.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: All right. Let's just focus on this, the second one, which is the issue that Senator McCain raised, which was actually back in the surge, when you were a governor, and you did say you would not take a position.

This was in January -- excuse me -- December of 2006. Two months later, you announced you were running for president.

Why two months before you were running for president were you not willing to take a position on supporting or not supporting a surge?

ROMNEY: Look, as governor of the state, there are a lot of issues of a federal nature that I didn't take a position on. I was running a state. My responsibility was for running a state. When I became a governor, I took a whole series of positions on national issues. That's normal and natural.

With regard to the surge, the briefing that I received -- I received an early briefing from Fred Kagan on the size of our military. After I received that, I said I support increasing our military by at least 100,000. And then just prior to the president's announcement of the surge, I spoke again with Fred Kagan, and he laid out the philosophy of the surge, his vision for it. As you know, many consider him one of the authors of the surge idea. And when he gave me that report, I met with my staff and announced that day that I supported a surge. The president announced later that day the entire program.

So I supported it as a candidate for president, No. 1.

No. 2, with regards to this idea that I favor a specific date for withdrawal -- I do not. We've had, I believe since that interview that the senator quotes, we've had 10 or 12 debates. He's never raised that issue with me. He's never said, "are you for a date specific?" had, I said I will not leave Iraq until we have secured Iraq, make sure it will never become a safe haven.

And what's interesting here is it's an attempt to do the Washington-style old politics, which is lay a charge out there, regardless of whether it's true or not, don't check it, don't talk to the other candidate, just throw it out there, get it in the media and the stream.

There's not a single media source that I've seen that hasn't said it wasn't reprehensible. Even the New York Times said it was wrong. The Washington Post -- they endorsed you -- The Washington Post gave you three Pinocchios for it. It's simply -- it's simply wrong, and the senator knows it.

COOPER: I want to give, Senator, final comment on this subject, and then we have a lot more about Iraq that we are going to talk to the other candidates about as well.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: ... in the debate. It wasn't -- it wasn't -- and when he said what he said in December, it was after the election. President Bush fired Rumsfeld, and we announced that we are going to have a new strategy. That was the critical time.

Timetables was the buzzwords. Timetables were the ones.

And as far as Washington politics is concerned, I think my friend Governor Huckabee, sir, will attest the millions of dollars of attack ads and negative ads you leveled against him in Iowa, the millions of dollars of attack ads you have attacked against me in New Hampshire, and have ever since.

A lot of it is your own money. You're free to do with it what you want to. You can spend it all. But the fact is that...

(LAUGHTER)

... your negative ads, my friend, have set the tone, unfortunately, in this campaign.

I say to you again: The debate after the election of 2006 was whether we were going to have timetables for withdrawal or not. Timetables were the buzzword. That was the Iraq Study Group. That was what the Democrats said we wanted to do.

Your answer should have been no.

COOPER: I want to go to Jim VandeHei with a question for, I believe, Congressman Paul.

VANDEHEI: Congressman Paul, this comes from Jay Majumdar (ph) from Roswell, Georgia. And he wants to know if you agree with Senator McCain's statement that the United States might need to have U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as even 100 years?

PAUL: I don't even think they should have gone, so keeping them for 100 years, where's the money going to come from?

(APPLAUSE)

You know, the country is in bankruptcy. And when I listen to this argument, I mean, I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with.

They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy, whether we should have interventionism or non-interventionism, whether we should be defending this country or whether we should be the policemen of the world, whether we should be running our empire or not, and how are going to have guns and butter?

You know, the '70s were horrible because we paid for the guns and butters of the '60s. Now we're doing the same thing. And nobody even seems to care. The dollar is crashing, and you're talking about these technicalities about who said what when?

I mean, in 1952, we Republicans were elected to stop the war in Korea. In 1968, we were elected to stop the war in Vietnam. And, tragically, we didn't stop it very fast: 30,000 more men died.

So when I talk about these long-term stays, I think, "How many men are you willing to let die for this, for something that has nothing to do with our national security?"

There were no al Qaeda there. It had nothing do with 9/11. And there was no threat to our national security. They never committed aggression. It's unconstitutional. It's an undeclared war.

And we have these silly arguments going on about who said what when. I think it's time to debate foreign policy and why we don't follow the Constitution and only go to war with a declaration of war.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Governor Huckabee, the idea of a 100-year involvement of the U.S. -- the idea of a 100-year involvement by the U.S. in Iraq?

HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, I didn't come here to umpire a ballgame between these two. I came here to get a chance to swing at a few myself. So I'd appreciate maybe a question that we could talk about that would involve some of us down here at the end who've been left out of the discussion for the last few minutes.

COOPER: The question right now is John McCain had at one point talked about a 100-year involvement by the U.S. in Iraq as being OK. If it does...

HUCKABEE: Let's hope it doesn't take that long, but the one thing I do agree with is that we need to leave with victory, and we need to leave with honor.

And the reason we need to is because, if we leave a bigger mess in Iraq than is there now, it is not just going to affect Iraq. It's going to affect the rest of the Middle East. It will erupt in a completely destabilized environment into which that vacuum is exactly the kind of situation that al Qaeda can build a strong base.

Iran would love to be able to see a destabilized Iraq, because they've been fighting in Iraq and for Iraq for a long time. If we leave it vulnerable, all we've done is create a situation that the rest of the world is going to have to be back into sooner or later for all of our interests.

And with all due respect, Congressman Paul -- and I do think you're right, we don't want to be there for 100 years -- but however long it takes to get out of there with victory and with honor, we owe it to those who have gone to make sure that they did not go in vain.

And we need to make sure that future sons and daughters of America don't have to go back and do it over.

COOPER: Also, for accuracy's sake, I just want to point out Senator McCain was talking about 100-year involvement in the same way as the U.S. being involved in South Korea, not at the current situation that it is now.

Janet Hook, you have another question on foreign policy for Governor Huckabee.

HOOK: I have another one for you, Governor Huckabee.

MCCAIN: You're not going to let me address the quote that you attributed to me?

COOPER: All right, fine, if you could briefly.

MCCAIN: Thank you. It's a false argument. It's a false argument. We are going to be there for some period of time, but it's American casualties, not American presence.

We've got troops right next door in Kuwait. We'll probably have them there for a long time. We have troops in Bosnia. We've had troops in South Korea for some 50 years. By the way, President Eisenhower didn't bail us out of Korea.

But the point is that we need to protect America's national security interest. It's not a matter of presence. It's a matter of casualties.

We are succeeding. We are succeeding. And I unequivocally put my career and my political fortunes on the line and unequivocally said we're going to support this surge. We're not going to talk about timetables or anything else; we're going to talk about winning and what's necessary to win.

And I'm the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go and the Petraeus strategy is the one that can succeed. That's because I have the experience, the knowledge, and the judgment.

And I believe that Americans will come home with honor. And the fact is -- and the fact is that it's not American presence, because America, as the world's superpower, is going to have to be a lot of places in the world. It's how they come home.

And as president, I will follow in this tradition of sticking to my principles no matter what and bring our troops home with honor.

COOPER: Janet Hook from the Los Angeles Times.

Janet?

HOOK: OK. Governor Huckabee, we're going to shower you with questions now, OK?

HUCKABEE: Well, good. I'd like to be here tonight. Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

HOOK: President Bush once said he looked into the eyes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and found him to be, "very straightforward and trustworthy," and that he "got a sense of his soul." Senator McCain says he looks into Putin's eyes and he sees three letters -- KGB.

When you look at President Putin, what do you see?

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't know that I can read people's souls that well, and I've spent a lot of my life looking at people and talking to them. But I look at people's actions, because you can look into their eyes and their eyes can lie, but their actions don't.

And when people take actions that cause us to give concern to human rights violations, to oppression -- and I don't care what their eyes are saying -- their actions are speaking a whole lot louder than their eyes ever will. And we need to be looking at what people are doing, not just what they're saying, and recognizing that our foreign policy needs to reflect an extraordinary strength.

We need to make sure that the rest of the world knows that we're going to have a military that they're not wanting to engage for any purpose. And I do believe that President Reagan was right, you have peace through strength, not vulnerability.

We've got to an Army that is well-staffed, well-trained, well- financed, and that is prepared for anything. And hopefully because it is so well-prepared, it never has to be used.

We can't continue to have one that is stretched and pulled, and particularly -- and I'm very sensitive to this having been a governor and watched some of our National Guard troops spend three out of five years in active duty -- if we're going to engage them, we have to make sure we've got enough troop strength of regular Army and our Air Force and Navy that we don't have to have extended deployments out of our guard and reserve units.

COOPER: Governor Huckabee -- excuse me -- Governor Romney, your thoughts on Vladimir Putin?

ROMNEY: Well, Putin is heading down the same road that we've seen authoritarian leaders in Russia and the former Soviet Union head down before, and it's very troubling. You see a leader who wants to reestablish Russia as one of the great powers of the world, potentially a superpower, potentially the superpower.

And he has -- the evidence of that, of course, is his elimination of the free press, his terrorizing and imprisoning political prisoners, and unexplained murders that are occurring. It's a -- it's another repressive regime, which he is overseeing. And the question is what do you in a circumstance like that and what it portends for the future of the world.

What we have today in the world is four major, if you will, strategies at play. One, they're the nations with the energy, like Russia. They're trying to use energy as a way to take over the world.

Then there's China, which is saying we're going to use communism, plus sort of a Wild West form of a free enterprise. We're going to give nuclear weapons -- or nuclear technology to the Iranians, we're going to buy oil from the Sudanese. You've got China.

Then you've got al Qaeda, which says we want to bring everybody down.

And then finally there's us, the only major power in the world that says we believe in free enterprise and freedom for the individual. And this great battle is going on right now, and it's essential for us to strengthen other friends like ourselves, and to confront one by one these other strategies and help turn them towards modernity so that the world our kids inherent does not have to know war.

Will there be war? Of course there will always be terrible events in the world. But let's do everything in our power to keep war from occurring. Move these voices of moderation and having such strength in our own military that people never question our ability to respond.

COOPER: Some questions about leadership now -- Janet Hook.

HOOK: I want to start with Senator McCain.

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the importance of leadership and management experience. What makes you more qualified than Mitt Romney, a successful CEO and businessman, to manage our economy?

MCCAIN: Because I know how to lead. I know how to lead.

I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit.

And I can hire lots of managers, but leadership is a quality that people look for.

And I have the vision and the knowledge and the background to take on the transcendent issue of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism. I've been involved in every single major national security crisis since -- in the last 20 years. I'm proud to have played a role in those, and I'm proud to have played a role in making sure that we didn't raise the white flag and surrender in Iraq, as the Democrats wanted us to do and we would have done if we had set timetables for a withdrawal.

So, the fact is -- so the fact is that I have the qualifications and the knowledge and the background and the judgment. I don't need any on-the-job training.

MCCAIN: I had the great honor of serving this country in uniform for 22 years.

I had the great honor of being inspired while I was in the prison camps of North Vietnam by the news of a governor and his wife who cared very much about those of us who were in captivity.

And when I came home, I was inspired by him, and I voted for him, and I supported him, and I was proud to be a leader in the Reagan revolution -- I mean, a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution, as we fought these wars together with unshakable courage and principle. And I'm prepared to follow in his tradition and in his footsteps.

COOPER: Governor Romney, I've got to let you in on this. Is Senator McCain a better leader in terms of the economy?

ROMNEY: No. He's a fine man and a man I respect, and I particularly respect his service in the military and his integrity and courage for our nation.

I do believe that as people over the centuries have considered who ought to lead our country, they don't look to senators. They look to governors. And they look to governors because they have the experience of being executive leaders.

They're actually leading something. They're making something happening. They're running something. They're leading an organization.

Senators and congressmen are fine people, but they're legislators. They sit in committees. They're committee chairs. And they call that leadership.

In my view, the key leadership of my life was 25 years in the private sector, helping build business, turn a business around, start a business successfully, then going off to the Olympics, helping turn the Olympics around.

