DocumentDump.com ^ RWCS.com > Steal This Blog

By William Greider, The Nation
Posted on January 22, 2009, Printed on January 22, 2009

Dire events are going to push Obama toward economic solutions far more fundamental than those he had intended.

The nation’s fast-darkening circumstances define the essential dilemma of Barack Obama’s presidency. His instinct is to govern by consensus, in the moderate middle ground of politics. Yet dire events are pushing the new president toward solutions more fundamental than those he had intended. The longer he resists taking more forceful action, the more likely it is that he will be overwhelmed by the gathering adversities.

Three large obstacles are blocking Obama’s path. The first is one of scale: his nearly $800 billion recovery package sounds huge, but it is perhaps two or three times too small to produce a turnaround. The second is that the financial system–still dysfunctional despite the bailouts–requires much more than fiscal stimulus and bailout: the government must nationalize and supervise the banks to ensure that they carry out the lending and investing needed for recovery. This means liquidating some famous nameplates–led by Citigroup–that are spiraling toward insolvency. The third is that the crisis is global: the US economy cannot return to normal unless the unbalanced world trading system is simultaneously reformed. Globalization has vastly undermined US productive strength, as trade deficits have led the nation into deepening debtor dependence.

While Washington debates the terms of Obama’s stimulus package, others see disappointment ahead. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, an outpost of Keynesian thinking, expresses its doubts in emotional language that professional economists seldom use. “The prospects for the US economy have become uniquely dreadful, if not frightening,” Levy analysts reported. The institute’s updated strategic analysis warns that the magnitude of negative forces–the virtual collapse of bank lending, private spending, consumer incomes and demand–”will make it impossible for US authorities to apply a fiscal and monetary stimulus large enough to return output and unemployment to tolerable levels within the next two years.” Instead, the unemployment rate is likely to rise to 10 percent by 2010. Obama’s package amounts only to around 3 percent, annually, of GDP in a $13 trillion economy. Levy’s analysis calculates that it would require federal deficits of 8 to 10 percent of GDP–$2 trillion or more–to reverse the economic contraction. And yet, the institute observed, it is inconceivable that this level “could be tolerated for purely political reasons” or that the United States could sustain the rising indebtedness without terrifying our leading creditors, like China.

Stimulus alone by a single nation will not work, in other words, given the distorted economic system that Obama has inherited. The stern warning from the Levy analysts and other skeptical experts is that the United States has no choice but to undertake deeper systemic reforms right now, rather than wait for recovery. Will Obama have the nerve to tackle these fundamentals? To do so he would have to abandon some orthodox assumptions about free trade and private finance that he shares with his economic advisers.

The most obvious and immediate obstacle to systemic change is the dysfunctional financial system. It remains inert and hunkered down in self-protection, despite the vast billions in public money distributed so freely, no strings attached, in the last days of the Bush administration. We will learn soon enough whether Obama intends to start over with a more forceful approach. Obama and his advisers are eager to get another $350 billion in bailout funds, but they have remained silent on whether this will finance a government takeover of the system. Without such a move, the taxpayers will essentially be financing the slow death of failed institutions while getting nothing in return.

The most complex barrier to recovery is globalization and its negative impact on the economy. Given our grossly unbalanced trade, we have kept the system going by playing buyer of last resort–absorbing mountainous trade deficits and accumulating more than $5 trillion in capital debt to pay for swollen imports, while our domestic economy steadily loses jobs and production to other nations. Renewed consumer demand at home will automatically “leak” to rival economies and trading partners by boosting their exports to the US market–which subtracts directly from our GDP. This is the trap the lopsided trading system has created for recovery plans, and it cannot be escaped without fundamental reform.

To put it crudely, Obama’s stimulus program might restart factories in China while leaving US unemployment painfully high. In fact, some leakage may occur via the very banks or industrial corporations that taxpayers have generously assisted. What prevents Citigroup and General Motors from using their fresh capital to enhance overseas operations rather than investing at home? The new administration will therefore have to rethink the terms of globalization before its domestic initiatives can succeed.

A global recovery compact would require extremely difficult diplomacy but could be possible because it is in everyone’s self-interest. The United States could propose the outlines with one crucial condition: if the trading partners are unwilling to act jointly, Washington will have to proceed unilaterally. A grand bargain could start with US agreement to serve once again as the main engine that pulls the global economy out of the ditch. That is, the United States will have to continue as the buyer of last resort for the next few years, and China and other nations will have to bail us out with still more lending. In the short run, this would dig us into a deeper hole, but the United States could insist on a genuinely reformed system and mutually agreed return to balanced trade, once global recovery is under way.

Congress can enact the terms now–a ceiling on US trade deficits that will decline steadily to tolerable levels, as well as new rules for US multinational enterprises that redefine their obligations to the home economy. Unlike in other advanced nations, US companies get a free ride from their home government when they relocate production abroad. That has to change if the United States is to reverse its weakening world position. Tax penalties plus national economic policy can drive US multinationals to keep more of their value-added production at home. These measures can be enforced through the tax code and, if necessary, a general tariff that puts a cap on imports. Formulating these provisions now for application later, once the worst of the crisis is over, would give every player the time to adjust investment strategies gradually.

President Obama and his team may at first scorn the notion of saving the world while negotiating a bailout for the United States. They will be reluctant to talk about reforming the global system by threatening to invoke emergency tariffs. But we are in uncharted waters. Impossible ideas abruptly begin to seem plausible. Six months from now, if the Obama recovery does not materialize, the president may discover he has to reinvent himself.

William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple, Who Will Tell The People, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster) and–due out in February from Rodale–Come Home, America.
© 2009 The Nation All rights reserved.

Popularity: 3% [?]

By Ron Scherer, Christian Science Monitor
Posted on December 8, 2008

Needed: a job plan.

Suddenly beset by the worst monthly layoffs since 1974, Americans are starting to struggle with how to find employment for the millions who are losing jobs in the recession.

Should government spend billions on retraining programs, create tax incentives for businesses that hire new workers, fund green infrastructure projects, or just provide massive Depression-era make-work programs?

The answers to those questions will involve a key issue: whether the unemployed will have the right skills and be in the right location to take advantage of new jobs.

President-elect Obama has described the outlines of a recovery plan that would create more than 2 million jobs. On Saturday, in a weekly radio address, he cited plans to upgrade roads and schools as part of what would be the biggest infrastructure investment since the 1950s.

Mr. Obama’s comments follow the Labor Department’s report last Friday that the United States lost 533,000 jobs and the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent in November. Over the past three months, job losses have totaled 1.2 million, a statistic that implies that a sharp contraction of the economy is under way.

“These numbers basically provide support for Obama to have a program in place in January,” says John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Economics Group in Charlotte, N.C.

The size of the November layoffs shocked economists. The layoffs spread to almost every sector — from manufacturing to services, which accounted for 70 percent of the layoffs.

“This is stunning, in the sense of a deer caught in the headlights,” says Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh. “We are seeing a total collapse in consumer confidence in the economy, and business is laying people off and not hiring.”

Many economists expect the Obama administration to present a massive economic stimulus program. Bernard Baumohl of the Economic Outlook Group in Princeton, N.J., anticipates a $500 billion to $1 trillion plan, possibly spread over two years. “It’s going to be targeted to the kinds of programs that have a multiplier effect on the economy,” he says.

One target is likely to be construction, which has been hard hit by the recession. At its peak in 2007, about 1 million people were involved in heavy construction. That number is now down to 946,000, according to the Department of Labor.

For every $1 billion in government infrastructure spending, 28,000 new jobs are created, according to a federal study quoted by Kenneth Simonson, chief economist at the Associated General Contractors of America. But only about 25 percent of those jobs are for construction workers. Another 25 percent are supplying industries, such as for concrete or lumber. The rest are jobs like retail and others created indirectly because workers are spending money.

Still, many workers may find they have to change professions or locations to find work. “One thing we have learned is that you need a lot of flexibility and capacity to move around geographically and occupationally,” says Don Grimes, senior research specialist at the Institute for Research on Labor, Employment, and the Economy at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

In addition, says Mr. Grimes, citing the experience of past recessions, most people who find new employment will take a pay cut. “That is almost universally true,” he says.

In past recessions, certain industries, such as the steel industry, have been decimated. “Tens of thousands of them ended up retiring,” he says. “Some ended up working at Home Depots or Wal-Marts and ended up with a lower quality of life than they were expecting.”

For the most part, Grimes says, job-retraining programs have also not worked. “I know some [programs] were running in Michigan for laid-off auto workers,” he says. “But as soon as the auto industry turned around, they went back to their jobs, short-circuiting their training.”

Some jobs may be lost permanently, says economist David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s in New York. For example, some jobs in finance and real estate may not return. “There are probably too many real estate brokers,” he says. “They are reemployable and can usually get a new job once they get the training.”

Finding new jobs for people involved in retail and some parts of the service sector could be more difficult, Mr. Wyss says. “People are not buying goods, and those that are go to Wal-Mart, who hires fewer employees.”

Sometimes in the past, small businesses have absorbed workers. But those jobs, too, are disappearing, says Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City, a Cleveland bank, which surveys Midwest business. “We’re finding small business has trimmed its hiring plans,” he says.

Some areas that are still hiring may not help those being laid off. This includes healthcare. Even in November, the Department of Labor reports that this sector added 34,000 jobs. “It’s pretty recession-proof, especially for doctors and nurses,” says Wyss.

For others, it may just be a matter of time for the economy to begin to respond to stimulus, says Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at the Smith School of Business, California State University.

“There is no short-term fix,” says Mr. Sohn. “The fastest thing you can do is ask people to show up for work, and the government will find make-work projects like cleaning streets or building houses and bridges.”

© 2008 Christian Science Monitor All rights reserved.

Popularity: 3% [?]

AlterNet
Posted on November 29, 2008, Printed on November 29, 2008

The following are five recent articles by AlterNet columnists on the issues Obama and his supporters face during the presidential transition.

Amy Goodman: How Obama Can Help Redeem the White House

On Inauguration Day, Obama could outlaw torture. It would be a tribute to those slaves who built his new home, the White House.