You don't do that as a manager; you do that as a leader. We shouldn't demean the people who are starting up small businesses, or middle-sized businesses, or people who run volunteer organizations. They're leaders. You can't go out and hire managers to run these things. These are people who are leading our economy. They help lift our country.

I think in order to have somebody fix our economy and strengthen it -- and it's our economy that's the root of our strength to provide for our military, for our families -- we have to have a strong economy -- you've got to have somebody who's actually done some work in the private economy, who understands how it works.

COOPER: Congressman...

ROMNEY: Then I went on to...

(APPLAUSE)

I went on to become a governor. I went on to become a governor. And as a governor, you're also a leader. You're the commander-in- chief of your National Guard. You're in charge of the state police. You're in charge, in my case, of tens of thousands of employees. You work together with the legislature to get the job done.

I'm proud of my experience as a leader, and I will use that leadership skill, which has honed my sense of judgment, temperament, wisdom, decision making capacity, and ability to deliberate on tough issues to make sure you get them right, to make sure that we have the right kind of leadership in the White House.

COOPER: Jim VandeHei has a follow-up question. We'll get to all of you, I promise.

VANDEHEI: Let's turn that around. Even today, Rudy Giuliani endorsed John McCain and said that there would be no better commander- in-chief. What makes you more qualified than John McCain to run the military as commander-in-chief?

ROMNEY: You know, I'm sure that are those who'd say, you know, to be the commander-in-chief you have to serve in the military. And one of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn't serve in the military. I'd love to have.

But I don't believe that you have to have served in the military to be a great commander-in-chief or to be a great foreign policy expert. I think you're going to see in our foreign policy and in the military, we're going to face challenges not like the challenges of old, where I'd liken it to playing checkers with the red side and the black side.

It's more like three-dimensional chess. And you're going to have to have people of unusual capacity in bringing in the perspectives of the entire world and thinking about how you move your pieces and how you make changes that can strengthen America's position.

You see, my objective is to keep America the strongest nation on Earth, economically, militarily, and, if you will, from the spirit of our people. I believe I can do that by virtue of a lifetime of experience leading, making decisions.

But, you know, some of our great leaders -- look at Abraham Lincoln, was not a military expert, but turned out to be one of the best in the history of this country.

COOPER: I'm going to ask you all for follow-ups on this, but, Senator McCain, I just want to give you an opportunity to follow up on that. Is Governor Romney ready to be a military commander?

MCCAIN: Oh, I'm sure that, as I say, he's a fine man. And I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That's the nature of that business.

But the fact is -- but the fact is we're at a time in our history -- we're in a time in our history where you can't afford any on-the- job training. And I believe that my experience and background qualifies me to lead.

And that's why I've gotten the support of four former secretaries of state, two of them in the Reagan administration. That's why I've gotten the support of General Norman Schwarzkopf.

That's why I've gotten the support of over 100 retired Army generals and admirals. Literally every national security expert from the Reagan and other administrations are supporting my candidacy, including the former head of the Department of Homeland Security, my friend, Governor Tom Ridge, who believe that I have the qualities necessary to lead.

COOPER: Congressman Paul...

MCCAIN: I hope that some people judge me by those that are supporting me.

COOPER: Congressman Paul, what makes you capable of being a leader both on the economy and the military?

PAUL: OK. The Constitution is very clear that the president is commander in chief of the military, but the president is not the commander in chief of the economy or of the people. And when we get reflection of conventional wisdom, but of a lot of lack of understanding of how the economy works.

The president is not supposed to manage and run the economy. The people are supposed to do this. The government is supposed to give them sound money, low taxes, less regulation. The people are supposed to run it.

But here, we're assuming that the president is supposed to run the economy. We're not supposed to manage. We're not supposed to manage the people's...

COOPER: What role do you think the federal government should have -- I mean, does the federal government in your opinion have a role in stimulating the economy?

PAUL: Yes, by lower taxes and less regulation. They could do a whole lot by having sound money, where we don't print the money out of thin air. That causes the business cycle. That causes your bubbles.

We're always dealing with the symptoms of the disease and never saying, "how did this come about?" You know, it comes about because we have a Federal Reserve that creates money and prints it out of thin air. There is a lot of malinvestment.

That's the most important thing to understand about the inflation of the monetary system, is the malinvestment. Then, later on, people suffer. You wipe out the middle class. But the evil of it all is the vehicle for financing wars that we shouldn't be in and a welfare state that we shouldn't be doing.

So, yes, we have a role to play, but it's a negative role. We want the people to be free. We don't want to manage the people and tell them how to live. And we need a commander in chief.

But the most important thing as a commander in chief is not moving troops around, as much as it is having a wise foreign policy that doesn't get us involved in so many things that we get trapped in and we linger year after year. We've been doing this for so long.

And I like President Bush's argument that we have a humble foreign policy when he ran in 2000, and that we not be the policemen of the world.

COOPER: Governor Huckabee, what makes you qualified on economic issues, on the military?

HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, let me say -- a while ago, you said you were going to shower me with questions, and I think then you turned the spigot off, so I want to make sure I get a little time in here to get some time.

I want to just say that I agree with something that Governor Romney said. He talked about that governors are well prepared to be presidents. And I think he's right about that. And if that's the case, then I appreciate his endorsement, because I've been a governor and led a state longer than anybody running for president, Democrat or Republican. I've actually managed a government for 10 and a half years.

There's something a lot of people don't think about. When you're a governor, you actually manage a microcosm of the federal government. Every agency that you have at the federal level, you have at the state level. You are familiar with the whole game board. You understand what those agencies do, because you interrelate with them as a governor every single day.

But you know what the biggest frustration is? Washington doesn't understand how states operate, but states understand how Washington operates, and that's the fundamental difference. We understand, because unfunded mandates come stomping down on top of us, wrecking our state budgets, creating a complete imbalance of power, ignoring the 10th Amendment.

And that's one reason that a lot of us are ready to say it's time for a new type of leadership that respects the 10th Amendment, that respects the fact that governors are out there fighting to try to build a decent education system, create jobs, make sure that we can give families a chance to have a decent way of living. And that we get governments off the backs of mothers and fathers who ought to be raising kids without a whole lot of government interference.

Those are the reasons that I think when a governor gets to the White House, he does understand that leadership is about looking at all of those issues and realizing that there is no such thing as an isolated issue. Education, health care, economic development -- they're all tied together, Anderson. And this is something that I don't hear coming often from people, who, with all due respect, in the legislative branch, have the luxury of picking out particular issues that they can specialize in.

Governors don't get to specialize. They have to be able to handle on any given day several dozen different issues and see how they integrate together for a strong economy, a strong sense of security. And that's how it works.

COOPER: You've said repeatedly you want a presidential candidate -- or you think voters want a presidential candidate, quote, "who looks more like the guy they work with than the guy who laid them off." What exactly do you mean by that? I mean, what about leadership, ability, experience?

HUCKABEE: That's exactly -- real leadership recognizes what your decisions do to people at the bottom. That's what I mean by it, Anderson.

You can't have a president who sees a whole bunch of America as invisible. If you make a decision at the top and you don't understand how it affects the person all the way at the bottom, then you're not ready to lead. Leadership is about seeing the whole field.

HUCKABEE: And that's what I'm talking about. And that's why -- listen, our Republican Party is going to be in trouble if we creating policies and acting like we don't understand what those folks are feeling out there waiting the tables, handling bags, driving the trucks, and moving the freight around.

COOPER: We only have about four minutes left. And this is a time restriction that all the campaigns put on us. We would be happy to have this debate go on all night long, but I know everyone has a lot ahead and a lot on their plates.

So this is a question that will go to each of you. Each of you has about a minute to answer.

We'll start with Governor Romney.

Would, and if so, why -- why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Ronald Reagan would look at the issues that are being debated right here and say, one, we're going to win in Iraq, and I'm not going to walk out of Iraq until we win in Iraq.

Ronald Reagan would say lower taxes. Ronald Reagan would say lower spending.

Ronald Reagan would -- is pro-life. He would also say I want to have an amendment to protect marriage.

Ronald Reagan would say, as I do, that Washington is broken. And like Ronald Reagan, I'd go to Washington as an outsider -- not owing favors, not lobbyists on every elbow. I would be able to be the independent outsider that Ronald Reagan was, and he brought change to Washington.

Ronald Reagan would say, yes, let's drill in ANWR. Ronald Reagan would say, no way are we going to have amnesty again. Ronald Reagan saw it, it didn't work. Let's not do it again.

Ronald Reagan would say no to a 50-cent-per-gallon charge on Americans for energy that the rest of the world doesn't have to pay.

Ronald Reagan would have said absolutely no way to McCain- Feingold.

I would be with Ronald Reagan. And this party, it has a choice, what the heart and soul of this party is going to be, and it's going to have to be in the house that Ronald Reagan built.

COOPER: Your campaigns wanted this tight, so let's keep it tight.

Senator McCain, would Ronald Reagan endorse you?

(APPLAUSE)

MCCAIN: Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.

Ronald Reagan -- Ronald Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles, and there were many times, like when he had to deploy the (INAUDIBLE) cruise missile to Europe and there were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against it, he stood with it. Ronald Reagan had a deal in Reykjavik that everybody wanted him to take, but he stuck with his principles.

I think he knows that I stick with my principles. I put my political career on the line because I knew what would happen if we failed in Iraq.

I hope that the experience I had serving as a foot soldier in his revolution would make him proud for me to continue that legacy of sticking to principle and doing what you believe in, no matter what.

COOPER: Congressman Paul?

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: I supported Ronald Reagan in 1976, and there were only four members of Congress that did. And also in 1980. Ronald Reagan came and campaigned for me in 1978.

I'm not sure exactly what he would do right now, but I do know that he was very sympathetic to the gold standard, and he told me personally that no great nation that went off the gold standard ever remained great. And he was very, very serious about that.

So he had a sound understanding about monetary policy. And for that reason, I would say look to Ronald Reagan's ideas on money because he, too, was concerned about runaway inflation and what it does to a country when you ruin the currency. And that's what's happening today. The dollar is going down and our country is going to be on the ropes if we don't reverse that trend.

COOPER: Governor Huckabee?

(APPLAUSE)

HUCKABEE: I think it would be incredibly presumptuous and even arrogant for me to try to suggest what Ronald Reagan would do, that he would endorse any of us against the others.

Let me just say this, I'm not going to pretend he would endorse me. I wish he would. I would love that, but I endorse him, and I'm going to tell you why.

It wasn't just his specific policies, but Ronald Reagan was something more than just a policy wonk. He was a man who loved this country, and he inspired this country to believe in itself again.

What made Ronald Reagan a great president was not just the intricacies of his policies, though they were good policies. It was that he loved America and saw it as a good nation and a great nation because of the greatness of its people.

And if we can recapture that, that's when we recapture the Reagan spirit. It's that spirit that has a can-do attitude about America's futures and that makes us love our country whether we're Democrats or Republicans. And that's what I believe Ronald Reagan did -- he brought this country back together and made us believe in ourselves.

And whether he believes in us, I hope we still believe in those things which made him a great leader and a great American.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Gentleman, good luck to you all. Thank you very much for attending this debate tonight.
advertisement

And that concludes this debate.

END

[End Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

Caroline & Ted Kennedy Endorse Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 04:44:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

Caroline Kennedy, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Barack Obama

Text of Caroline Kennedy's remarks as prepared for delivery...

Good Afternoon Everyone, and thank you, Patrick, for that introduction and for continuing our family’s proud tradition of public service.

It’s a special privilege to come to American University where President Kennedy made his immortal call for a peaceful world - a world made safe for diversity—a world that cherishes our children’s future.

Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wish they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This longing is even more profound today. Fortunately, there is one candidate who offers that same sense of hope and inspiration and I am proud to endorse Senator Barack Obama for President.

I am happy that two of my own children are here with me, because they were the first people who made me realize that Barack Obama is the President we need. He is already inspiring all Americans, young and old, to believe in ourselves, tying that belief to our highest ideals - ideals of hope, justice, opportunity and peace – and urging us to imagine that together we can do great things.

My Uncle Teddy feels the same way, and I am proud to stand with him today. For more than four decades in the Senate, Teddy has led the fight on the most important issues of our time: civil rights, social justice, and economic opportunity. Workers, families, the elderly, the disabled, immigrants, and men and women in uniform – all have no stronger champion. He has stood with teachers, students and parents to improve our public schools and help with the high price of a college education. When it comes to fighting for quality, affordable health care, Teddy is in a league of his own.

I know his brothers would be so proud of him. He is an inspiration to all the members of our family – always looking to the future, never the past, always hopeful, always believing that we are capable of our very best. You know him well but I’m honored to introduce him now – Senator Edward Kennedy.

Here are the remarks of Senator Ted Kennedy...

Here's the text of Senator Kennedy's remarks as prepared for delivery...

Thank you, Caroline. Thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your courage and bold vision, for your insight and understanding, and for the power and reach of your words. Like you, we too “want a president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again.” Thank you, Caroline. Your mother and father would be so proud today.

Thank you, Patrick, for your leadership in Congress and for being here to celebrate and support a leader who truly has the power to inspire and make America good again, “from sea to shining sea.”

Thank you, American University.

I feel change in the air.

Every time I’ve been asked over the past year who I would support in the Democratic Primary, my answer has always been the same: I’ll support the candidate who inspires me, who inspires all of us, who can lift our vision and summon our hopes and renew our belief that our country’s best days are still to come.

I’ve found that candidate. And it looks to me like you have too.

But first, let me say how much I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. John Edwards has been a powerful advocate for economic and social justice. And Hillary Clinton has been in the forefront on issues ranging from health care to the rights of women around the world. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.

Let there be no doubt: We are all committed to seeing a Democratic President in 2008.

But I believe there is one candidate who has extraordinary gifts of leadership and character, matched to the extraordinary demands of this moment in history.

He understands what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “fierce urgency of now.”

He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.

He is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to “the better angels of our nature.”

I am proud to stand here today and offer my help, my voice, my energy and my commitment to make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Like most of the nation, I was moved four years ago as he told us a profound truth—that we are not, we must not be, just red states and blue states, but one United States. And since that time I have marveled at his grit and his grace as he traveled this country and inspired record turnouts of people of all ages, of all races, of all genders, of all parties and faiths to get “fired up” and “ready to go.”

I’ve seen him connect with people from every walk of life and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. With every person he meets, every crowd he inspires, and everyone he touches, he generates new hope that our greatest days as a nation are still ahead, and this generation of Americans, like others before us, can unite to meet our own rendezvous with destiny.

We know the true record of Barack Obama. There is the courage he showed when so many others were silent or simply went along. From the beginning, he opposed the war in Iraq.

And let no one deny that truth.

There is the great intelligence of someone who could have had a glittering career in corporate law, but chose instead to serve his community and then enter public life.

There is the tireless skill of a Senator who was there in the early mornings to help us hammer out a needed compromise on immigration reform— who always saw a way to protect both national security and the dignity of people who do not have a vote. For them, he was a voice for justice.

And there is the clear effectiveness of Barack Obama in fashioning legislation to put high quality teachers in our classrooms—and in pushing and prodding the Senate to pass the most far-reaching ethics reform in its history.

Now, with Barack Obama, there is a new national leader who has given America a different kind of campaign—a campaign not just about himself, but about all of us. A campaign about the country we will become, if we can rise above the old politics that parses us into separate groups and puts us at odds with one another.

I remember another such time, in the 1960s, when I came to the Senate at the age of 30. We had a new president who inspired the nation, especially the young, to seek a new frontier. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.

They realized that when they asked what they could do for their country, they could change the world.

It was the young who led the first Earth Day and issued a clarion call to protect the environment; the young who enlisted in the cause of civil rights and equality for women; the young who joined the Peace Corps and showed the world the hopeful face of America.

At the fifth anniversary celebration of the Peace Corps, I asked one of those young Americans why they had volunteered.

And I will never forget the answer: “It was the first time someone asked me to do something for my country.”

This is another such time.

I sense the same kind of yearning today, the same kind of hunger to move on and move America forward. I see it not just in young people, but in all our people.

And in Barack Obama, I see not just the audacity, but the possibility of hope for the America that is yet to be.

What counts in our leadership is not the length of years in Washington, but the reach of our vision, the strength of our beliefs, and that rare quality of mind and spirit that can call forth the best in our country and our people.

With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.

With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.

With Barack Obama, we will close the door on the old economics that has written off the poor and left the middle class poorer and less secure.

He offers a strategy for prosperity—so that America will once again lead the world in better standards of life.

With Barack Obama, we will break the old gridlock and finally make health care what it should be in America—a fundamental right for all, not just an expensive privilege for the few.

We will make the United States the great leader and not the great roadblock in the fateful fight against global warming.

And with Barack Obama, we will end a war in Iraq that he has always stood against, that has cost us the lives of thousands of our sons and daughters, and that America never should have fought.

I have seen him in the Senate. He will keep us strong and defend the nation against real threats of terrorism and proliferation.

So let us reject the counsels of doubt and calculation.

Let us remember that when Franklin Roosevelt envisioned Social Security, he didn’t decide—no, it was too ambitious, too big a dream, too hard.

When John Kennedy thought of going to the moon, he didn’t say no, it was too far, maybe we couldn’t get there and shouldn’t even try.

I am convinced we can reach our goals only if we are “not petty when our cause is so great”-- only if we find a way past the stale ideas and stalemate of our times – only if we replace the politics of fear with the politics of hope – and only if we have the courage to choose change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can bring us that change.

Barack Obama is the one person running for President who can be that change.

I love this country. I believe in the bright light of hope and possibility. I always have, even in the darkest hours. I know what America can achieve. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it—and with Barack Obama, we can do it again.

I know that he’s ready to be President on day one. And when he raises his hand on Inauguration Day, at that very moment, we will lift the spirits of our nation and begin to restore America’s standing in the world.

There was another time, when another young candidate was running for President and challenging America to cross a New Frontier. He faced public criticism from the preceding Democratic President, who was widely respected in the party. Harry Truman said we needed “someone with greater experience”—and added: “May I urge you to be patient.” And John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”

So it is with Barack Obama. He has lit a spark of hope amid the fierce urgency of now.

I believe that a wave of change is moving across America. If we do not turn aside, if we dare to set our course for the shores of hope, we together will go beyond the divisions of the past and find our place to build the America of the future.

My friends, I ask you to join in this historic journey -- to have the courage to choose change.

It is time again for a new generation of leadership.

It is time now for Barack Obama.

Here are the remarks of Senator Obama...

Text of Senator Obama's remarks as prepared for delivery...

Thank you Congressman Kennedy and Caroline and Senator Kennedy for your words, your support, and the service you’ve rendered to this country.

I stand here today with a great deal of humility. I know what your support means. I know the cherished place the Kennedy family holds in the hearts of the American people. And that is as it should be. Because the Kennedy family, more than any other, has always stood for what’s best about the Democratic Party, and about America. That each of us can make a difference and all of us ought to try. That no frontier is beyond our reach when we’re united, and not divided. And that those of us who are not content to settle for the world as it is, can remake the world as it should be – that together, we “can seek a newer world.”

No one embodies this proud legacy more than the people we’ve just heard from. For a woman who was introduced to America in the spotlight, Caroline has worked out of public view to bring about change in our communities. Whether it’s her work with New York City’s public schools or the Profile in Courage Award or through books on politics, civil rights and history, Caroline has been a quiet force for change in this country. And it’s an honor to have her support.

It’s also an honor to have Congressman Kennedy’s support. He’s been a real leader in the fight to make sure every American has equal access to the quality mental health care they need. It’s one of the great civil rights issues of our time, and it’s an issue I’m proud to have worked on with him. He’s not just part of the next generation of Kennedy leaders, he’s part of the next generation of Democratic and American leaders, and I look forward to fighting by his side in the months and years to come.

And it is a special honor and privilege to have the support of the Congressman’s father, Senator Kennedy. In the year I was born, President Kennedy let out word that the torch had been passed to a new generation of Americans. He was right. It had. It was passed to his youngest brother.

From the battles of the 1960s to the battles of today, he has carried that torch, lighting the way for all who share his American ideals.

It’s a torch he’s carried as a champion for working Americans, a fierce proponent of universal health care, and a tireless advocate for giving every child in this country a quality education.

It’s a torch he’s carried as the lion of the Senate, a man whose mastery of the issues and command of the levers of government – whose determined leadership and deft political skills – are matched only by his ability to tell a good story.

Ted Kennedy stands apart from the prevailing wisdom in Washington that has reduced politics to a game of tactics and transactions, in which no principle is beyond sacrifice. And his public life is a testimony to what can be achieved when you focus on lifting our country up, rather than tearing political opponents down.

Few public servants in our nation’s history have had such a profound influence on the course of our nation. Few leaders in this country have more experience in how to bring about real change. And few have better judgment about where we’re headed as a party and a people.

Today isn’t just about politics for me. It’s personal. I was too young to remember John Kennedy and I was just a child when Robert Kennedy ran for President. But in the stories I heard growing up, I saw how my grandparents and mother spoke about them, and about that period in our nation’s life – as a time of great hope and achievement. And I think my own sense of what’s possible in this country comes in part from what they said America was like in the days of John and Robert Kennedy.

I believe that’s true for millions of Americans. I’ve seen it in offices in this city where portraits of John and Robert hang on office walls or collections of their speeches sit on bookshelves. And I’ve seen it in my travels all across this country. Because no matter where I go, or who I talk to, one thing I can say for certain is that the dream has never died.

The dream lives on in the older folks I meet who remember what America once was, and know what America can be once again. It lives on in the young people who’ve only seen John or Robert Kennedy on TV, but are ready to answer their call.

It lives on in those Americans who refuse to be deterred by the scale of the challenges we face, who know, as President Kennedy said at this university, that “no problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.”

And it lives on in those Americans – young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian – who are tired of a politics that divides us and want to recapture the sense of common purpose that we had when John Kennedy was President.

That is the dream we hold in our hearts. That is the kind of leadership we need in this country. And that is the kind of leadership I intend to offer as President.

So make no mistake: the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future.

It’s about whether we’re going to seize this moment to write the next great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we healed our nation. This was the time when we repaired our world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

One of these travelers was my father. I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life. And his prayer was answered when he was brought over to study in this country.

But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.

So I’m asking for your hands. I’m asking for your help. And I’m asking for your hearts. And if you will stand with me in the days to come - if you will stand for change so that our children have the same chance that somebody gave us; if you’ll stand to keep the American dream alive for those who still hunger for opportunity and thirst for justice; if you're ready to stop settling for what the cynics tell you you must accept, and finally reach for what you know is possible, then we will win these primaries, we will win this election, we will change the course of history, and light a new torch for change in this country – and “the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

[End Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

How Crazy Is Bush, Actually?

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:59:00 +0000

[Begin Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

“But I do believe that -- I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions.” -- George W. Bush

Americans' tax dollars at work:

Interview of the President by Yonit Levi, Channel 2 News
Map Room

January 4, 2008

4:05 P.M. EST

Q Mr. President, firstly, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.

THE PRESIDENT: Welcome to Washington.

Q Thank you very much. You're just about to come to the Middle East. And in Annapolis you said that the parties will make every effort to reach an agreement, until the end of 2008. And I -- you know, I don't want to sound skeptic, but I'm an Israeli and it's in our nature.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. (Laughter.)

Q Why do you believe that you can reach peace in 12 months, when it hasn't been attainable in the seven years of your presidency -- and long before that?

THE PRESIDENT: I think we can reach a vision of what a Palestinian state would look like. But I have made it abundantly clear that the existence of a state will be subject to the obligations in the road map. And so the goal is to have something other than just verbs -- words. In other words, here's what a state will look like. And what's important for that is that the Palestinians need to have something to hope for, something to be for. There needs -- Abbas, who has agreed that Israel has the right to exist, must be able to say to his people: be for me, support me, and this is what can happen; if you follow the way of the terrorists and the killers, this will never happen.