Sean Gonsalves: Obama’s Opening Moves

Now is the time to mobilize so we can establish the style, pace and structure of Obama’s presidency.

Robert Scheer:Cold War Hawks Hovering Around Obama

Why are Obama’s closest advisers inveterate hawks who needlessly provoked tension with the Russians during the Cold War?

Norman Solomon: Corporate Media Try to Scare Obama Into Betraying Progressives

Bill Clinton’s alleged lurch to the left in ’92 is being used to push Obama to the right. Problem is, it never happened.

David Sirota: Why Are We Shocked By Obama’s Centrism?

Obama’s ‘grass-roots’ movement revolves around him, not progressive issues.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Popularity: 3% [?]

[SOURCE: 'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 19, 2008]

—

TRANSCRIPT:

GUESTS: Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), Chuck Todd, David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough
updated 9:04 a.m. PT, Sun., Oct. 19, 2008

MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as President George W. Bush’s secretary of state and was once called the man most likely to become the nation’s first African-American president. He has been courted by both the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns and said this last month:

(Videotape)

GEN. COLIN POWELL (RET.): I have been watching both of these individuals. I know them both extremely well, and I have not decided who I’m going to vote for yet.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.

Then, with 16 days to go, Decision 2008 heads into the home stretch. What states still are in play? We will hear the latest on some new state polls with NBC’s political director, Chuck Todd. Also, insights and analysis on the race to the White House with David Brooks of The New York Times, Jon Meacham of Newsweek magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

But first, General Colin Powell, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. POWELL: Thank, thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: We indicated in that opening, there is a lot of anticipation and speculation about your take on this presidential campaign. We’ll get to that in a moment. But in your old business we might call this a tour of the horizon. Whoever’s elected president of the United States, that first day in the Oval Office on January 21st will face this: an American economy that’s in a near paralytic state at this time; we’re at war in two different countries, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have an energy crisis; we have big decisions to make about health care and about global climate change. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States now have the highest disapproval ratings that we have seen in many years. In all your years of public service, have you ever seen an incoming president face such daunting challenges?

GEN. POWELL: No. I have seen more difficult times in our history. I think about the early ’70s when we were going through Watergate, Spiro Agnew, Nixon period, that was not a good time. But right now we’re also facing a very daunting period. And I think the number one issue the president’s going to have to deal with is the economy. That’s what the American people are worried about. And, frankly, it’s not just an American problem, it’s an international problem. We can see how all of these economies are now linked in this globalized system. And I think that’ll be number one. The president will also have to make decisions quickly as to how to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. And also I think the president has to reach out to the world and show that there is a new president, a new administration that is looking forward to working with our friends and allies. And in my judgment, also willing to talk to people who we have not been willing to talk to before. Because this is a time for outreach.

MR. BROKAW: Given the state of the American economy, can we continue our military commitments around the world at the level that they now exist?

GEN. POWELL: We can. I think we have to look as to whether they have to be at that level. But we have the wealth, we have the wherewithal to do that. (Clears throat) Excuse me, Tom. We have the ability to do that. And so, first and foremost, we have to review those commitments, see what they are, see what else is needed, and make sure we give our troops what they need to get the job done as we have defined the job. We have that ability.

MR. BROKAW: If you were called into the Oval Office on January 21st by the new president, whoever it happens to be, and he said to you, “General Powell, I need from you your recommendation on where I begin. What should be my priorities?” Where would you start?

GEN. POWELL: I would start with talking to the American people and talking to the world, and conveying a new image of American leadership, a new image of America’s role in the world.

The problems will always be there, and there’s going to be a crisis come along in the 21st or 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now. And so I think what the president has to do is to start using the power of the Oval Office and the power of his personality to convince the American people and to convince the world that America is solid, America is going to move forward, and we’re going to fix our economic problems, we’re going to meet our overseas obligations. But restoring a sense of purpose, a sense of confidence in the American people and, in the international community, in America.

MR. BROKAW: What’s not on the screen right now that concerns you that should be more prominent in the minds of the American people and the people running for president?

GEN. POWELL: I think the American people and the gentlemen running for president will have to, early on, focus on education more than we have seen in the campaign so far. America has a terrible educational problem in the sense that we have too many youngsters not finishing school. A third of our kids don’t finish high school, 50 percent of minorities don’t finish high school. We’ve got to work on this, and my, my wife and I are leading a campaign with this purpose.

Also, I think, the new president has to realize that the world looks to America for leadership, and so we have to show leadership on some issues that the world is expecting us to, whether it’s energy, global warming and the environment. And I think we have to do a lot more with respect to poverty alleviation and helping the needy people of the world. We need to increase the amount of resources we put into our development programs to help the rest of the world. Because when you help the poorest in the world, you start to move them up an economic and social ladder, and they’re not going to be moving toward violence or terrorism of the kind that we worry about.

MR. BROKAW: Well, let’s move to the American presidential campaign now, if we can. We saw at the beginning of this broadcast a short tease of what you had to say just a month ago. Let’s share with our viewers now a little more of Colin Powell on these two candidates and your position.

(Videotape, September 20, 2008)

GEN. POWELL: I’m an American, first and foremost, and I’m very proud–I said, I’ve said, I’ve said to my beloved friend and colleague John McCain, a friend of 25 years, “John, I love you, but I’m not just going to vote for you on the basis of our affection or friendship.” And I’ve said to Barack Obama, “I admire you. I’ll give you all the advice I can. But I’m not going to vote for you just because you’re black.” We, we have to move beyond this.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: General Powell, actually you gave a campaign contribution to Senator McCain. You have met twice at least with Barack Obama. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?

GEN. POWELL: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now. I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country. Either one of them, I think, would be a good president. I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes. And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”

And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions. And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both. In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well. I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.

Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration. I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

MR. BROKAW: Will you be campaigning for him as well?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t plan to. Two weeks left, let them go at each other in the finest tradition. But I will be voting for him.

MR. BROKAW: I can already anticipate some of the reaction to this. Let’s begin with the charge that John McCain has continued to make against Barack Obama. You sit there, as a man who served in Vietnam, you commanded a battalion of 101st, you were chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you were a national security adviser and secretary of state. There is nothing in Barack Obama’s history that nearly paralyze any–parallels any of the experiences that you’ve had. And while he has performed impressively in the context of the campaign, there’s a vast difference between sitting in the Oval Office and making tough decisions and doing well in a campaign.

GEN. POWELL: And he knows that. And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.

MR. BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some–how many, no one can say for sure–but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.

MR. BROKAW: You have some differences with Barack Obama. He has said that once he takes office, he wants to begin removing American troops from Iraq. Here’s what you had to say about that: “I have found in my many years of service, to set arbitrary dates that don’t coincide with the situation on the ground or what actually is happening tends not to be a useful strategy. … Arbitrary deadlines that are snatched out of the air and are based on some lunar calculation is not the way to run a military or a strategic operation of this type.” That was on February 10th of this year on CNN. Now that you have Barack Obama’s ear in a new fashion, will you say to him, “Drop your idea of setting a deadline of some kind to pull the troops out of Iraq”?

GEN. POWELL: First of all, I think that’s a great line, and thanks for pulling it up. And I believe that. But as I watch what’s happening right now, the United States is negotiating the–an agreement with the Iraqi government that will call for most major combat operations to cease by next June and for American forces to start withdrawing to their bases. And that agreement will also provide for all American troops to be gone by 2011, but conditioned on the situation as it exists at that time. So there already is a timeline that’s being developed between the Iraqis and the United States government. So I think whoever becomes the president, whether it’s John McCain or whether it’s Barack Obama, we’re going to see a continued drawdown. And when, you know, which day so many troops come out or what units come out, that’ll be determined by the commanders and the new president. But I think we are on a glide path to reducing our presence in Iraq over the next couple of years. Increasingly, this problem’s going to be solved by the Iraqis. They’re going to make the political decisions, their security forces are going to take over, and they’re going to have to create an environment of reconciliation where all the people can come together and make Iraq a much, much better place.

MR. BROKAW: Let me go back to something that you raised just a moment ago, and that’s William Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen who’s now active in school issues in Illinois. He had some past association with Barack Obama. Wouldn’t it have been more helpful for William Ayers to, on his own, to have renounced his own past? Here was a man who was a part of the most radical group that existed in America at a time when you were serving in Vietnam, targeting the Pentagon, the Capitol. He wrote a book about it that came out on 2001, on September 11th that said, “We didn’t bomb enough.”

GEN. POWELL: It’s despicable, and I have no truck for William Ayers. I think what he did was despicable, and to continue to talk about it in 2001 is also despicable. But to suggest that because Mr. Barack Obama had some contacts of a very casual nature–they sat on a educational board–over time is somehow connected to his thinking or his actions, I think, is a, a terrible stretch. It’s demagoguery.

MR. BROKAW: I want to ask you about your own role in the decision to go to war in Iraq. Barack Obama has been critical of your appearance before the United Nations at that time. Bob Woodward has a new book out called “The War Within,” and here’s what he had to say about Colin Powell and his place in the administration: “Powell … didn’t think [Iraq] was a necessary war, and yet he had gone along in a hundred ways, large and small. He had resisted at times but had succumbed to the momentum and his own sense of deference–even obedience–to the president. … Perhaps more than anyone else in the administration, Powell had been the `closer’ for the president’s case on war.”

And then you were invited to appear before the Iraq Study Group. “`Why did we go into Iraq with so few people?’ [former Secretary of State James] Baker asked. … `Colin just exploded at that point,’ [former Secretary of Defense William] Perry recalled later. `He unloaded,’ Former White House Chief of Staff] Leon Panetta added. `He was angry. He was mad as hell.’ … Powell left [the Study Group meeting]. Baker turned to Panetta and said solemnly, `He’s the one guy who could have perhaps prevented this from happening.’”

What’s the lesson in all of that for a former–for a new secretary of state or for a new national security adviser, based on your own experience?

GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…

GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.

MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?

GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.