And so I'm optimistic that we can have the outlines of a state defined. In other words, negotiations on borders and right of return and these different issues can be settled. I'm optimistic because I believe Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas want to achieve that objective. I know I'm willing to help. But I believe we can get that done, and I think it's in Israel's interest to get it done.

One reason why it was impossible to get a two-state solution moving forward previous to this is, one, when we first came into office there was an intifada. Secondly, a lot of people didn't necessarily agree with the two-state solution as being in Israel's interest. Ariel Sharon changed that point of view. Prime Minister Olmert campaigned on that. And so we have a good chance.

I do want to emphasize, however, that the state won't come into being just because we defined a state. It will come into being subject to the road map, and that's important for the Israeli people to understand.

Q So there won't necessarily be a complete, ratified signed agreement by the end of your --

THE PRESIDENT: There will be an agreement on what a state would look like, in my judgment. I think it'll happen. I also believe that the leaders know me, and I know them, and that there's a -- you know, they say, well, are you going to have a time table? One time table is the departure of President George W. Bush from the White House -- not that that I'm any great, heroic figure, but they know me and they're comfortable with me and I am a known quantity. And therefore the question is will they decide to make the efforts necessary to get the deal done while I'm President, as opposed to maybe the next person won't agree with a two-state, or maybe the next person will take a while to get moving.

So there's a -- I am not going to try to force the issue because of my own time table. On the other hand, I do believe Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas want to see this done. And therefore I'm optimistic it will get done by 2008.

Q So I am moving on to Iran, and I think the question on every Israeli's mind -- and you're the best man to answer it -- is, is Iran an immediate threat to the existence of Israel?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, if I were an Israeli, I would take the words of the Iranian President seriously. And as President of the United States, I take him seriously. And I've spoken very bluntly about what that would mean, what an attack on Israel would mean if Iran were to do that.

Q You said World War III, if I --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I did. I said that we will defend our ally -- no ands, ifs or buts. And so -- now, I am -- one of the concerns I'm sure amongst the Israeli population is whether this intelligence estimate that came out, what does it mean. It means to me that Iran was a threat and Iran is a threat. In other words, just because they had a military covert program that it suspended doesn't mean, one, they could restart it. And two, doesn't mean that their capacity to enrich couldn't -- you know, so-called civilian program -- couldn't be transferred to a military. So I see it as a threat.

Whether there's an imminent attack coming, I don't think so. The Iranians, I'm confident, know there would be a significant retaliation. The key, however, is to make sure that they don't end up with a weapon. And one of the things I will talk to the Prime Minister about again is our strategy to solve this issue diplomatically.

Q You say "diplomatically," but is a military strike still an option --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the U.S. always maintains a military option. I have told the American people that I believe we can solve this issue diplomatically. Diplomacy works best when all options are on the table. And we're making some progress. The Russians and the Chinese, as well as the other members of the U.N. Security Council supported two Security Council resolutions -- which some might say aren't very effective; I think they are.

I think they're effective in the sense that it creates a sense of isolation amongst the Iranians. And I constantly speak to the Iranian people when I say, you can do better than a government which is causing you to be isolated; your economy can do better than it's doing; because of your government's decision not to be honest with the world, not to be transparent, not to listen to the IAEA, there will be continued economic sanctions, some of them unilaterally, some of them bilaterally. Sanctions on their financial institutions, for example, can be very effective.

And so the United States -- we've spent a lot of time on this issue, keeping the pressure on the Iranians.

Q So we're looking to something a lot nicer -- the upcoming U.S. elections. And I seem to recall you liked to be on the campaign trail. You were there twice and you won. Are you a little bit, you know, envious of the candidates?

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. I know exactly what they're going through. Laura and I -- well, Laura and I were talking about what it was like the day before, like, the Iowa caucuses. You know, I've been through three Iowa caucuses: one, when my dad beat Ronald Reagan in 1980, and then lost; two, that when my dad came in third in Iowa in 1988 and won; and, of course, our own caucus, which then -- you know, we win Iowa, go immediately to New Hampshire, lose, and eventually win.

And so there's a -- it's just the beginning of a long process. And it's an important process for American politicians because it does two things: one, it lets the electorate see how people handle stress, and equally importantly, it lets the candidate, the person running determine whether or not they have the inner fortitude necessary to be the President of the United States. Because if things were okay and everything is, you know, smooth, the job is kind of -- it's interesting. It's always interesting, don't get me wrong, but when times are tough is when you're really tested; when you have to make the tough decisions of war and peace. And it requires an inner fortitude that I think you begin to develop when you're out there in those primaries.

So this is the beginning of a fairly long process, although it's been -- to answer your question, I don't wish for things that are impossible to wish for. And so I'm an observer, but with a pretty intimate knowledge of the sentiments that these candidates are going through.

Q I imagine so. You are, you know, reaching the end of your presidency in a year, and it's sort of the season to summarize. Can you tell me what your -- you consider as your biggest achievement, and what, if anything, do you regret?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. First of all, I'm going to get a lot done next year.

Q Of course.

THE PRESIDENT: I really am. You know, there's this great myth about how the President, because there's an election, or because it's the last year of his presidency, not much is going to get done. Quite the contrary. We'll get a lot done.

I would think that -- first of all, I don't believe there's such a thing as an accurate short-term history. I'm still -- I read a lot of history these days. I like to read a lot about Abraham Lincoln, for example. And if they're still analyzing the 16th -- the history of the 16th President, see, then I -- the 43rd guy just doesn't need to worry about it. I'll be long gone. (Laughter.) But I do believe that --

Q Isn't that kind of sad, that you won't be appreciated enough until after you're --

THE PRESIDENT: No, what really matters in life is do you have a set of principles, and are you willing to live your life based upon those principles. That's what matters most to me. My priorities are really my faith and my family. And we're blessed with a lot of friends. I just don't -- I'm not the kind of person that -- I don't spend a lot of time looking in the mirror, I guess is the best way to say it. But I do believe that -- I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions.

Q And finally, can I ask you, when you do leave the White House, you're still fairly young, you know, what's next for you after you're the leader of the free world?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I don't know. I do know where I'm going to live, and that's in Texas.

Q Texas.

THE PRESIDENT: I tell my friends from Texas, I left the state with a state of principles, and I'm returning with the same set of principles. And I didn't compromise my beliefs in order to be the popular guy, or the hip guy, or the guy that every -- you know, the cultural elite likes. But I don't know. I'm going to build a library with a freedom institute attached to it.

And it's not just freedom from tyranny, it's freedom from disease. One of the great initiatives of my administration has been the HIV/AIDS initiative on the continent of Africa. Laura and I are very much involved in an initiative to end malaria. And thanks to the taxpayers of our country, we've dedicated about $1.6 billion to help save babies' lives. It's the tyranny of hunger, the tyranny of ignorance. I mean, there's all kinds of ways that I think I can help others realize the great blessings of life.

But I haven't gotten there yet. I've got too much to do. I mean, I've been thinking about this trip to the Middle East today, and I'm excited to go, I really am. You know, my first trip to Israel, and only trip to Israel, was in 1998. And I remember being in a hotel room and opened the curtain over the Old City, and the sun was just coming up, and it just glowed. It was golden. And I told Laura, I can't believe what I'm looking at. And after she got her contacts on -- (laughter) -- she came and looked.

And, you know, one of the great ironies of that trip was that I was on a helicopter tour of the West Bank with Ariel Sharon. You know, life works in funny ways. I had just finished a reelection campaign in Texas, and there was a lot of pressure and a lot of talk about me running for President. But I don't think either of us would have guessed that both of us would have been serving in our respective offices in a defining moment in history. And that defining moment is the willingness of free nations to confront the ideology of hate; those who use murder to achieve political objectives. And yet there we were. I'm saddened by the fact that he's in the state he's in. But nevertheless, it was -- the beginning of a relationship started in a helicopter flying over the West Bank in 1998, and I'm glad -- I'm really glad to be coming back. I'm looking forward to being with my friend, Prime Minister Olmert, and other leaders.

Q Mr. President, thank you so much again for taking the time to talk to us. Thank you so much.

THE PRESIDENT: You bet, thank you.

Q And have a safe trip, and best of luck. We're all keeping our fingers crossed for you.

THE PRESIDENT*: We'll be fine.

Q Thank you.

END 4:18 P.M. EST

[* Any resemblance to a lawfully elected president entirely coincidental.]

[End Voice of Blogistan Transmission]

New Hampshire I - Democratic Debate

noreply@blogger.com (ed waldo) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:52:00 +0000

[begin transmission, Voice of Blogistan]

January 5, 2008

The Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

The following is the transcript of the Democratic presidential debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., as transcribed by Federal News Service.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE PARTICIPANTS:
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)
FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC)
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA
(D-IL)
GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM)

MODERATORS:
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC-TV NEWS ANCHOR
SCOTT SPRADLING, WMUR-TV NEWS ANCHOR LOCATION:

MR. GIBSON: And so let me introduce them from left to right. We have with us former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Senator Hillary Clinton from New York. And again, for the first 45 minutes of this debate I will be posing questions in three rather broad categories. We'll do 15 minutes each, but with the hope that I can sort of stay out of the way to the extent possible and let the candidates discuss the issues among themselves. There are no lights to limit time limits, at least for this part of the debate, and -- but I will interrupt politely, I hope, if things seem to be going a little bit long. So let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today and somewhat to my surprise has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is nuclear terrorism. And for some background, here's ABC's chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross.

BRIAN ROSS: (From videotape.) After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country. Watch as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught, and after six years of trying the United States has yet to capture the man who says it his religious duty to get nuclear weapons, Osama bin Laden. And in the last 18 months U.S. officials say his al Qaeda has regrouped using safe havens along the Pakistani border to train and dispatch hundreds of new recruits. And just as troubling, amidst all the turmoil in Pakistan, the influence of bin Laden continues to grow there, a country with many nuclear weapons. Charlie? (End of videotape.)

MR. GIBSON: Brian Ross there. Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is: How aggressively would you go after al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after him whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

SEN. OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our National Intelligence Estimates is that al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 2001, and so back in August I said we should work with the Pakistani government. First of all, they encourage democracy in Pakistan, so you've got a legitimate government that we're working with, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory.

What I said was if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike. And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the heads of the 9/11 commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing. I think it's indisputable that that should be our course.

Let me just add one thing, though, on the broader issue of nuclear proliferation. This is something that I've worked on since I've been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar, so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials. And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferant -- proliferation strategy -- something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence. It would not cost us that much, for example, and it would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine: we can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

SEN. OBAMA: No, that -- that is not the same thing because here we have a situation where al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that. And you know, this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future. And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence to do so.

MR. GIBSON: Edwards, do you agree with him?

MR. EDWARDS: If I know what -- if I as president of the United States, know where Osama bin Laden is, I would go get him. Period. This man is the mastermind of a mass murder in the United States of America. He is public enemy number one, as al Qaeda is.

But I would add this has to be put in the bigger context of: What should America be doing over the long term to deal with this whole issue of nuclear proliferation? Because if you look at Pakistan, it's a perfect vehicle for actually thinking about this issue. Here's an unstable leader, Musharraf, in a country with a serious radical, violently radical element that could, under some circumstances, take over the government. If they did, they would have control of a nuclear weapon. They could either use it or they could turn it over to a terrorist organization to be used against America or some of our allies.

I think the bigger picture on this is, what do we do over the long term? Because what we're doing now is essentially an ad hoc, nation by nation, case by case basis of trying to control the spread of this nuclear technology. In the short term, that is exactly what we should do and what I would do as president of the United States. But A.Q. Khan, who developed the nuclear weapon for Pakistan, we know has already spread some of this technology to other places and I think this ad hoc policy does not work over the long term.

And what I believe we should be doing, over the long term, and what I will do as president of the United States, besides dealing with these short term threats -- which are very serious and should be taken seriously -- I, as president of the United States, want to do what some Republicans and some Democrats have said, which is to lead a long-term initiative, international initiative, to actually rid the world of nuclear weapons, because that is the only way to make the world safer and securer and to keep America safe.

MR. GIBSON: Well, you led me right up to the point of what you'd do if the Islamic radicals actually took control of the Pakistani government and therefore were in control of nuclear weapons, and then you went away from there. But I'll come back to that in a moment.

Governor Richardson.

GOV. RICHARDSON: In any foreign policy decision, I would use diplomacy first, in response to your question. And that basically means that the last thing we need in the Muslim world is another action like Iraq which is going to enflame the Muslim world in a horrendous way.

Now, here's what I would do. First, with Pakistan, here's an example of a country, a potentially failed nation-state with nuclear weapons. What a president must do is have a foreign policy of principles and realism. And the Bush foreign policy, with Musharraf, we get the worst of all worlds. We have a situation where he has not gone after al Qaeda in his own country, despite the fact that we've given him $11 billion. And he's also severely damaged the constitution. He's basically said that he is the supreme dictator. So we have the worst of all worlds.

What I would specifically do as president is I would ask Musharraf to step aside. There is a provision in the Pakistani constitution --

MR. GIBSON: Ask him to step aside?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, for a caretaker --

MR. GIBSON: And what -- (inaudible)?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Because we have the leverage to do that.

MR. GIBSON: Hasn't worked so far.

GOV. RICHARDSON: We have the leverage to do that, and I -- I would send a high-level envoy to ask him to step aside. There's a provision in the Pakistani constitution for a caretaker government of technocrats. This happened when a previous prime minister died. And I would make it unmistakably clear that he had to have elections.

Now, elections are scheduled tentatively for February. A broadly based government, it's what's best for the United States.

MR. GIBSON: I understand your point about diplomacy. But Senator Obama's postulate was, we have actionable intelligence, the Musharraf government won't move; do we, should we, go in to western Pakistan and essentially try to take him out?

GOV. RICHARDSON: If we have actionable intelligence that is real, and if Musharraf is incapable -- which he is, because here's a man who has not stood up for his democracy, he is virtually in a situation where he's losing control -- then you do take that action. However, Charlie, first you use diplomacy. And diplomacy is to try to get what is best for the United States. And that is, a democratic Pakistan with free and fair elections and a concerted effort on the part of Musharraf or whoever is in the leadership in Pakistan to go after terrorists in those safe havens, which they have not done.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think it's important to get back to your question, because obviously that's the most direct threat to the United States. We did take action similar to what has been described about 10 years ago based on what was thought to be actionable intelligence, sending in missiles to try to target bin Laden and his top leadership, who were thought to be at a certain meeting place. They were not taken out at the time. So we have to be very conscious of all the consequences.

Now, as far as I know, there are, like, five things, quickly, that we should be looking at.

Bin Laden has in large measure regrouped because we did not put in the troops and make the commitment to aggressively going after him inside Afghanistan when we had a chance. Therefore we need more NATO troops and a faster effort to train the Afghan army so that we do have the personnel and the technology, including the Predators, to be able to be on the spot at the time to try to move as quickly as possible.

Secondly, I think it's imperative that any actionable intelligence that would lead to a strike inside Pakistan's territory be given the most careful consideration, and at some point probably when the missiles have been launched -- the Pakistani government has to know they're on the way because one of the problems is the inherent paranoia about India in the region in Pakistan, so that we've got to have a plan to try to make sure we don't ignite some kind of reaction before we even know whether the action we took with the missiles has worked.

Real quickly, thirdly, so far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan. I would work very hard to try to get Musharraf, who is the elected president -- these elections are about parliamentary positions. If you remove Musharraf and have elections, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next. I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and perhaps Great Britain so that there is some failsafe.

And just finally, I think that what we have to do with Musharraf and Afghanistan is to repair the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's going to require intensive effort in the region. And Bill is right that we should be engaged in that diplomacy right away. But this is the forgotten front line in the war against terrorism because the Bush administration has walked away.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Charlie, I want us to just remember history. I want us to remember history. Years ago we backed the Shah of Iran, a dictator. We are paying for that policy today by having backed a tyrant who repressed his people -- unintended consequences.

A president has to act. I believe that we have to be on the side of the Pakistani people, not on the side of the dictator. And what we have today is an opportunity to get Musharraf to step aside, to move towards this caretaker government, but also to use the leverage of the assistance we've given him. Most of the assistance that we've given him -- $11 billion -- he hasn't used to go after terrorists. He's put it in military assistance for his fight against India; the money has been stolen. We get the worst of all worlds. If we stand on a foreign policy of principle, of human rights, along with protecting our security, that is the best direction for our foreign policy.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just pick up on a couple things that have been said. I think people are in broad agreement here, but I think one of the things that's been left out is Iraq. And part of the reason that we neglected Afghanistan, part of the reason that we didn't go after bin Laden as aggressively as we should have is we were distracted by a war of choice, and that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked; it was that he went after those who didn't. And as a consequence, we have been bogged down, paid extraordinary -- an extraordinary price in blood and treasure, and we have fanned the anti-American sentiment that actually makes it more difficult for us to act in Pakistan.

Just one more point I want to make on this, Charlie: I think it is absolutely true that we have to, as much as possible, get Pakistan's agreement before we act, and that's always going to be the case.

MR. GIBSON: I want to --

SEN. OBAMA: But we have to make sure that we do not hesitate to act when it comes to al Qaeda because they are currently stronger than they were at any time since 2001, partly because we took our eye off the ball.

MR. GIBSON: I want to get to another question, and it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years. Some estimates are higher: Graham Allison at Harvard says it's over 50 percent.

Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind, and I want to put them to you here. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

Senator?

SEN. OBAMA: Well --

MR. EDWARDS: Well --

SEN. CLINTON: Well --

MR. EDWARDS: You're asking me?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, let me say first, this is the very points I was making a few minutes ago. In the short term we're faced with very, very serious threats about the possibility of these nuclear weapons getting in the hands of a terrorist group or somebody who wants to attack the United States of America. The first thing is we have to immediately find out who's responsible and go after them, and that is the responsibility of the president of the United States because if someone has attacked us with a nuclear weapon, it means they have nuclear technology, it means they could have gotten another nuclear weapon into the United States that we're unaware of.

We have to find these people immediately and use every tool available to us to stop them.

Secondly, it is the responsibility of the United States -- and by the way, what I'm about to say doesn't just apply to a nuclear attack, it applies to this crisis that exists in Pakistan right now with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto -- it is the responsibility of the president, in times like this, to be a force for strength, principled strength, but also calmness. It is enormously important for the president of the United States not to take -- to react, and to react strongly, but to do it in a way that is calming for the American people and calming for the world, because it would be an enormous mistake for the president of the United States to take a terrible, dangerous situation where millions of Americans or thousands of Americans could have lost their lives, and to ratchet up the rhetoric and make it worse than it already is.

Q Let me come to the two Sam Nunn questions to you, Senator.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, as I said, I've already been working on this, and I think this is the most significant foreign policy issue that we confront. We would obviously have to retaliate against anybody who struck American soil, whether it was nuclear or not. It would be a much more profound issue if it were nuclear weapons.

That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the nuclear proliferation -- nonproliferation treaty that has fallen apart under this administration. We have not made a commitment to work with the Russians to reduce our own nuclear stockpiles. That has weakened our capacity to pressure other countries to give up nuclear technology.

We have not locked down the loose nuclear weapons that are out there right now. These are all things that we should be taking leadership on.

And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long-term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.

MR. GIBSON: And I know, Senator Clinton, you've worked on this as well.

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I have.

MR. GIBSON: But in terms of retaliation, this is not likely going to be a state that sets off a nuclear attack in a city, it's going to be a stateless group.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the first -- the first part of your question was what would we wish we had done. And I have worked on this and passed legislation to move in the direction that I think we should go to have a very high level of commitment from the White House, including a person responsible in our government for marshaling our resources against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There has to be a better organizing effort to make sure that every part of the United States government is working together.

I don't think we've done what we need to do on homeland defense. You started that segment talking about the ease with which ABC smuggled things in to this country. We haven't done enough on port security. We have not made the kind of commitment that is necessary or protect us from this kind of importation.

But let me just add that when you look at where we are, the stateless terrorists will operate from somewhere. I mean, part of our message has to be there is no safe haven. If we can demonstrate that the people responsible for planning the nuclear attack on our country may not themselves be in a government or associated with a state, but have a haven within one, then every state in the world must know we will retaliate against those states.

There cannot be safe havens for stateless terrorists who are in these networks that are plotting to have the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the smuggling into our country or elsewhere of the kind of suitcase device that could cause such havoc.

So I think we have to be very, very clear. You know, deterrence worked during the Cold War in large measure because the United States made it clear to the Soviet Union that there would be massive retaliation. We have to make it clear to those states that would give safe haven to stateless terrorists that would launch a nuclear attack against America that they would also face very heavy retaliation.

MR. GIBSON: Final word, Governor.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Charlie, when I was secretary of Energy, that was one of my responsibilities, securing nuclear stockpiles, nuclear materials, mainly with the Soviet Union. And I went there many time; we made progress. But since then there's been a proliferation of loose nuclear weapons, mainly in the hands of terrorists, that could cross presumably a border, that could be smuggled in in a cargo ship with our very weak port security.

If I'm elected president, I will do two things. First, I will seek immediate negotiations with the Soviet Union and other nuclear states to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

But also a treaty on fissionable material, where you have verification, where you try to secure those loose nuclear weapons from states like North Korea and others that -- that could be drifting into the international community.

But most importantly, I think we have to realize that the challenges America faces internationally, they're -- they are transnational. They're stateless. This international terrorism is nuclear terrorism, it's environmental degradation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, making us less dependent on fossil fuels. Those are the transnational challenges that are going to require international cooperation.

And this president believes in unilateralism. This president believes in going military-first. This president believes in preemption. You discussed this in the Republican debate.

MR. GIBSON: I'm --

GOV. RICHARDSON: My foreign policy'd be different.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to -- I'm going to move on.

GOV. RICHARDSON: It'd be realism, human rights, and principles.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to move on, and I'm going to move on to domestic policy -- how much the government is spending, how much you would spend with the programs you've proposed and the promises you've made. And some of that is entitlements. For a little background, ABC's Betsy Stark.

BETSY STARK: (From videotape.) Every hour this new year another 400 baby boomers will turn 60, swelling the ranks of those soon eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare. The forecasts are foreboding. By 2017, the Social Security surplus runs dry and the system begins taking in less tax revenue than it pays out in benefits.

For Medicare, the problems are even more severe. By 2013, the program's hospital insurance fund is expected to fall into the red and the insurance premiums seniors pay for doctors' visits and prescription drugs are projected to keep rising.

Many young Americans simply assume there will be nothing left for them to guarantee the security of their old age.

Charlie?

MR. GIBSON: So I hope we have time to get to some of that. But before we get to it, talking about domestic policy, I want to get to the concept of change. Because 60 percent of the people going into the Democratic caucuses in Iowa said they were going to go there for change, and that seemed to redound to your benefit, Senator Obama.

And arriving here in New Hampshire, Senator Clinton, you called into question, really, what that means. And you said, and I'm quoting you now, "On a lot of issues, it's hard to know where he" -- referring to Senator Obama -- "stands. And people need to ask that. Everybody needs to be vetted." So let me have a little dialogue between the two of you.

What does he need to be vetted on, and what questions are there about Senator Obama that are unanswered?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, let me say first that I think we're all advocating for change. We all want to change the status quo, which is George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years. And we all are putting forth ideas about how best to deliver that change.

But I don't think you make change by, you know, calling for it or by demanding it. I think it is a result of very hard work, bringing people together, stating clearly what your goals are, what your principles are, and then achieving them.

And I do think that, you know, part of what this primary process is all about -- and New Hampshire voters are, you know, famously independent in making their judgments -- is to look at our records, to evaluate where we stand and what we stand for. And I think that there is a lot of, you know, room to ask all of us questions.

You know, Senator Obama has been -- as the Associated Press described it, he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care; then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody.