MR. BROKAW: You do know that there are supporters of Barack Obama who feel very strongly about his candidacy because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, and they’re going to say, “Who needs Colin Powell? He was the guy who helped get us into this mess.”

GEN. POWELL: I’m not here to get their approval or lack of approval. I am here to express my view as to who I’m going to vote for.

MR. BROKAW: There’s a summing up going on now as, as the Bush/Cheney administration winds down. We’d like to share with our audience some of what you had to say about the two men who are at the top of the administration. At the convention in 2000, this is Colin Powell on President Bush and Dick Cheney at that time.

(Videotape, July 31, 2000)

GEN. POWELL: Dick Cheney is one of the most distinguished and dedicated public servants this nation has ever had. He will be a superb vice president.

The Bush/Cheney team will be a great team for America. They will put our nation on a course of hope and optimism for this new century.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Was that prophetic or wrong?

GEN. POWELL: It’s what I believed. It reflected the agenda of the new president, compassionate conservatism. And some of it worked out. I think we have advanced our freedom agenda, I think we’ve done a lot to help people around the world with our programs of development. I think we’ve done a lot to solve some conflicts such as in Liberia and elsewhere. But, at the same time, we have managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are. We have not explained ourself well enough. And we, unfortunately, have left an impression with the world that is not a good one. And the new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.

Now, let me make a point here. The United States is still seen as the leader at the world that wants to be free. Even though the numbers are down with respect to favorability ratings, at every embassy and consular office tomorrow morning that we have, people will be lined up, and they’ll all say the same thing, “We want to go to America.” So we’re still the leader of the world that wants to be free. We are still the inspiration of the rest of the world. And we can come back. In 2000, it was moment where I believed that the new administration coming in would be able to achieve the agenda that President-elect Bush had set out of compassionate conservatism.

MR. BROKAW: But it failed?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t think it was as successful–excuse me (clears throat)–I don’t think it was as successful as it might have been. And, as you see from the presidential approval ratings, the American people have found the administration wanting.

MR. BROKAW: Let me as, you a couple of questions–quick questions as we wrap all of this up. I know you’re very close to President Bush 41. Are you still in touch with him on a regular basis? And what do you think he’ll think about you this morning endorsing Barack Obama?

GEN. POWELL: I will let President Bush 41, speak for himself and let others speak for themselves, just as I have spoken for myself. Let me make one point, Tom, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama will be good presidents. It isn’t easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America’s history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years. I think we need a transformational figure. I need–think we need a president who is a generational change. And that’s why I’m supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.

MR. BROKAW: And finally, how much of a factor do you think race will be when voters go into that booth on November 4th?

GEN. POWELL: I don’t know the answer to that question. One may say that it’s going to be a big factor, and a lot of people say they will vote for Senator Obama but they won’t pull a lever. Others might say that has already happened. People are already finding other reasons to say they’re not voting for him. “Well, he’s a Muslim,” “He’s this.” So we have already seen the so-called “Bradley factor” in the current–in the current spread between the candidates. And so that remains to be seen. I hope it is not the case. I think we have advanced considerably in this country since the days of Tom Bradley. And I hope that is not the case. It would be very unfortunate if it were the case.

MR. BROKAW: Finally, if Senator Obama is elected president, will there be a place for Colin Powell in that administration? Maybe as the ambassador at large in Africa or to take on the daunting task of resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issue?

GEN. POWELL: I served 40 years in government, and I–I’m not looking forward to a position or an assignment. Of course, I have always said if a president asks you to do something, you have to consider it. But I am in no way interested in returning to government. But I, of course, would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me.

MR. BROKAW: You’re not ruling it out?

GEN. POWELL: I would sit and talk to any president who wishes to talk to me, but I’m not anxious to rule it in.

MR. BROKAW: General Colin Powell, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.

GEN. POWELL: Thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: Coming up next, Decision 2008, the home stretch. We’ll look at the states and strategies in play with David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough. And Chuck Todd, our political director, will take us through the electoral map.

(Announcements)

BROKAW: The Decision 2008 battleground, we’ll have new state polls and our political roundtable coming up after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. BROKAW: We’re back. We’re joined now by NBC News political director Chuck Todd, who has some new polls out this morning.

Chuck, what’s the big change from when we saw you two weeks ago?

MR. CHUCK TODD: Well, what we did was we asked our state pollster to take a look at three states. One that was perceived to be leaning in McCain’s column, one leaning in Obama’s column, and one pure toss-up.

Let’s start with the pure toss-up, Ohio. Well, our new poll for Mason-Dixon shows it was a toss-up before this morning, it’s still a toss-up, 1 point race, margin of error stuff. Ohio’s been one of the few states that hasn’t moved as much as we’ve seen some other states in Obama’s direction.

Now let’s take a look at Wisconsin, speaking of states that have moved. This is now a 12-point lead for Obama in this poll, double digits. We’re, we’re seeing–we’re wondering why the McCain campaign, in some ways, is still actively campaigning there. Republican Party pulled some money out, McCain is still keeping money alive there.

Then we took a look at West Virginia. This is a state that popped recently. Well, it is still very close. McCain has the lead 47-41.

So, just the big picture, Obama is closer in West Virginia than McCain is in Wisconsin. That sort of tells the story of how this map has shifted, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: And what, what’s driving all that, Chuck?

MR. TODD: Well, I think a lot of what’s driving it is we’re seeing the economy drive this thing. When you look at our current map right now, here’s where we were two weeks ago with the toss-up states. You had some lean–places like Florida and North Carolina still in McCain’s column. And then now with the economy, and that’s the best explanation for West Virginia right now, that you see a state like that move. That tells you that’s a state that’s always economically hurting a little bit, at least it has been over the last eight years. And now you’re seeing that whatever cultural issues that Republicans successfully used to get that state into the Republican column over the last two elections, they have struggled now. The economy moved Florida. It’s moved North Carolina. The banking center of Charlotte really hurting.

But then, we’ve also seen some movement here in what I call the “region of Brokaw,” Montana, and the two Dakotas, both now single digit races. You’re seeing–and frankly, we almost moved Arizona. There’s some evidence there that that is a state that is now only a high single-digit lead here, you know, demographically. Again, the economy, older voters. It’s hurting everywhere.

MR. BROKAW: And, Chuck, as I’ve been listening to these two campaigns and watching their ads, it seems to me if you’re a senior citizen in America, they’re probably calling you up and say, “We’ll come over and do your laundry and drive you to the early bird special if that’s what it takes to get you to vote for us.”

MR. TODD: Well, you know, we talk all about young voters, and we talk about African-Americans, we talk about this, we talk about that. This thing is about seniors. The difference between Obama fighting for 270 and Obama sailing past 270 is older, white voters. The thing keeping McCain still with a boxer’s chance here is older, white voters. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana–these are some of the old–have some of the oldest populations in the country. So, when these voters, if they start moving in one direction, if they move in towards Obama, which we’ve seen a little bit of evidence that way, that’s how this thing becomes from a close electoral college battle to a landslide.

And, by the way, one other point about our map, and we’re seeing this shift. It’s almost as if the McCain campaign is conceding the popular vote. We’re seeing a lot of tightening in places that while Obama probably won’t carry them, he’s not going to lose by large margins. That means the McCain path is solely now an electoral college path, and if he wins the electoral college, it’s hard to see how he actually wins the popular vote, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: All right, thanks very much. Chuck Todd.

We’re joined now by David Brooks, Jon Meacham, Andrea Mitchell and Joe Scarborough.

Joe, let’s begin with you. The news of the morning that would create quite a buzz, my guess is today, is that Colin Powell, who’s always been a Republican came out for Barack Obama. Long term, make much of a difference?

MR. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Maybe not long-term, but this is a week that you’ve got two and a half–this is a campaign where you have two and a half weeks left. And so if a Powell endorsement occupies the, the media for two–three days, that’s critically important to John McCain. He’s got to turn the attention back to his campaign, to his issues. This is a bad distraction for him at a very bad time.

MR. BROKAW: You’re very familiar with Florida. Will Colin Powell have much of an impact on that state, which is much more in play now?

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure, sure it will. I mean, one of the reasons why John McCain shocked Mitt Romney–remember the last two or three days most people thought Mitt Romney was going to win Florida. There is a huge military population in Florida and a very large retired military population in Florida. Colin Powell’s endorsement helps him probably more in Florida than any other state.

MR. BROKAW: David Brooks, what’s your take on the Colin Powell endorsement?

MR. DAVID BROOKS: Well, Republicans can either attack Colin Powell or they can regard him as a symptom of what’s wrong with the party. And Powell was not attacking John McCain; he had a lot of nice things to say about John McCain. He was attacking the Republican Party. And the key word there was “narrowing.” The party is narrowing and leaving a lot of people out, people like Colin Powell, who served in the Bush administration, who spoke at the Republican convention. And they have to ask themselves, “Why are we narrowing?” And that seems, to me, the, the implication of all of this, and that’s the symptom of this whole election. A lot of people who were Republicans feel they’ve been left out not by McCain, but by the party. And if McCain has any blame, it’s in the beginning of this campaign, he didn’t say, “I’m different,” he didn’t break with the party, he didn’t reform the party. He got sucked up–sucked in, at least halfway, into the orthodoxy of the party that is narrowing.

MR. BROKAW: Andrea Mitchell, is it enough for the Obama campaign just to get this endorsement this morning, or will they try to use him in ads and try to pull him out on the trail as well?

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, they’re not going to be able to pull him out on the trail. He made that very clear to you, Tom. But it makes a difference–to expand on what Joe said–it makes a difference with the military in North Carolina and Virginia, two other states that have really big military populations; conceivably, also, in South Carolina as well.

In talking about the narrowing of the party, he’s talking, as he told you, about William Ayers, about the robocalls, about the accusations of socialism, about, let’s face it, “Joe the Plumber.” A lot of the seemingly marginal issues that the McCain campaign has fixed on in these closing weeks are now undercut by the Colin Powell endorsement. This is a big deal with centrist Republicans, with Republican women in the suburbs. He’s appealing–by mentioning the Supreme Court, he’s appealing to a lot of those women who may not agree with Barack Obama on a lot of social questions, but feel the tug on Roe v. Wade and also would be influenced by Colin Powell and by a centrist Republican saying that this party is different. I think this is a very powerful political statement.