I think that's relevant. I mean, I think that what we are looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today, and tomorrow. And I think that, you know, there questions that, you know, should be asked and answered from each of us. And I'd certainly have no problem with whatever scrutiny comes my way.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think the Associated Press was quoting some of your folks, Hillary, so let's talk specifically about health care, since you mentioned that.

I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care. What I said, and I have said on the campaign trail this time, is if I were designing a system from scratch, I would set up a single-payer system because we could gain enormous efficiencies from it. Our medical care costs twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation.

But what I've also said is that given that half of the people are getting already employer-based health care, that it would be impractical for us to do so, which is why I put forward a plan that says anybody can get health care that is the same as the health care that I have as a member of Congress, similar to the plans that you and John have offered.

We do have a philosophical difference. John and yourself believe that if we do not mandate care -- if we don't force the government to get -- to -- if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion. I disagree with that because as I go around town hall meetings, I don't meet people who are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can't afford it. The costs are too high. And so, as a consequence, we focus on reducing costs.

Now, this is a legitimate argument for us to have, but it's not true that I leave them out. Your premise is they won't buy it even if it's affordable. I disagree with that.

Now let me just make one last point, because you say that somehow I've not been specific. Social Security is a great example, something that you've just raised, Charlie, and here's an area where John and myself were actually quite specific and said if we are going to deal with this problem realistically what we need to do is to raise the cap on the payroll tax so that wealthy individuals are paying a little bit more into the system right now. Somebody like Warren Buffet pays a fraction of 1 percent of his income in payroll tax whereas the majority of the audience here pays payroll tax on a hundred percent of their income, and I've said that was not fair. You criticized me for that, which is fine. We have a disagreement on that, but that's hardly because I wasn't specific on it. I was very specific on it, and --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but I want to go back to health care and make another point. You have a mandate in your health care plan.

SEN. OBAMA: For children.

SEN. CLINTON: You mandate -- you mandate parents to have health care for children.

SEN. OBAMA: That's exactly right.

SEN. CLINTON: And obviously you did that because you want all children covered.

SEN. OBAMA: Because they don't have a choice.

SEN. CLINTON: So -- so -- well, they don't have a choice, and you're going to make sure that parents get health care for children. So you know, you stop short of going the distance to make sure that we had a system that could actually deliver health care for everyone. But it's not only about health care. You know, I think that two weeks ago you criticized Senator Edwards in saying that he was unelectable because he had changed positions over the course of four years, that four years ago he wasn't for universal health care, now he is. Well, you've changed positions within three years on, you know, a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate and now you have changed. You know, you said you would vote against the Patriot Act; you came to the Senate, you voted for it. You said that you would vote against funding for the Iraq war; you came to the Senate and you voted for $300 billion of it.

So I just think it's fair for people to understand that many of the charges that have been leveled not just at me, but also at Senator Edwards, are not totally, you know, unrelated to the very record that you have.

And you've said records matter, and I think that we should get into examining everybody's record.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me -- I want John to be able to get in on this, but since this was directed at me, let me just make sure that I -- I address this.

First of all, I never said John was unelectable. Somebody asked me specifically what did I think was the difference between myself and John, and I pointed out some areas where I thought we had some differences. And --

SEN. CLINTON: And you said that he had changed positions, did you not?

SEN. OBAMA: And I did, because I thought that I had been more consistent on those positions.

I have no problem, Hillary, with you pointing out areas where you think we have differences. But on health care, for example, the reason that I mandate for children is because children do not have a choice. Adults do, and it's my belief that they will choose to have health care if it is affordable. Now, that's a perfectly legitimate policy difference for us to have. That is different from saying that I will refuse to cover or leave out a bunch of individuals.

And the last point I just want to make on this is -- Charlie, is these are all good public servants, and everybody has great qualifications and has done good things. But what I think is important that we don't do is to try to distort each other's records as, you know, Election Day approaches here in New Hampshire, because what I think the people of America are looking for are folks who are going to be straight about the issues and are going to be interested in solving problems and bringing people together. That's the reason I think we did so well in Iowa.

MR. GIBSON: You've been very patient.

SEN. OBAMA: You have, and I appreciate it.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you. No, you're welcome. You're more than welcome.

Let me just say a quick word about this. You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We do. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before. We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.

And I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.

Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens. It's fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story, I think is just not -- that's not the kind of discussion we should be having. I think that every time this happens -- what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time. And what we have to remember -- and this is the overarching issue here -- because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change, about how we bring about that change, because we have differences about that. But the -- the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you're fighting for that, I mean, I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them. And anytime you speak out -- anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens.

MR. GIBSON: With apologies --

SEN. CLINTON: Well, making change -- making --

MR. GIBSON: With apologies to Governor Richardson, I think we --

SEN. CLINTON: Wait a minute now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this because obviously -- making change is not about what you believe. It's not about a speech you make. It is about working hard. There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. There's 2,700 National Guard and Reserve members who have access to health care, because on a bipartisan basis, I pushed legislation through over the objection of the Pentagon, over the threat of a veto from President Bush.

I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change. I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies.

So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.

MR. EDWARDS: Can I respond briefly to that?

MR. GIBSON: Let me -- I'll let you respond. Let me -- in all fairness to Governor Richardson.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I've been in hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this. (Laughter, applause.) And -- no, I -- (chuckles). You know, I think one of the things that we need to remember -- I'm going to say this again, because I said it in a previous debate. Let's stay positive. You know? There will be plenty of time to get negative with the Republicans. You heard them earlier. (Laughter.)

Let us talk about how we're going to make sure that we deliver health care for the American people, how we change America's foreign policy, how we make schools better and pay teachers better and get rid of No Child Left Behind.

Look, what we need is change, there's no question.

But you know, what ever happened to experience? Is experience kind of a leper? (Laughter.) What is wrong with -- you know, what is wrong with having -- (scattered applause) -- what is wrong with having been like myself -- 14 years in the Congress, two Cabinet positions? I mean, I've gone head to head with the North Koreans. We got the remains of soldiers back. We persuaded them to reduce their nuclear weapons. What is wrong with being a governor and going to a state and giving health care to kids under 12 and creating jobs and balancing budgets? What is wrong with being a secretary of Energy who has made America or tried to make America a land of clean energy or as a governor -- my point is this: We want to change this country, but you have to have -- you have to know how to do it, and there's nothing wrong with having experience.

So you know, I love change, we all are for change. But the question is examine the record of those that in the past have produced change, and that has taken responsibilities. We need somebody that has been tested.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to Senator Edwards and then Senator Obama, and then we'll move on.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you very much.

What I would say in response to the discussion that just took place is we have to understand what's at stake. Nobody cares about hearing a bunch of politicians fight. They're not the slightest bit interested in that, and they shouldn't be interested in it. What's at stake here is a fight for the future of the middle class, and we do have different perspectives on how we'd fight for the middle class, how we'd fight for jobs, how we'd fight for health care.

I believe -- and I believe it very strongly -- that there are entrenched special interests, very well-financed -- some examples are drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, et cetera -- that stand between America and the change that we need. And I think if you defend the way the system works, it's very hard to take those people on.

I believe -- and it's -- (inaudible) -- these people; I'm 54 years old. I've been fighting these people, these irresponsible corporations. And there are good corporations in America, Charlie. I want to point that out. Good corporations, good employers: Costco; AT&T, for example, is now working to help unionize some of their offices and to bring jobs back. But I want to --

MR. GIBSON: We'll get to the commercials later.

MR. EDWARDS: No, let me -- let me finish this. I want to finish this.

The point is this. I think there are differences between us about how we fight for the future of the middle class. And I believe you have to be willing to take on these entrenched special interests. And I think if you're not willing to do it, it is impossible to bring about the change that the country needs.

MR. GIBSON: Final word, Senator.

SEN. OBAMA: And just to wrap up, part of the change that's desperately needed is to enlist the American people in the process of self-government. And one of the areas that I have constantly worked on is not only pushing aside the special interests -- this past year, passing the toughest ethic reform legislation since Watergate -- but also making sure that the government is transparent and accountable. And that's what I think people were responding to in Iowa. We saw it here in New Hampshire today. They want somebody who's taking straight to them about the choices that are ahead, and they want to make sure that government is responding to them directly because folks out there feel the American dream is slipping away. They are working harder for less; they are paying more for health care, for college, for gas at the pump; and they are having a tougher time saving and retiring. And what they don't feel is that the government is listening to them and responding to them.

That's the kind of change that I think we need.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to move on to our third subject before I run out of time. And I want to turn to Iraq.

We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked. So for background, our man in Baghdad for ABC, Terry McCarthy.

TERRY MCCARTHY (ABC): (From videotape.) It has been a tough 12 months in Iraq, with more U.S. troops killed than in any previous year of the war. But overall, the addition of an extra 30,000 troops has helped to reduce violence substantially. Civilian killings are down 65 percent in the last six months. U.S. deaths are down from 126 in May to 23 in December.

General Petraeus has repeatedly said the solution in Iraq must be political, not military. So far, political progress has been frustratingly slow. But a year ago, many Americans, and Iraqis, too, thought the country was a lost cause. Today, with improved security, life is returning to the streets of Baghdad. Nobody yet says the war is over; but Iraqis are finally able to hope that things might be getting better.

Charlie.

MR. GIBSON: So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked? And Senator Clinton, let me start with you, because when General Petraeus was in Washington in September, you said it would take a willful suspension of disbelief to think that the surge could do any good.

SEN. CLINTON: And that's right, because remember the purpose behind the surge was to create the space and time for political reconciliation, for the Iraqi government to do what only it can do and trying to deal with the myriad of unresolved problems that confront it.

And as your report said, you know, we have the greatest military in the world. We send in more of our troops, they will be able to dampen down the violence, but there has not been a willingness on the part of the Iraqi government to do what the surge was intended to do, to push them to begin to make the tough decisions. And in the absence of that political action, 23 Americans dying in December is totally unacceptable. You know, there is no more cause for us to be there if the Iraqis are just not going to do what they need to do to take care of their own country.

So it's time to bring our troops home and to bring them home as quickly and responsibly as possible and unfortunately, I don't see any reason why they should remain beyond, you know, today. I think George Bush doesn't intend to bring them home, but certainly I have said when I'm president I will. Within 60 days, I'll start that withdrawal.

GOV. RICHARDSON: The policy's a massive failure. Here are the measurements that we should look at: Thirty-nine hundred Americans have lost their lives. There are 60,000 Americans today that are wounded, mainly mentally wounded. Tell that to the family that only 23 died in December.

Look, here are the barometers that we need to look at. First, there is no military solution; there's a political solution. Secondly, has there been progress in any political compromises of reconciliation between the Sunni, the Shi'a and the Kurds? Zero. Has there been progress in sharing oil revenues? Zero. Has there been any regional elections? Zero. Is the Maliki government intensifying its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces more than they have? No. Is there any end to Iran's efforts to bring terrorist activities to Iraq? No. Iran, Syria -- no one has participated in the regional solution.

Charlie, I mean, this is a -- this is why I'm running for president; because until we end this war, we cannot talk about the issues that need to be dealt with here -- universal health care, improving schools, bringing people together. You can't have change until you end the war, and that means bringing all of our troops home --

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to --

GOV. RICHARDSON: -- within a year and leaving none behind.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to take this to Senator Obama and to Senator Edwards. But -- but -- and I'm not here to debate -- but parliament meets, and the oil law is under consideration, de- Ba'athification has progressed to some extent, and were it not for the surge, instead of counting votes we'd be counting bodies in the streets.

GOV. RICHARDSON: But this has been going on -- (off mike) -- Charlie.

MR. GIBSON: And all of you -- all of you wanted the troops out --

GOV. RICHARDSON: There has been serious talk --

MR. GIBSON: -- last year.

SEN. OBAMA: Charlie?

MR. GIBSON: Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?

Senator Obama.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me respond. I think the bar of success has become so low that we've lost perspective on what should be our long- term national interests. It was a mistake to go in from the start, and that's why I opposed this war from the start.