MR. BROKAW: Jon Meacham, before this endorsement by Colin Powell today, John McCain has been on the defensive. He, in fact, at one point cited all the things that were working against him, said, “I’ve got them right where I want them.” This is going to put him more on the defensive, isn’t it?

MR. JON MEACHAM: It is. And despite all the statements of respect and affection and regard, which are clearly heartfelt, having Colin Powell endorse the Democratic nominee for president is like having the seal of approval from the most important military figure of the age. Think–when you think about it, he gave his name–General Powell gave his name to the doctrine that we now can see, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, is in fact the prevailing wisdom; the, the right thing to do is you exhaust all options, but when you go to, when you go into action you do so with a clear exit strategy and with overwhelming force. He’s–Colin Powell, to use a business term, is a stand-alone brand who’s, I think, seal of approval will be hugely important to the–for a big center right part of the country. This is not a liberal endorsement. This is from a man–this is from a general who served both Bushes, and I think the first President Bush more happily. And I think right now the country is more with the first President Bush on questions of power and the role of America in the world than it is with the second.

MR. BROKAW: Andrea.

MS. MITCHELL: I–also, I should have said that Sarah Palin is a major factor, clearly, in Colin Powell’s decision. And that is increasingly with the conservative commentators, with Peggy Noonan and others who have written out, Chris Buckley, are really concerned with the choice of Sarah Palin, what it says about John McCain’s judgment and what it says about her being, you know, able to step into the presidency on foreign policy, on national security and commander in chief issues.

MR. BROKAW: All right, let’s, let’s talk, if we can, about the map that we just saw from Chuck Todd, summarized by The New York Times just this morning, “There was a feel of a political world turned upside down on Saturday as Senator John McCain found himself defending North Carolina and Virginia, while Senator Barack Obama was greeted by huge crowds in Missouri, which Republicans had also considered safe just months ago.” That’s Michael Powell and Michael Cooper writing today in the, in The New York Times.

You, you’ve been through campaigns before, Joe Scarborough, you’re a keen student of what’s going on. McCain is beginning to run out of some options, but we’ve been there before with him.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: We have been there before with him. A year ago John McCain’s political career was pronounced dead on arrival. Remember, he had that bloated campaign staff in the summer of ’07, and then of course as we got closer to, to the executioner walking out on stage and finishing it, John McCain came back. And McCain always closes strongly. I, I just–I, I want to offer a warning to the Barack Obama campaign, which I’m sure they won’t listen to, but I would say go to Florida, go to Ohio, get out of North Carolina. You don’t have to win 350 electoral votes. These campaigns always tighten up. We are not a 60-40 country, we are a 51-49 country. And maybe this year it’s 51 Democratic, 49 Republican. But it’s going to be close in the end, and he may regret spending time in North Carolina. It–maybe it looks like he’s going to win now, but I’m telling you, as we’ve seen, these national polls, when they tighten, all these state races close. I would just be concerned about getting too clever by half.

MR. BROKAW: And, David Brooks, I want to read something that you had to say about John McCain recently in your column on September 26th. “What disappoints me about the McCain campaign is that it has no central argument. I had hoped that he would create a grand narrative explaining how the United States is fundamentally unprepared for the 21st century and how McCain’s worldview is different. McCain has not made that sort of all-encompassing argument, so his proposals don’t add up to more than the sum of their parts.”

We do know that Barack Obama, with all the money that he has, is going to go on national television for a half an hour, and I suppose it’s going to be his…(unintelligible)…for why he ought to be elected president of the United States, try to close the deal. Does Senator McCain need to do a half-hour speech to the country and be different Senator McCain…

MR. BROOKS: Well…

MR. BROKAW: …than he has been?

MR. BROOKS: Well, he could show the Al Smith dinner, which was a big New York dinner than happened this week where McCain was himself.

MR. BROKAW: Right.

MR. BROOKS: He was enjoying himself, he was hilariously funny, he was graceful. That’s the McCain a lot of us all know and, and see. What happened to the McCain campaign very early on, they made a decision. There were a couple advisors, including a frequent guest on this program, Mike Murphy and John Weaver, who wanted a different McCain or a different Republican Party. The maverick, the uniter, post-Republican, really a fusion candidate. Somebody who would have directed right at Colin Powell. The campaign really got rid of those two guys and went in a different direction surrounded by much more orthodox Republican consultants and ran a very conventional campaign and essentially tied themselves to the deck of the Titanic, a party that was going down.

I’d love to see him give that speech, but they should have given it a year ago. They–he–and the reason why he behaved the way he did during the financial crisis is he didn’t move on from the Republican Party where they are right now. And that was something that he could have done a year ago. The books were out there, the ideas were out there. He didn’t take advantage. I’d love to see him, but it may be a little late.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: But we do have to say this though, David, Steve Schmidt’s program was working. I mean, let us remember, Sarah Palin, we can all laugh at her now, but Sarah Palin, those attack ads, a conservative orthodox approach took him from 10 points behind to two, three, four points ahead. It wasn’t until this economic crisis came, and McCain said the fundamentals of the economy are strong, that everything switched, turned on a dime. I understand what you’re saying, and a lot of Republicans agree with you, but that approach was working until Wall Street melted down.

MR. BROOKS: Well…

MR. BROKAW: Andrea, I want to share with our viewers a piece of tape, and I think we have it ready. And, obviously, the Obama campaign has been trying to tag John McCain as a third term of George Bush. And he really didn’t begin to respond until the debate, then he talked about it again over the weekend. Can we take a look a that?

(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I said it at the last debate. I’m not George Bush. It’s–if, if Senator Obama wants to run against George Bush, he should have run for president four years ago.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: And here’s how Barack Obama responded to that, with faint praise, I think it’s fair to say.

(Videotape)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): In the debate this week, McCain felt the need to inform me that he’s not President Bush. Now, I knew that. In fairness, I don’t blame Senator McCain for all of President Bush’s mistakes. After all, he only voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. So there’s 10 percent of the screw-ups that Bush did on his own. But that other 90 percent, McCain was right there with him.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Can they continue to tag John McCain with George Bush?

MS. MITCHELL: They can, and, in fact, they’re doing it with a remarkably negative ad. I mean, we talk a lot about the negativity on the Republican side. But the fact is that Barack Obama has so much more money, and some of these targeted ads, one that they unveiled on Thursday and Friday of this week and it’s on national television, has John McCain in his own words saying, in another interview, in another context, “I voted, I supported George Bush 90 percent of the time.” So they’ve got him on videotape. And the fact is, that this ad is running and running and running. This money advantage, the fact that they’ve announced $150 million in a month, it is extraordinary, three times what some had predicted they’d be able to do in closing months. And new contributors. They have now bought up all the remaining time that is available. So you talk about a half-hour speech. Right now, John McCain would be hard-pressed to find the time. The networks would have to make some kinds of, you know, equal time decisions to get him on because all the time has been bought up. And they’re running these ads over and over again. Yes, the robocalls are reaching hundreds of thousands of people, the negative robotic calls from the Republican side. But these ads are reaching millions and millions of people. Another thing, West Virginia. We talk about some of these states where you’re trying to catch up. I was told that they’re going to spend–Barack Obama’s going to spend $5 million on the ground in the closing days in West Virginia, knowing the size of that state and how much that money can affect the turnout in the race. We are seeing an extraordinary amount of money in this race, and that’s a question that has not really been addressed in terms of the imbalance.

MR. BROKAW: Jon Meacham, we have not talked yet about John Lewis, who compared John McCain to George Wallace and the division and the hate, as he described it. He then backed off, in a manner of speaking, from some of that. But do you think that that might have driven some people who were kind of on the margins to think more about race and think about it in a negative way as they go into the voting booth? They say, “If he’s going to invoke that, I’m not sure I can vote for a black man.”

MR. MEACHAM: I, I don’t. I think Congressman Lewis is an American saint. He’s a martyr in the tradition, literally, of St. Stephen, bleeding for, for the cause of justice. I think that the remarks at the Republican rallies, the feel of the campaign, as General Powell told you, feeling that it was “narrow,” I think in the past seven, 10 days, at least before Thursday, was beginning to turn the campaign into something that we all feared would happen, that race was becoming, as you suggest, more of a factor. What was interesting to me this week is about five minutes after the debate, the old John McCain seemed back–on David Letterman, at the Al Smith dinner. And I think a very interesting question for the next 16 days is going to be which John McCain finishes this race? Will it be the John McCain who wants to–who has long fought for causes larger than himself, as he puts it? I was talking to our friend historian Michael Beschloss, who pointed out that at the point Vice President Mondale realized there was absolutely no way of winning in 1984, he was advised campaign the last couple of weeks as you want your grandchildren to see you. And I wonder whether that’ll happen with Senator McCain.

MR. BROKAW: All right. We want to put up the cover of Newsweek for this week. I know you’ll be grateful to hear that. “How a President Obama Might Govern a Center Right Nation.”

We’ll, there are your friends at Newsweek, they’ve already elected Senator Obama, Joe.

MR. SCARBOROUGH: They have. And they’ve got it right. It is a center right nation, which is fascinating. You may have a Democratic Congress owning the House, having 60 in the Senate, which I really do believe could happen, and having a Democratic president. This will be the first time, I guess, since 1938 that one party had such dominance. But it is a conservative country. Not the type of conservative country that the Republicans have been talking about in the past several weeks, but on economics in particular. That’s why you’re talking about how McCain will campaign in the end? I think we’re starting to see the shift. William Ayers goes to the side, but they start talking about economics, income redistribution, get–you know, taking from the most productive members of society and giving tax breaks to people who don’t pay taxes. This is what we’re going to see.

MR. BROKAW: David Brooks, how would you like…

MR. BROOKS: They could nationalize the banks…

MR. BROKAW: How would you like to be a Democratic president facing an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, most of whom are very liberal and have been waiting now to get their due piece, as they see it?