It has cost us upwards of $1 trillion. It may get close to 2 (trillion dollars). We have lost young men and women on the battlefield, and we have not made ourselves safer as a consequence.

Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence. But understand, we started in 2006 with intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. We saw a spike in the violence, the surge reduced that violence, and we now are, two years later, back where we started two years ago. We have gone full circle at enormous cost to the American people.

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will -- we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province -- Sunni tribes -- who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.

And that's why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been -- they've been talking about now for years.

They will actually be able to conduct de-Ba'athification. We will support them in all of those efforts. But what we can't do is to continue to ignore the enormous strains that this has placed on the American taxpayer as well as the anti-American sentiment that it is fanning and the neglect that's happening in Afghanistan as a consequence.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to Senator Edwards, but all of you serve in Congress or did serve in Congress. You know how slow legislatures can move; you've all experienced it in the United States Congress. But Senator Edwards, let me go to you.

Some of you -- Governor Richardson, Senator Obama -- you have talked about a timetable for withdrawal, getting all troops out by the end of 2009, 2010. If the generals in Iraq came to you, as President Edwards, and said, "Mr. President," -- on January 21st, 2009 -- "You're wrong. You can't do this. You're going to send Iraq back into the kind of chaos we had before," are you going to stick with it?

MR. EDWARDS: It is the responsibility of the president of the United States and the commander in chief to make policy decisions. It is the responsibility -- of course I would always listen to my uniformed military leadership directly, not filtered through civilians, directly -- but if you look at what happened in Iraq when the Brits began to pull their troops out, in the part of Iraq where those troops were located, there was a significant reduction in violence.

What the whole purpose, just to be clear with people, the whole purpose for the surge was to create some environment where there could be political progress and political reconciliation between Sunni and Shi'a. Everyone believes -- even George Bush acknowledges that that's -- that's what we're trying to accomplish. The question is, how do you get there? Look at the loss of American lives, $600 billion dollars and counting, and there's been essentially no political progress. I don't believe, and I think others would agree, that there will be political progress until we make it clear that we're going to stop propping the Sunni and Shi'a up with American lives and with the American taxpayer dollars.

So what we need to do -- and let me be very specific, and this is what I will do as president -- in the first year that I am president, I will pull 40(,000) to 50,000 troops out very quickly.

I will continue a steady redeployment of combat troops out of Iraq until they are all out, within about nine to 10 months. If my military leadership says we need some more time to make sure that we can do this in the most effective way and the most efficient way and the safest way for my troops, of course I'd be listening to what they have to say. But I will end combat missions in Iraq in the first year and there will be no permanent military bases.

We have to end this war, and the only way to end the war is to end the occupation, which is what I will do as president.

MR. GIBSON: I've got one minute left and I owe each of your 30 seconds.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, John, you can't end the war without -- you've got to get all the troops out to end the war because they become targets.

MR. EDWARDS: I agree.

GOV. RICHARDSON: And if you leave a small force behind then you cannot bring the political reconciliation that is needed. You cannot bring a peacekeeping force by the United Nations or a donor conference to take over the $570 billion that we've spent on this war -- on resources that should be spent on health care and education for our own people. This is where, with all due respect, we differ.

I bring the troops back within a year. I don't want in five years because I did, in another debate -- some of you said you would keep troops -- you wouldn't say -- you wouldn't get them out by 2013. I don't want in five years to have to look at an eight-year-old today -- an eighth-grader -- an American eighth-grader today who is serving five years from now in Iraq. I don't want to hear about a death of an American.

I -- you know, as a governor, I fly the flags half mast upon a death. I'm sick of doing that. We need to stop that. We need to think of our veterans that are coming back with PTSD, with traumatic brain injuries, with mental anguish. We have a crisis on our hands.

And my whole point is that this whole campaign, everything we talk about -- universal health care, improving schools, helping kids -- cannot happen until we get out of this war because the Congress and the president basically have a dysfunctional relationship where nothing gets done. And I can see that as a governor from my state as I try to deal with health care and education.

MR. GIBSON: Governor.

GOV. RICHARDSON: So this is why it's so fundamental, and this is why I'm running for president -- to end this war, and the way you do it is by getting all the troops out in one year.

MR. GIBSON: I owed you 30 seconds; now you owe me 45, but that's all right. (Laughter.)

Senator Clinton?

SEN. CLINTON: I think we're in vigorous agreement about getting our troops home as quickly and responsibly as we possibly can, serving notice on the Maliki government that the blank check they've had from George Bush is no longer valid. We're going to have to have intensive diplomatic efforts in the region.

I don't think anyone can predict what the consequences will be, and I think we have to be ready for whatever they might be. We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there working at the embassy, working for not-for- profits or American businesses. We have to figure out what we're going to do about all the Iraqis who sided with us, you know, like the translators who helped the Marines in Fallujah, whom I met, who said they wouldn't have survived without them. Are we going to leave them?

You know, this is a complicated enterprise, so it has to be done right. And last spring I began demanding that the Bush administration tell us whether they were undertaking the kind of planning that is necessary for the withdrawal, and clearly they're not. So as soon as I am elected, I will task the joint chiefs and the secretary of Defense and the security advisers to provide such a plan and to begin to execute it within 60 days.

MR. GIBSON: All right. Let me thank all of you. We're going to take a commercial break -- three minutes. I'm going to bring Scott Spradling from WMUR up here and we'll continue with some questions when the Democratic debate from Manchester, New Hampshire continues.

(Announcements.)

MR. GIBSON: And I am joined for the last half of this debate, as I was for the Republican debate, by the political director of our station here in Manchester, New Hampshire, Scott Spradling.

And I appreciate all of you again being with us. It's good to have the four leading Democratic candidates with us. Just to reintroduce them: Senator John Edwards -- former Senator John Edwards, Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Scott.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator, I'd like to start with you. I was watching the exchange in the first half and saw what looked like a little bit of a double-team that's probably going to have a lot of people talking tomorrow morning.

SEN. CLINTON: (Laughs.) (Inaudible) -- notice.

MR. SPRADLING: Yeah, I did notice. And I'd like to ask you this.

The University of New Hampshire Survey Center has been consistently trying to probe the minds of New Hampshire voters and get a sense of what they think about all of you. I'd be happy to report that the experience-versus-change debate seems to be sinking in. And what I'd like to get is to this:

New Hampshire voters seem to believe that of those of you on the stage, you are the most experienced and the most electable. In terms of change, they see Senators Obama and Edwards as the agents of change, in New Hampshire mindset. My question to you is simply this: What can you say to the voters of New Hampshire on this stage tonight, who see a resume and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue, where they seem to like Barack Obama more.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that hurts my feelings. (Laughter.)

MR. SPRADLING: I'm sorry, Senator. (Scattered applause.) I'm sorry.

SEN. CLINTON: But I'll try to go on. (Laughter.)

He's very likable. I agree with that. I don't think I'm that bad.

SEN. OBAMA: You're likable enough, Hillary. (Inaudible.)

SEN. CLINTON: Thank you (so much ?). (Laughter.) I appreciate that.

You know, I think this is one of the most serious decisions that the voters of New Hampshire have ever had to make. And I really believe that the most important question is, who is ready to be president on day one?

You know, the problems waiting -- some of which we have talked about already -- are huge, and the stakes could not be higher.

And you know, in 2000 we, unfortunately, ended up with a president who people said they wanted to have a beer with; who said he wanted to be a uniter, not a divider; who said that he had his intuition and he was going to, you know, really come into the White House and transform the country. And you know, at least I think there are the majority of Americans who think that was not the right choice.

So I am offering 35 years of experience making change and the results to show for it. I, you know, respect and like both Senator Edwards and Senator Obama. But I think if you want to know what change each of us will bring about, look at what we've done. And there are a lot of differences that I think need to be aired for the voters of New Hampshire because I stand on my record of experience, and I appreciate Governor Richardson's long history of serving our country. But I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think having the first woman president is a huge change -- (applause) -- with consequences across our country and the world. And that on the specific issues that I have worked on for a lifetime and the plans I have put forth, I believe I am more prepared and ready to actually deliver change, and I think that ultimately is what Americans want to know and believe.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator, thank you.

Senator Obama, I don't know if your ears were ringing during the first debate. I asked a question about you earlier and am interested to hear your response to what the Republican candidates for president laid out in arguments for you not being elected president. I revved up the Republican attack machine, please respond.

SEN. OBAMA: (Chuckles.) Well, you know, I have to admit that I was going back and forth between the Republicans and football. (Laughter.) But I --

MR. SPRADLING: How are the Redskins doing?

SEN. OBAMA: The Redskins lost. They -- (inaudible). (Laughter.)

But look, I think there's no doubt that any of the candidates on this stage would represent significant change from George Bush and we've seen a disaster in both foreign policy and domestic policy over the last seven years.

But what the people in Iowa were responding to, what I think that we're seeing here in New Hampshire is a hunger for a different kind of politics that is very specific about pushing aside special interests that have come to dominate the agenda and the debate, reducing the power of lobbyists -- something that I have done. I think people are very concerned about making sure that the American people are let back into their government.

So when I, for example, worked with a Republican to set up a searchable database so that every dollar of federal spending, we would know. If there was a bridge to nowhere, you'd know where -- who was sponsoring it, and hopefully embarrassing them.

If there was a no-bid contract to Halliburton, you'd know about that.

Those are the kinds of steps that will actually lead to real changes in people's lives, and that's how I worked at the state level, bringing Republicans and Democrats together, to provide health insurance to people who didn't have it; that's how we were able to provide tax cuts to working families. And that is what I intend to do as president of the United States of America.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Thompson referred to your support as endorsement by some of the most liberal groups in the nation, trying to paint a picture that you would be way left of center.

SEN. OBAMA: Of course, but Scott, that's what they're going to do to any Democrat. I mean, we -- you know, we've seen this movie before. We know the Republican playbook. Here's what I'm betting on, though, is that regardless of what the Republican candidates are talking about, I think there are a whole host of Republicans and certainly Independents who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, don't believe what politicians say, and we can draw those Independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change.

And the fact of the matter is, we -- I think that Senator Clinton's done some good work. I think Bill Richardson's done some good work, as has John Edwards, but what we haven't seen over the last -- many years, even preceding George Bush, is tackling the big issues: getting health care reform finally done, getting an energy policy that works. And that's going to require a working majority for change. We're starting to build that. We saw it in Iowa, we're going to build it here in New Hampshire, and I think we can build it across the country.

MR. SPRADLING: Governor Richardson, I'm curious. Do you think to be president of the United States, that prior executive experience is necessary? And is relative youth a detriment?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I think prior executive experience is very important. I'm the only governor here. I'm the only person here who has actually balanced budgets. I've balanced five. I've created 80,000 new jobs. I've lowered taxes for everybody. I've insured kids under 12 in my state. I've improved education.

You know, you want somebody in this position that has had executive experience. And I will also say, Charlie, since, you know, I noticed Scott mentioned everybody else in the poll, he didn't mention me -- (laughter) -- but that's okay.

SEN. OBAMA: Does that hurt your feelings, too?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, a little bit. (Laughter.)

MR. SPRADLING: Would you like to know?

GOV. RICHARDSON: You know -- you know, let's face it, the next president -- the next president is going to have to have foreign policy experience. And of all the candidates here, you know, I'm the only one that's negotiated with foreign governments. I'm the only one that has faced down the North Koreans and Saddam Hussein. I'm the only one that has had the highest national security clearance. You know? So there's something about having experience and been tested, and represented --

MR. SPRADLING: Follow up on that, then --

GOV. RICHARDSON: Sure.

MR. SPRADLING: -- with your resume. I don't mean to interrupt. But I remember you as Energy secretary coming to Boston for an energy summit way back in February of 2000, when the dialogue then was very similar to the dialogue that it is now. Rising fuel prices. A struggling supply.

Frustration in the homes across New England, and a call for some help.

Here we are, this past Thursday, we've established it that it's $100 a barrel. Is it fair to say to you in this experience argument that you as Energy secretary, you didn't get it done then, so why believe you'd get it done now? Because we're having the same debate.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Look, both parties have been failures in dealing with energy policy. But you know -- and I remember meeting you there. Remember what I did, Scott. I went to OPEc countries and tried to get them to increase production so prices'd go down. I created -- at the time, there was a home heating oil crisis here in New England. I created reserves of home heating oil. And look at the price now in New Hampshire -- 3.20 (dollars), something like that. It's the highest ever.

You know, what we need is an energy revolution in this country. Not some of the bills that the congress has passed. We need to go to 50 miles per gallon fuel efficiency. We need to have 30 percent of all our electricity renewable. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2040. And we need the American people to sacrifice a little bit.

I would ask the American people, when it comes to being more energy-conscious, to be cognizant of appliances, of fuel efficiency, the vehicles we drive, mass transit. You know, I -- and I did, when I was Energy secretary, air conditioners 30 percent more efficient. I started the renewable portfolio. So I did some things, Scott.

The problem, you're right, we need a bipartisan approach, but we need to reduce fossil fuels by 50 percent by the year 2020, because our planet is getting damaged. And Al Gore has been right. He deserves the Nobel Prize. I'm glad he stayed out of the race. (Laughter.)

MR. SPRADLING: (Laughs.) I'm going to go to Senator Edwards for just a moment.

You answered the first part of my question about executive experience. You didn't talk about whether relative youth is a detriment.

GOV. RICHARDSON: I didn't hear that.

MR. SPRADLING: I asked -- when I asked you the question, I said, is prior executive experience a key requirement for being president and is relative youth a detriment.

GOV. RICHARDSON: Relative youth? No. You know, John F. Kennedy was 42 years old when he was elected president. He's my hero, and I think he was one of our greatest presidents because -- because he inspired, because he said he could go to the moon in 10 years, because he -- he said that we all collectively have to do something for the common good.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator Edwards?

MR. EDWARDS: What's my question? (Laughter.) No, I'm glad that people like me, Hillary. (Laughs.) I'm glad they like --

MR. SPRADLING: -- prior executive experience and is relative youth a detriment?

MR. EDWARDS: No, I think what matters -- we've had -- we've had a lot of conversation about the first day in the White House. I think we ought to picture what that first day in the White House would be for each of us. I'll just speak for myself.

You know, I'm the candidate up here who's never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist in my entire time in public life, or a dime from a special interest PAC. The first day that I'm president of the United States there will be no corporate lobbyists working in my White House. There will be no lobbyist who's lobbied for foreign governments.

And this is a very personal cause for me, because I come from a family -- my father's in the audience tonight -- where my father worked for 37 years in the mills. He didn't get a chance, like I did, to have a college education. And this is a fight for the middle class and families just like the one I grew up with. My grandmother, who helped raise me, had a fifth- or sixth-grade education, came from a family of sharecroppers.

This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life -- the fight for the middle class, the fight against powerful, special interests and it is a fight I will wage on behalf of the American people as president of the United States and win, as I have for 54 years.

MR. SPRADLING: Senator, I'd like to follow that up then.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

MR. SPRADLING: You served six years in the U.S. Senate.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

MR. SPRADLING: And on the campaign trail, it seems like you don't talk a lot about the six years. The people of New Hampshire probably remember you talking about your war vote --

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

MR. SPRADLING: -- and explaining later on why you weren't happy about that. Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator --

MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely.

MR. SPRADLING: -- that would give us some guide as to what kind of president you're going to be?

MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely. I can tell you exactly one -- I'll give you one very specific example, a big example.

When the Democrats finally took over the United States Senate, the first issue that was brought to the table was the so-called "Patient's Bill of Rights", so that patients and families can make their own health care decisions. What's happening now is insurance companies are running all over people. I mean, the case of Natalie Sarkisyan, which a lot of the audience would be familiar with -- 17 year old girl who lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver transplant operation. She had health insurance, but the insurance company wouldn't pay for it. They finally caved in a few hours before she died.

We need a president who will take these people on. What we did -- and I didn't do it alone, don't claim to have done it alone -- but I, Senator McCain who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights, the three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby every single day of the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights and we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.

And I'm proud of having done that, but that's just an example of why this battle is personal for me. You know, we need a president who believes deeply in here, who believes deeply in this battle, and it is personal for me. When I see these lobbyists roaming around Washington, D.C., taking all the politicians to cocktail parties, I mean, the picture I get in my head is my father and my grandmother going in that mill every day so that I could have the chances I've had. Where is their voice in this democracy? When are they going to get heard? They need a president who will stand up for them and so does every American who's listened to this debate.

SEN. OBAMA: I just want to add I agree with John, which is why I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals for members of Congress --

MR. EDWARDS: Good idea.

SEN. OBAMA: -- because -- and some of them complained. They said --

MR. EDWARDS: Maybe they'll get a little --

MR. SPRADLING: Well, with all due respect --

SEN. OBAMA: -- they said, where am I going to eat?

MR. SPRADLING: They can now buy food for members of Congress if the members of Congress are standing up. (Laughter.) That's my understanding what the rules have changed. You can't sit down and eat, but you can stand up and eat.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, well, the --

MR. SPRADLING: Tell me why that's changed. (Laughter.)

SEN. OBAMA: Here's -- here's -- here's -- here's what we did. They can't buy meals, they can't provide gifts; they can no longer lend corporate -- (off mike) --

MR. SPRADLING: They can have huge parties for you as long as you're standing up.

MR. EDWARDS: They can't eat as much if they're standing up, John (sic). (Laughter.)

SEN. OBAMA: That's true. Look, the -- we are now disclosing -- if they're bundling money for members of Congress, they've got to disclose who they're bundling money from and who they're giving it to.

But here's -- here's -- here's the critical point that I want to make. Not only does this have to be personal, John -- and you know, I completely agree. When I think about health care, I think about my mother, who, when she was dying of cancer, had to read an insurance form because she had just gotten a new job and they were trying to figure out whether or not this was going to be treated as a preexisting condition and whether or not they would pay her medical bills.

And I -- so I've seen the costs of a health care system that is broken in very personal terms.

But what I also believe, if we're going to bring about real change, then we have to bring in the American people. You know, we have to bet on them, and that's what's been lost. People, I think, feel that they are not heard at all, they are not involved. And the only way we're going to muster enough power over the long term to actually get something done is if we've got a working majority, which is why it's so important --

MR. GIBSON: Now I want to go to Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: Can we just have a -- can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these -- of these statements.

You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the Patients Bill of Rights through the Senate; it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a Patients Bill of Rights. We don't have a Patients Bill of Rights.

MR. EDWARDS: Because George Bush -- George Bush killed it.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's right, he killed it. So we've got to have a plan and a real push to get it through.

You know, when it comes to lobbyists, you know, Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies. So I think it's important that all of us be held to the same standards, that we're all held accountable.

You know, the energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare. Now we're all out on the campaign trail talking about taking the tax subsidies away from the oil companies, some of which were in that 2005 energy bill.

So you know, words are not actions.

And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality. I have a long record of doing that, of taking on the very interests that you have just rightly excoriated because of the overdue influence that they have in our government. And you know, probably nobody up here has been the subject of more incoming fire from the Republicans and the special interests, so I think I know exactly what I'm walking into and I am prepared to take them on.

MR. SPRADLING: So, Senator --

MR. : Charlie, can I --

MR. SPRADLING: Does it mean that you're further down the road than your opponents in this, or are you saying that you can do things that these folks can't do when it comes to being an agent of change? SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely, because I've been an agent of change. You know, you go back 35 years -- you know, I worked to help make the case for the law that thankfully required that public schools give an education to children with special needs. I worked to reform education and health care in Arkansas against, you know, some pretty tough odds.

MR. : Scott?

SEN. CLINTON: In the White House, I worked to create health care for kids and reform a lot of the other programs like taking on the drug companies.

MR. SPRADLING: And to be clear, they can't. You're saying they can't.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I'm not saying that -- I'm only making my case, that this is what I have done.

MR. GIBSON: I'll come to all of you. I didn't want to get into this, but I've covered Washington for a long time and I know President Clinton came to Washington talking about change. President Bush came to Washington talking about change. So many people in the administrations and in Congress say Washington is set up to resist change.

SEN. EDWARDS: Absolutely.

MR. GIBSON: And, God love all of you for making this argument.

SEN. CLINTON: Can I just say -- (laughter, applause).

SEN. CLINTON: (Inaudible) -- if you're going to mention and say the administration, you know, I'm going to respond.

MR. GIBSON: (Inaudible) -- let her talk.

SEN. CLINTON: President Clinton -- wait, just -- President Clinton inherited a deficit, a debt that had been quadrupled in the previous 12 years. Now, anybody who doesn't think taking on the special interests to raise taxes on corporations, raise taxes on the wealthy, began to whittle away at the deficit to be able to leave with a balanced budget and a surplus -- if that didn't take a lot of change that actually produced results, then I think we've got amnesia.

You know, change is hard but change is possible if you're prepared to take it on and follow through.

SEN. OBAMA: Can I --

SEN. EDWARDS: Can we speak to this? Can we speak to this?

I want to say just -- I want to say a quick word about this. You know, it is true that these entrenched interests -- whether you're talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever -- these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families being able to do what my family has done and so many who are sitting here have been able to do.

And the problem is you can't be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn't work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no -- no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you -- and this is extraordinarily personal for me -- if it's personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change.

Teddy Roosevelt -- just one quick example -- Teddy Roosevelt -- Teddy Roosevelt, a great American president -- he didn't make deals with the monopolies and the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt took them on, busted the monopolies, busted the trusts. That's what it's going to take.

We have a battle in front of us. We do. I don't think we have a problem with politicians in Washington spending enough time with lobbyists and going to cocktail parties. They do it all the time. They do it every single day, and I'll tell you who's paying the price for those cocktail parties: Natalie Sarkisian, every single American who doesn't have health care coverage, everybody who's going to the gas pump and paying so much money for their gas. When are we going to have a president who actually takes these people on? That's what I'm going to do.

GOV. RICHARDSON: You know --

MR. GIBSON: Senator -- let me to Senator Obama. I'll come to you.

GOV. RICHARDSON: All right.

SEN. OBAMA: Look, I think it's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change." But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes.

I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done.

And, you know, so the truth is actually words do inspire. Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver health care reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, yes, we can. And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers.

GOV. RICHARDSON: You know, this is the kind of Washington bickering that the public turns off to. And you know, with all due respect, as a governor, I'm frustrated every time you guys and the president get nothing done, because then the burden is on us.

And you know, John, I understand your frustration.

I understand, you know, that it's personal.

But you know, to resolve problems, you've got to bring people together. You'd got to heal this country. You can't, you know, it's great to say, "We're going to take everybody on," but you know it's going to take coalitions of people backing us. It's going to take public financing to get the special interests out of politics. It's going to take bipartisanship.

You know, what I've said is that if I'm elected president, I'm going to have a Cabinet of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Now, I won't overdo the Republicans, but -- (laughter) -- but my point is, it's how you govern. It's coalition building. It's bringing the public -- a citizen's corps of activists. It's asking the public to sacrifice, to do something for the country, like being more energy efficient, like national service.

You know, I've got a program -- two years, the government pays for your college loans. your tuition. You give one year of national service to the country. It's involving the electorate. You can't do it by just fighting and taking everybody on. You've got to bring people together and that's a frustration.

MR. EDWARDS: Give me 30 seconds on this, because he just said something. Please.

MR. GIBSON: I'll hold you to it.

MR. EDWARDS: You can.

I actually completely agree that it's the responsibility of the president to unite and galvanize the American people. It is also the responsibility of the president -- and I will do it -- to work with members of Congress to get things done. But these entrenched, moneyed interests that have a stranglehold on the middle class, that are doing -- incredibly destructive to American jobs and health care system, energy, all taxes, trade, they're in everything. Absolutely everything. You cannot nice these people to death. It doesn't work. I have been in the trenches fighting them for my whole adult life.