MR. BROOKS: Well, it’s misery, actually. And I was thinking, they could nationalize the banks; but unfortunately, we already did that. So…

MR. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

MR. BROOKS: …the socialism’s already happened.

Obama’s going to face a choice, and the Democrats are going to face a choice, if he wins. We’re going to have a deficit of $7 trillion–$750 trillion–billion. Is he going to magnify that, or is he going to try to balance the budget?

MR. BROKAW: All right, thanks very much David Brooks. We have to leave it right there. Thank you all.

And Jon Meacham, we’re going to see you back here in three weeks. You’ll have the debut of your new book, “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.” I’ve had a preview of it, and it’s sensational. It’s history come alive for all of us.

MR. MEACHAM: Thanks.

MR. BROKAW: Especially at this time. We’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. BROKAW: That’s all for today. If you missed any of our interview with Colin Powell, you can watch a rebroadcast tonight on Joe Scarborough’s channel, MSNBC, at 6 PM. Or download our netcast this afternoon at mtp.msnbc.com.

I’ll be back next week because, if it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

Popularity: 2% [?]

VIDEO 1 of 2:

—

VIDEO 2 of 2:

——–
—
——–

BONUS VIDEO (“Monegan responds to Troopergate”):

—

BONUS VIDEO 2 of 2 (“McCain gets burned by his own fire”):

Popularity: 3% [?]

Want to see Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader in the debates? Here’s what you can do about it:

Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008.
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer and insist that Ralph Nader and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates.

Then, e-mail the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates Janet Brown at jb@debates.org
Tell her to end the exclusionary restrictions and allow Ralph into the debates.

video created by Manila Ryce

http://www.youtube.com/ManilaRyceTLM

Popularity: 2% [?]

VIDEO 1 of 4:

—

VIDEO 2 of 4:

—

VIDEO 3 of 4:

—

VIDEO 4 of 4:

—–
—-
—
—-
—–

Or, if Obama’s message does not interest you, check out Bob Barr (whatever it takes to help McCain lose!):

—

Popularity: 2% [?]

VIDEO 1 of 2:

—

VIDEO 2 of 2:

—–
—-
—
–
-

I think this was an excellent edition of Countdown today, so here are the majority, of the rest:

—

—

—

Popularity: 3% [?]

Sept. 7: Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Tom Friedman
updated 9:05 a.m. PT, Sun., Sept. 7, 2008

MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: Senator McCain accepts the Republican Party’s nomination for president of the United States.

(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): My heartfelt thanks to all of you who helped me win this nomination and stood by me when the odds were long. I won’t let you down.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: And his surprise vice presidential pick takes to the national stage with a mix of one-liners and attacks.

(Videotape)

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK): I guess a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Does Governor Palin’s place on the GOP ticket change the Obama game plan? And how will she fare against her Democratic counterpart this fall? We’ll ask him in his first Sunday morning interview as the Democratic vice presidential nominee; Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

Plus, two big issues facing the candidates this fall: energy and climate change. What does the next administration need to do for our planet? Joining us, the author of the new book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America,” The New York Times award-winning columnist Tom Friedman.

But first, here this morning for an exclusive interview, the man Obama picked two weeks ago to be his running mate, Senator Joe Biden of Wilmington, Delaware.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. It’s, by our account, your 42nd appearance here. You were here…

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): First one, first one in Delaware. Thanks for coming up, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: Well, you were, you were here earlier this summer saying you would accept, but you didn’t necessarily want the vice presidential nomination at that time.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I told you exactly what I thought, and it was true. I, I was very satisfied in the job I had as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I thought I could help the ticket that way. And–but Barack asked me to do it and I had committed to him, and if he wanted me–whatever he wanted me to do, I’d do, because I think this election is so critical.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s talk about this past week.

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: You and I were just watching Sarah Palin…

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: …with that very impressive introductory appearance that she made…

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: …at the Republican National Convention. And when she used that line, being a mayor is like being a community organizer except you have actual responsibilities, you said, “Pretty good line.”

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah, it was a great line.

MR. BROKAW: She had a number of good lines.

SEN. BIDEN: She had a number of good ones. Look, she’s a smart, tough politician, and so I, I think she’s going to be very formidable. But you know, eventually she’s going to have to sit in front of you like I’m doing and have done. Eventually she’s going to have to answer questions and not be sequestered. Eventually she’s going to have to answer questions about her record.

MR. BROKAW: Who was the first person you called after the speech?

SEN. BIDEN: After my speech?

MR. BROKAW: After her speech.

SEN. BIDEN: I didn’t call anybody. I didn’t–I happened to be–I didn’t get her–I didn’t see her speech, I saw part of it. I–we were, we were flying to–from Florida to Virginia, and I caught the tail end of it. And–oh, I guess I–actually, I called my wife. I called my wife.

MR. BROKAW: And what did she say?

SEN. BIDEN: She said she thought she was tough. She thought she was tough and she was a good politician. And so, you know, but who knows where this is going to go. You know, it’s early in the process and the voters are going to make judgments about Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, and–but the truth is they’re mostly going to make judgments about Barack Obama and John McCain. Vice presidents are useful, but we’re not, we’re not determinative.

MR. BROKAW: Already people are saying no one has a tougher job in the base than Joe Biden. He has to go up against this woman and she has been teed up, in many ways, by the Republican Party as someone that you just can’t go after…

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: …in conventional terms. Make it tougher debating her than it would, say, Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, in, in the sense I know Mitt Romney and know his positions, and I know Tom Ridge and I really respect them. And–but you know, I, I’ve debated an awful lot of tough, smart women. A woman who’s a judge here in our superior court was one of my toughest opponents ever for the Senate. And there’s a lot of very tough, smart women in the United States Senate I debate every day. So in that sense it’s not new. But what is new is I have no idea what her policies are. I assume they’re the same as John’s. I just don’t know.

MR. BROKAW: She did get off to a very fast start the day after they left St. Paul. They were out in Wisconsin, at Cedarburg, Wisconsin. Here were just some of the signs. Huge lineup of women, some of them with their daughters. “Wisconsin Loves Palin!” “Pro-Life Hockey Moms 4 Palin.” “Sarah Leaves Liberals Spinning.” “Read my Lipstick,” that was a reference to her line, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull,” and she said, “lipstick.” And then we asked one of the women why she was at this debate and this was the response.

(Videotape)

Offscreen Voice: What brought you out here today?

Unidentified Woman: Sarah.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: She’s already so familiar to women that they’re using her first name, Sarah. Does that give your ticket a problem, because there was a dust-up obviously between the Hillary Clinton supporters and the Obama campaign?

SEN. BIDEN: Well look, I, I live with a lot of smart women. My wife is a professor and hard-working person. My daughter. You know, I think it’s kind of demeaning to suggest that all women are going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman even when she’s diametrically opposed to everything Hillary stands for. I mean, I hear this talk about, you know, is she going to pick up Hillary voters? Well, I–so far I haven’t heard one single policy position, one single position that she has in common with Hillary. So I, I just think, you know, all folks are a little more discriminating than just merely whether or not it’s the same sex or the same ethnicity or whatever. But we’ll see, we’ll see. The truth is, I don’t know.

MR. BROKAW: I want to move on in a moment, but there’s another headline that appeared in the New York Post. Oprah Winfrey decided not to have Sarah Palin on the show before the election. “No-Prah!” That’s the New York Post headline. “TV first lady’s Palin insult,” as they called it. Oprah did come out for Barack Obama, did have him on the show. Do you think that some people will see that as an elitist position, that in some ways Democrats may be afraid of her, Sarah Palin?

SEN. BIDEN: Oh, no, I don’t think so. I mean, I think it’s–well, I don’t–look, that’s for voters to decide. You’re not going to see anything elitist–look, what you hear immediately from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, families off-limits and we mean it, that the personal stuff relating to some of the stuff that was popping out on, on the talk shows is just inappropriate. She’s going to be judged, I assume, the same way I’m going to be judged. What does she know, what does she think, what’s her record, what’s she going to do? And as I look down the road, that’s how I’ve always debated whoever I’ve debated, including the really tough women I work with, smart women, in the Senate. So I, I, I really don’t view this any differently. I may be surprised here down the road. But, but, you know, I’m just looking forward to debating her. I mean, why–look, she had a great speech. But what was–her silence on the issues was deafening. She didn’t mention a word about healthcare, a word about the environment, a word about the middle class. They never parted her lips. I mean, so I don’t know where she is on those things.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s talk about the polls, if we can for a moment.

SEN. BIDEN: Sure.

MR. BROKAW: I think we’re at the end of stage three of a long campaign for president. You have candidates who announced, then you had the primaries, then you have the convention, then you have the debates and then you have the runoff which leads to the election. Here’s what happened last week according to the Gallup Poll. We’re going to show you the tracking that went on. On Monday, you had about a six-point lead over John McCain. It went to an eight-point lead by Tuesday. But then it began to tighten up and by the time you got to Saturday, it was just two points separating the two of them. So it’s fair to say, I think, that the Republicans got the bounce out of this convention that they wanted to get.

SEN. BIDEN: Oh, I, I think we got the bounce and they got the bounce and then it ended up right where it was before. Look, Barack and I have never thought this was going to be anything other than a close election down to the wire. This is going to get down to, you know, I think we’re going to be–you’re going to be sitting up very late at night deciding…

MR. BROKAW: I’ve done it before.

SEN. BIDEN: I know you have. I hope–hopefully, you’re not going to be in a position where we’re going to be recounting anything. But look, I–we’ve assumed from the beginning this is going to be a close, tough race. This is a historic race. You have not only in terms of the candidates, but the time. You said before the–if you don’t mind me saying, we were sitting here, you said, “Look, John McCain had this gigantic number of people watching. Barack had 38 and he had 39 million or whatever it was,” but more than ever watched a convention. People are focused, man. Their lives, as they view it, their standing in the middle class, their standing in the world, depends on it. So I think this is going to be a very focused election.

MR. BROKAW: Will you send Hillary Clinton into those working class states that she won and where there are a lot of independents or the so-called Reagan Democrats who have not made up their minds, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana, will she be a big player for this campaign for your candidacy in those states?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, I think she is a big player, and you know, as a matter of fact, I hope I’ll be campaigning with her in some of those states, particularly in Pennsylvania and Ohio. She’s indicated she’s prepared to do it. Bill Clinton’s indicated to me he’s prepared to go anywhere and campaign with us. That’s a process being worked out now, how to mechanically do that. But no, no, I think, I think Hillary’s going to play a major role here. She’s a major force in not only a Democratic Party, she’s a major force in American politics.

MR. BROKAW: Side by side with Barack Obama and you, or will they go independently?

SEN. BIDEN: My guess is all three. My guess is we’ll occasionally be side by side with me, with Barack, and I imagine independently as well.

MR. BROKAW: As you know, earlier in the campaign, Barack Obama said that he would be willing to appear in town halls, a proposition put forth by John McCain, go around the country, appear two, three times a week in different venues, and then he decided not to. He wanted to confine it to just three debates. Those numbers that we just referred to, 38 million people watching Senator Obama, 39 million watching McCain, 38 million watching Governor Palin the other night, that is an indication this country is really tuned in in a way that I can’t remember maybe since 1968. Why not have town halls? Why not have Senator Obama go head to head with John McCain across the country?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, that’s a little above my pay grade, to use the phrase. I mean, it’s a decision the campaign made before I got on the campaign, before I was picked, but…

MR. BROKAW: Do you think it’s a good idea?

SEN. BIDEN: But–no, I think, I think you’re going to learn more from having–look, you just got finished pointing out how many people watched this. I think those debates that are going to take place, the three critical debates between the two nominees, are going to be the most watched debates in the history of American politics, and I think people are going to get everything they need out of those debates, plus they’re going to have an opportunity to–look, another reason why, in my view–I can’t speak for the campaign, because I haven’t gotten into–I mean, I just got on the ticket–is that, you know, we have a different focus. For example, I’m headed to–we think we can win Montana. Now, you know, they’d like very much to not, not spend a lot of time in Montana and Virginia and another 12 states or so that were Republican states we think we can compete in and win. And so when you decide on doing, you know, a campaign, a town hall, you know, every week, what you do, you significantly constrain your ability to get to places where Democratic candidates haven’t spent much time before.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s talk about some issues. Let’s begin with Iraq if we can.

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: There was an enlightening exchange this past week between Senator Obama at the top of the ticket and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, talking about the surge, which has been a point of contention in this debate. Bill O’Reilly said, “Why can’t you acknowledge that the surge was a success.” Let’s pick up some of that exchange, and just listen to it and have you react to it.

SEN. BIDEN: Sure.

(Videotape, Thursday)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Bill, what I’ve said is, I’ve already said, it succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, which is…

MR. BILL O’REILLY: Right, so why can’t you just say, “I was right in the beginning and I was wrong about the surge”?

SEN. OBAMA: Because there is an underlying problem with what we’ve done. We have reduced the violence…

MR. O’REILLY: Yeah.

SEN. OBAMA: …but the Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility, and we still don’t have the kind of political reconciliation…

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: He is talking about political reconciliation, but he also said that it has succeeded beyond anyone’s expectations. Here you were, just one year ago, on MEET THE PRESS. This was your take on the surge at that time, so let’s listen to that, Senator. “I mean, the truth of the matter is” “this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure,” you said, “and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and – long enough to give political reconciliation, there has been no political reconciliation.” Then you went on to say earlier in the year, “General Petraeus believes that it is a good idea, the surge. He may be the only one who believes that. Virtually no one else believes it’s a good idea.” Well, at the time, John McCain did, and all the indications are the surge has worked up to a point. It’s not a victory, as Senator Lindsey Graham said the other night…

SEN. BIDEN: Or as John McCain said.

MR. BROKAW: Or John McCain said, but the conditions are in place, and Anbar province, where you have been, where there had been so much difficulty, the Iraqis now have taken over that province. We have brigades that have Sunnis and Shia serving side by side…

SEN. BIDEN: Not many.

MR. BROKAW: …fighting the terrorists. But it’s a process, and it’s beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?

SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that–what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I’d suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, “We promise you, don’t worry, you’re not going to have any Shia in here. There’s going to be no national forces in here. We’re going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda.” And that you–what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.

MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.

SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with–no, they weren’t cooperating with Shiite. They didn’t cooperate with the Shiites.

MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.

SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn’t cooperate with the Shiites. It’s still–it’s a big problem, Tom. You got–we’re paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That’s a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it’s far from over. Far from–look, the bottom line here is that it’s–let’s–the surge is over. Here’s the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We’re in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They’re doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops. We’re about to get a deal from the president of the United States and Maliki, the head of the Iraqi government, that’s going to land on my desk as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee saying we’re going to set a timeline to draw down our forces. The only guy in America out of step is John McCain. John McCain’s saying no timeline. They’ve signed on to Barack Obama’s proposal.

MR. BROKAW: But the surge helped make that timeline possible, did it not?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, it did help make it possible. It did help. But it’s not the reason. Look, they also–take a look at the analysis, Tom. They say the reason why there’s such success against the, the insurgency is because of now small, very well trained counterinsurgency units. It’s not the numbers, it’s the type of units that are in there. What I was arguing about before was we have the wrong units in there. We have the wrong kind of force in there. We weren’t focused on counterinsurgency.

And so look–but, but, but the bottom line is we can argue about whether the surge was good, bad or indifferent. Let’s assume it was all good. The truth of the matter is, what do we do now? What’s John McCain going to do when he’s president? He says he will not sign on to a timeline, number one. Number two, he has no, no idea, no suggestion how he’s going to deal with the neighbors. He has no idea how he’s going to deal with Iraq. He has no idea how he’s going to deal with Syria. He has no idea how he’s going to deal with Turkey. We have laid out a clear plan.

MR. BROKAW: But two years ago you were the principal author, along with Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, of an entirely different kind of plan. You were promoting heavily the idea of a confederation, or a partition.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s exact–not, not a partition. You guys keep saying that. It was never a partition.

MR. BROKAW: Or the–we’ll make it a confederation.

SEN. BIDEN: We–yeah, yeah. That’s what it was. OK.

MR. BROKAW: But the–but terms of real political terms, it would quickly become a partition.

SEN. BIDEN: Not true. Absolutely, positively not true.

MR. BROKAW: You think that the Kurds in the north and the, and the, and the Sunnis and the Shia would just say, “Oh, we can all get across–get together across lines,” without having a prescription…(unintelligible).

SEN. BIDEN: No, no. That wasn’t it. There was a central government that had power, but there was more power given to the localities like exist right now. Tom, tell me, what’s changed up among, among the Kurds? You still not–cannot, under the Iraqi constitution, send an Iraqi army up there. You still not–cannot fly an Iraqi flag up there unless you get permission. Tell me what’s happened in Anbar province. There are no Sunnis in Anbar province–I mean, Shia in Anbar province. It is de facto exactly what I said. That’s what’s working. Everything that’s working in Iraq has been the bottom up approach, not a strong central government imposing. And the truth of the matter is the only way you’re going to make this–sustain it, the question is, how do we leave and leave a stable Iraq behind? Without a political settlement, Tom, we’re going to be back there in another year or two or three or five.

MR. BROKAW: But are you encouraged they’re moving toward a political settlement?

SEN. BIDEN: Yes, I am encouraged, because they’re doing the things I suggested. They’re localizing it, Tom. That’s why it is moving toward some mild possibility of a resolution. And if you were to now follow up–if John McCain as president, would follow up like we will as president and say, “OK, how do you get the rest of the neighborhood in the deal?” How do you get, how do you get Iran and Syria to stop supporting the–specifically, the Shia? And every–you know, this talk about how this has been such a great success, look where we are now in the Middle East. You now have a Shia-dominated government close to Iran. What’s Maliki do? When Ahmadinejad comes, he kisses him on both cheek and seeks permission. So give me a break about how this is such a great political success.

We have the bravest soldiers in the world. I said at the time of the surge, if we sent in 500,000 troops we could tamp this down immediately, shut it down and end all violence. But that would not solve the problem. What do we do when we leave? What’s left behind? And that’s the hard work, and that requires the region as well. And you don’t hear a word from John about that–John McCain. You don’t hear a word from Sarah Palin about that. But you do now from the administration. The administration’s now signing on to Barack Obama’s plan to set a timeline, to–not the exact plan, but to set a timeline to draw down American troops.

MR. BROKAW: Five years from now, do you think Iraq will have relative stability and democratic principles in a central government?

SEN. BIDEN: If there is an Obama-Biden administration, yeah. If there is a John McCain administration and Sarah Palin, I think it’s probably not going to happen, because John does not view this in terms of the region. I never heard him speak about how he’s going to integrate Iraq into the region where you have these competing interests that exist. And I, I, I just–now, John may have an idea. I’ve never heard it. I’ve never heard it. And by the way, that Biden proposal, 75 senators voted for it, including the majority of the Republican Party.

MR. BROKAW: But the Iraqi government didn’t like the idea. Maliki…

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the Iraqi government–Maliki didn’t, but the rest of the government liked it.

MR. BROKAW: But he is the head of the government. It’s their country.

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah–by the way, it is their country, but he’s the head of the government, but he’s the head of the government whose popularity is very much in question, and the election itself. You had a whole lot of people–look, here’s going to be the key, Tom. They’re about to have regional elections. Let’s see how they go. Let’s see how the regional elections go. Pray God they’ll go well for the sake of all of our sons that are there.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s move on to some domestic issues.

SEN. BIDEN: Sure.

MR. BROKAW: The country’s waking up this morning to the news that the federal government’s about to move in on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those are quasi government agencies holding $5.3 trillion in mortgage debt. They’re in serious trouble at the moment, but they’re in a free fall, in effect. The government reorganized them, it appears that they’re going to pump in some fresh capital on a quarterly basis, but shareholders will have their shares greatly diluted by this move. But the preferred shareholders–China and other governments that have invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–will not suffer, because the government will prop them up. Is that fair?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, no, it’s not fair, but I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. I talked to Secretary Paulson last night. I’m not at liberty to lay out what he told me, because he should announce it today. But there’s three principles that have to play here for this to work, in my view. One, you have to make sure that you help homeowners and stabilize, at the same time, financial institutions. Secondly, you got to make sure that you’re not bailing out shareholders vs. the taxpayers. And the third thing you got to do is make sure that they’re still in a position to be able to continue to lend, because there is a need for them to continue to have this elasticity of being able to deal with the market. Now, what I’ve heard the outline of, I am–I want to wait till I see all the detail, but if it meets those three principles, then I think it has a great chance of succeeding. And as I understand it, whatever proposal Secretary Paulson is going to make is a proposal to get us over this hump of instability and uncertainty. It’s not an official reorganization. It will be left to the next administration and the Congress to make those judgments.

MR. BROKAW: All investors suffer equally?

SEN. BIDEN: They should. They should. We’ll see what the plan is.

MR. BROKAW: We want to talk a little bit about both campaigns now describing themselves as an agent of change. Senator Obama has been hard on the case about Washington lobbyists and their influence. Let’s share with you and our viewers just some of the ads and the statements that he’s made about all of that, if we can.

(Videotape, Yesterday)

SEN. OBAMA: And suddenly, he’s the change agent. He says, “I’m going to tell those lobbyists that their days of running Washington are over.” Who’s he going to tell? Is he going to tell his campaign chairman, who’s one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell his campaign manager, who was one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Who is it that he’s going to tell that change is coming? I mean, come on. They must think you’re stupid.

(End videotape)

MR. BROKAW: Now Senator Obama is out with an ad as well, pretty much the same theme. Let’s listen to that, if we can.

(Excerpt from political ad)

SEN. OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

But America is listening, not just Democrats. The Republicans and independents who’ve lost trust in their government but want to believe again.

I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on the lobbyists and I have won. They have not funded my campaign and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.

(End excerpt)

MR. BROKAW: That is Senator Barack Obama during the primary campaign. He was campaigning in Iowa at the time. In your hometown newspaper this morning, there’s a big headline, “Banking on Biden.” “As the senator of Delaware’s financial institutions find themselves banking on Biden. To some, Joe Biden’s makeover as a blue collar warrior is slightly at odds with the blue blood company that he keeps in the corporate state. Not only is Biden a neighbor to wealthy and powerful company titans and DuPont family members, he’s thrown his weight behind issues and legislation that benefitted Delaware’s big banking interests.” This is what The Wall Street Journal had to say about all of this. “Obama’s choice of Biden as his running mate is coming under fire from Republicans who are painting him as an old-style insider. They cite his longstanding ties to trial lawyers and lobbyists and a taste for pork-barrel spending…

“Biden … had collected $6.5 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists, lawyers and law firms since 1989, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. …

“Biden’s candidacy also is bringing new scrutiny to his family’s business dealings, especially those of his son Hunter, who is 38 years old.” And that’s a reference to your son being hired right out of law school by a big company here in Delaware that is in the credit card business, MBNA. He got about $100,000 a year, as I recall. You received $214,000 in campaign contributions from the company and from its employees. At the same time, you were fighting for a bankruptcy bill that MBNA really wanted to get passed through the Senate, making it much tougher for everyone to file bankruptcy. Senator Obama was opposed to the bill. Among other things you couldn’t, in fact, claim that you had a problem because of big medical bills. You voted against an amendment that would call for a warning on predatory lending. You also called for–you opposed efforts to strengthen the protection of people in bankruptcy. This has been an issue that you’re heard about before. Your son was working for the company at the same time. In retrospect, wasn’t it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests?

SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely not. My son graduated from Yale Law School. The starting salary in Wall Street is $140,000 a year if you want to lawyer. Options he had. He came home to work for a bank. Surprise, surprise, number one. Number two, this is the second largest employer in the state. All the contributions added up make up less than 2 percent of the contributions I’ve received. Number three, I blocked the bank–first three bankruptcy bills that the credit card companies wanted. I would not support a bankruptcy bill until they did three things. They put women and children first. Every single social welfare agency relating to alimony and child support supported this bill. Eight-five senators supported this bill. So try as people might to make to this out.

You want to know whether or not I am in the pocket of the corporate lobbyists, which makes it apply–sounds like it’s right here. Ask the people in the industry here how happy they are. How happy the DuPont company is with me and the Hercules Corporation that I would not sign on the asbestos bill. How happy they are with me–look, the fact of the matter is, that I have had an entire career that no one has every questioned whether or not anybody has influenced me, number one. No group has ever, ever been involved with more than–contributing more than 2 percent to my campaign. I’m listed as the 98th or 99th of the 100 poorest guy in the Senate in terms of net worth. I have a 35-year career of actually, of being viewed, at least in my state, as being independent. And so you can take individual votes and you can talk about them, but they’re totally out of context, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: But the fact is, it was not just the Republicans. It’s your home town newspaper, consumers groups, a number of other people thought that you went way too far in bankruptcy protection and cracking down on those people who may not get the relief that they need.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, and most people thought differently. But how come the social welfare agencies supported it, Tom? Are they a bunch of radical, corporate whatever? How come 89–or 85 United States senators supported it? Now, Barack voted a different way. I respect his vote. The question is, is the glass half-full or half-empty? Fewer than 10 percent of all the filers in bankruptcy are even affected. I’m the guy that insisted there be a safe harbor, that no one making under $50,000 or $49,000 could even be considered in this.

And look, the big issue people have is what about people who go bankrupt because of their healthcare bills. That’s why we need national health insurance. Are we going to say to every doctor and hospital, “Look, you get to write off your bill, get to write off your bill because people can’t pay.” The way to do that, that’s a societal responsibility, not the responsibility of individual doctors and–assuming they’re charging a fair price. And so look, and everybody else voted–not everybody. The vast majority of the members of the Congress voted that way.

MR. BROKAW: So if you get to Washington as president and vice president, given the promises that Senator Obama has made, would you look at situations like you just went through, which has raised some questions, where sons work for big banks that have interests in states…

SEN. BIDEN: My son has never spoken. I voted for every campaign reform that’s existed with regard to lobbyists. I voted for every single solitary proposal to make it tougher. And if you ask around here, ask–try to find how many lobbyists have actually–I probably have spoken to lobbyists, but I don’t–it’s not a practice I have. If they want to see me, the CEO has to come and see me from the company.

MR. BROKAW: But specifically, what would this administration do about K Street and lobbyists, which has begun…

SEN. BIDEN: Well, what, what they would do is they’d stop them from writing the bills. They wouldn’t be sitting like Cheney was with lobbyists, writing an energy policy. They’d get to have their voice. Look, there is a thing called free speech. They get to petition their government. But in terms of their ability to be able to set the agenda, write legislation, be these–and my–you know, it’s just, it would not–it just a total different atmosphere. A totally different atmosphere, just like it was 25 years ago when it didn’t become such a growth industry.

MR. BROKAW: You’re a lifetime communicant in the Catholic Church. You’ve talked often about your faith and the, and the strength of your feelings about your faith.

SEN. BIDEN: Actually, I haven’t talked often about my faith. I seldom talk about my faith. Other people talk about my faith.

MR. BROKAW: I’ll give you an opportunity to talk about it now.

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: Two weeks ago I interviewed Senator Nancy Pelosi–she’s the speaker of the House, obviously–when she was in Denver. When Barack Obama appeared before Rick Warren, he was asked a simple question: When does life begin? And he said at that time that it was above his pay grade. That was the essence of his question. When I asked the speaker what advice she would give him about when life began, she said the church has struggled with this issue for a long time, especially in the last 50 years or so. Her archbishop and others across the country had a very strong refutation to her views on all this; I guess the strongest probably came from Edward Cardinal Egan, who’s the Archbishop of New York. He said, “Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being `chooses’ to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.” Those are very strong words. If Senator Obama comes to you and says, “When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe,” as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?

SEN. BIDEN: I’d say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths–Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others–who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life–I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, “Well, what about fascism?” Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism’s all right? Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.

MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for abortion rights…

SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it’s a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that’s existed. Back in “Summa Theologia,” when Thomas Aquinas wrote “Summa Theologia,” he said there was no–it didn’t occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that’s the reason I haven’t. But then again, I also don’t support a lot of other things. I don’t support public, public funding. I don’t, because that flips the burden. That’s then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person’s God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a–and what we’re going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.

MR. BROKAW: Finally, let me ask you about your old colleague, Joe Lieberman, who had a prime time speaking appearance last week at the Republican convention.

SEN. BIDEN: He did, didn’t he.

MR. BROKAW: Let’s just share with you what Senator Lieberman had to say about the top of your ticket…

SEN. BIDEN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: …Senator Obama.

(Videotape, Tuesday)

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (I/D-CT): Senator Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead, but my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America.

(End videotape)

SEN. BIDEN: Was he talking about…

MR. BROKAW: And two…

SEN. BIDEN: Was he talking about Palin or was he talking about….

MR. BROKAW: Two paragraphs later he went on to say that Sarah Palin is qualified to be just a heartbeat away from the presidency. Harry Reid, the majority leader of the Senate, your leader, was very disappointed. His aide said Wednesday, Reid spokesman Jim Manly, said that Lieberman “appeared to go out of his way to distort Senator Obama’s record of bipartisan achievements in the Senate.” Should Joe Lieberman be welcomed back in the Democratic caucus?

SEN. BIDEN: Hey, look, we Catholics believe in redemption. I–look I…

MR. BROKAW: You also–you also believe in trying to have a filibuster-proof Senate.

SEN. BIDEN: Well, that’s true. And look, Joe’s been my friend for years. Our children are friends, his daughter-in-law was in my son’s wedding, we go back a long way. Every time I see Joe these days, I walk up and I say, “Say it ain’t so, Joe. Say it ain’t so.” And look, Joe’s made a judgment. Joe’s going to have to make a tougher judgment when this election is over.

MR. BROKAW: But at the same time, you and Senator Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin are saying this is a change election. We’re going to change the way business is done in Washington. And then the American people watch Joe Lieberman in what many of them would see as an act of betrayal against his own party. People say, “Well, hey, he’s my old buddy, he’s welcome back.”

SEN. BIDEN: Well, look. I don’t want to personalize this election. Like I said, I heard Sarah Palin and John McCain talk about change. Tell me one single thing they’re going to do on the economy, foreign policy, taxes, that is going to be change. Name me one. This is such malarkey. Ninety percent of the time, John votes with the president. Same tax cut, he jumps on his tax cut proposal, which was disastrous, he jumps on his foreign policy, which has been a complete and utter failure. He jumps on the whole idea that he has about how to deal with healthcare, which is to tax. John wants to tax healthcare benefits for people who get their healthcare from their employers? Tell me where the change is. My goodness. He may change on how he deals with a lobbyist, but the idea on the economy, healthcare, education, same outfit, same deal, no change.

MR. BROKAW: Senator Joe Biden of Wilmington, Delaware, vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, thanks very much for being with us.

SEN. BIDEN: Thanks, Tom. Thanks for having me.

MR. BROKAW: Our viewers should know that we have extended an invitation for Senator Biden’s Republican counterpart, Governor Sarah Palin, to appear any Sunday prior to the election. We made the same invitation to Senator John McCain, who’s at the top of the Republican ticket.

Coming up next, our live show from Wilmington, Delaware, continues with Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist, best-selling author Tom Friedman talking about his new, provocative and highly instructive book how the issue of energy and climate change will shape the race for the White House, in a moment.

(Announcements)

MR. BROKAW: Best-selling author, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman after this brief station break.

(Announcements)

MR. BROKAW: We’re back live in Wilmington, Delaware. And with us now, having traveled from Washington all that way, author of the new book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America,” Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist from The New York Times, Tom Friedman.

Here’s the book. Let me read the lead, if I can, from the back cover: “America has a problem and the world has a problem. America’s problem is that it has lost its way in recent years, partly because of 9/11 and partly because of bad habits that we have let build up over the last three decades. Bad habits that have weakened our society’s ability and willingness to take on big challenges.” Putting it simply, we’ve been talking about lately carrying a small stick.

MR. TOM FRIEDMAN: It’s true, Tom. Basically, the–what this book is about is that America does have a problem. I think we’ve lost our way since 9/11. And the world has a problem, it’s getting hot, flat and crowded. And I think we solve our problem by taking the lead in solving the world’s problem. Because the argument of this book is that in a world that is–global warming, hot, flat, rise of middle classes from India to China to Brazil; and getting crowded in terms of population, what I call ET, energy technology, is going to be the next IT, the next great industrial revolution. And I’m a big believer that which country dominates that economic revolution, that industry, is going to have the most security, the most respect, the most competitive industries and the most healthy population. I want that to be our country.

MR. BROKAW: What’s the best approach, a Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb, or 1,000 garages?

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, I’m against Manhattan Project because this problem is so large in terms of scale. I think it’s got to be like IT. We need 100,000 people experimenting in 100,000 garages coming up with 100,000 ideas, 100 of which might be promising, 10 might work, and two might be the next green guru.

MR. BROKAW: It’s hard to get the kind of focus that we need on this kind of a challenge in the midst of a political season. Last week they were chanting “drill, baby, drill,” at the Republican convention. Senator Obama, speaker Nancy Pelosi have said recently, well they’d be willing to take a look at offshore drilling, even though we know that there wouldn’t be any real productivity for 10 more years. Both parties, it seems to me, share a responsibility here and blame at the same time.

MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there’s no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we’re in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine–Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn’t, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, “drill, drill, drill”? What would they be doing? They’d be up there leading the chant. They’d be saying this is great. America isn’t sitting there saying, “Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy,” they’re saying, “drill, drill, drill.” And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I’m actually not against drilling. What I’m against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, “IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters.” That’s what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.

MR. BROKAW: You have an intriguing proposition in this book. You’d like to be China for a day, just one day.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, it comes from actually a dialogue I had with Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, and Jeff was making the point that, you know, really almost out of exasperation of a company that’s been trying to be an energy innovative leader, saying, “Look, Tom, we need is”–what Jeff said is we need a president who’s going to set the right price for carbon. Set the right standard, set the right regulation. Shape the market so it will be innovative. Everyone will kind of whine and moan for a month and then the whole ecosystem will take off. And I thought about that afterwards and I said to him, “You know, Jeff, what you’re really saying is, `If only we could be China for a day. Just one day.’” So I wrote a chapter called “China for a day, but not for two.” Really, about what we would do if for one day we could impose, cut through all the lobbyists, all the amendments, all the earmarks, and actually impose the right conditions to get our market to take off.

MR. BROKAW: But the fact is, it’s not just the United States leading. It’s the objective conditions that exist in places like China and in India. China has now become a familiar mantra, “one coal-fired power plant a week. Twenty–80,000 cars a day.” No one knows what the number is for sure. It’s a curve that we’re chasing. Can we every catch it?

MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, I think we can. But we’re going to have to go about this much differently. We’re really going to have to go about this in a strategic way. And the next president is going to have to have a plan. You know, I was just in China a week or 10 days ago, Tom, and you know, young Chinese, you know, whenever I got here, they say to me, you know, “Mr. Friedman, you guys got to grow dirty for 150 years, now it’s our turn.” To which I always say to them, “You know what, you’re right. It is your turn. Take your time. Grow as dirty as you want. Because I think we just need five years to invent all the clean power technologies you’re going to need before you choke to death and then we’re going to come over and we’re going to sell them to you and we’re going to clean your clock in the next great global industry.” That’s when I see the headsets of the translators adjusting, “What is he saying?”

You know, what we need today, Tom–we had a space race with the Russians, who could be the first to put a man on the moon. What we need today is an Earth race with China, with Europe, with Japan, to see who can create the technologies to make the Earth livable for man.

MR. BROKAW: We’ve been in a political–in a lot of political turmoil this summer, and economic turmoil as well, as a result of $4 a gallon gasoline. Was that pain a good thing in the final analysis for the American public? Did it get their attention in the way that it should have, or were they succumbing to the pandering of those who were suggesting we have a gas holiday of some kind, a tax holiday of some kind?

MR. FRIEDMAN: What we’ve seen this summer, Tom, is that price works. The consumers reacted to that price signal, they’ve gone out and been searching for different cars. In Washington, D.C., where I live, 100,000 more commuters have been using the subway. The price signal works. But what industry needs, Tom, is it needs a long-term price signal, that the big companies need to know if they go all in, Texas Hold ‘em, on clean power, that the price isn’t going to collapse as it’s doing now, go back to 70, and all those investments don’t work. Again, something Jeff Immelt said to me from GE, he said, “Look, Tom, I’m not going to make a $40 billion, multiyear bet on a 15-minute price signal.” That’s why having a price signal, a carbon tax that companies can bet on is hugely important.

MR. BROKAW: Carbon tax as opposed to cap and trade where you can cap what you’re doing, but you can trade with some other company and continue to do it.

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, I’m really indifferent to–because there’s arguments for both. What we do need is a durable, long-term price signal. So if I want to be an investor in wind and solar–and I’m not T. Boone Pickens and I don’t have $4 billion to, to risk, but I’m a small start-up company, I know that the market’s going to be there. Because Tom, this is going to be the next great revolution. ET, energy technology, is out there and we want to make sure our country is at the lead of it. That’s what this book is a clarion call for. This is in a–you know, John Gardner said this is a series of incredible opportunities disguised as insoluble problems. I really believe that.

MR. BROKAW: Al Gore has suggested that when it comes to generating electricity in this country, that we take over the course of 10 years off the carbon-based grid and replace it with solar–keep nuclear in place, use solar and wind. Is that possible?

MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, I don’t know if it’s possible in five years or 10 years, but I like the idea of an aspirational goal. I like the idea of setting an objective out there. But we need to back that up with legislation, legislation that would say to every utility in the country, by the year 2020, 2025, you have to produce so much from wind, so much from solar.

MR. BROKAW: Here’s one of my favorite quotes from the book, “You’ve heard the acronym NIMBY – `not in my backyard,’ as in: `I love wind turbines, but just not in my backyard’? Well, BANANA is a broader variant of that. It stands for `build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.’” It seems to me that one of the hopes that we have is generational. Young people are pushing from younger ages up toward their parents and saying, “You’ve got to change. It’s my future, not yours.”

MR. FRIEDMAN: I feel that everywhere I go talking to people about–you know, if I were to describe–draw a picture of America today, Tom, it would be of the space shuttle taking off. And you’ve seen all those launches. Incredible thrust from below. We’ve got so much energy in this country, innovative power. But you know what? The booster rocket, our government, is leaking. It’s cracked. And the pilots in the cockpit are fighting over the flight plan. So we can’t achieve escape velocity to get into that next orbit, to get to that next revolution, the ET revolution. And I think the candidate, or certainly the administration that harnesses that energy in the right way not only is going to answer, you know, those kids, but bring us to where we need to be. We, we, we’ve been living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes, Tom. We need to get back to work on our country and our planet. The hour’s late–the, the project couldn’t be more important, the payoff couldn’t be greater.

MR. BROKAW: In three seconds, which is all we have left, what do you say to those skeptics who say, “You know, I just don’t believe climate change is real.” There are even some scientists who say it’s based too much on computer models, not enough on empirical evidence.

MR. FRIEDMAN: What I say is if climate change is a hoax, it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the United States of America. Because everything we would do to get ready for climate change, to build this new green industry, would make us more respected, more entrepreneurial, more competitive, more healthy as a country.

MR. BROKAW: Tom Friedman. Book is called “Hot, Flat and Crowded.” It really is a textbook study of what’s going on in the world today and some real possibilities of dealing with it. Thanks for being with us, Tom.

MR. FRIEDMAN: Pleasure. Thank you, Tom.

MR. BROKAW: We’ll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. BROKAW: That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week, when our guests will include Bob Woodward and his new book “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006 to 2008.” If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS.

Popularity: 2% [?]